Archives For Mainstream Media

Andrew Hastie, 38-year-old SAS officer turned member of parliament, has weighed in on the alleged findings of the Brereton inquiry into the alleged killing of innocent civilians by the Australian SAS in Afghanistan.

Hastie, who’s backing the report, said he was ‘grieved and troubled’ by it.

Reflecting on his own service in Afghanistan, he offered five reflections on why such breaches of the ADF’s high code of conduct may have occurred, writing, ‘we’ve forgotten basic truths about human nature that previous generations of Australians better understood.’

He added, ‘we live in a bent world. We all carry man’s smudge: people do bad things. Christians call it sin in a fallen world. Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant called it the ‘crooked timber’ of humanity. Whatever name we give our condition, we should always guard against the reality of people doing bad things when they are left unaccountable.’

Hastie then spoke of complacent, sanitized bureaucratic perceptions of war, the need to fix broken parliamentary scrutiny of Defence, and the neo-pagan god-like ‘warrior culture’ that’s replacing the Biblical Christian theory of restrained violence, known as Just War.

Hastie also lamented how, the public record will never know about (let alone remember) ‘the good deeds of the many, the way it will the battlefield criminality of a few.’

A chronological outline provided by the Australian Parliament acknowledges that the majority of claims against the SAS come from ‘reports published in the Australian media since 2006.’

These sit alongside ADF operational reports which provide, in debrief form, a summary of combat action received, and combat action taken.

Reported allegations of atrocities involved Reuters, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Herald Sun, and the ABC. With the ABC being the loudest.

The four-year Brereton inquiry, was headed by NSW Court of Appeal Justice, Paul Brereton.

The purpose was to confirm the legitimacy of those allegations. Concluding that ‘there was credible evidence of 23 incidents [involving 39 alleged murders] in which one or more non-combatants – or individuals who had been captured or injured – were unlawfully killed by special forces soldiers, or at least at their direction.’ (The Age)

If the allegations prove true, it’ll be a bitter pill to swallow. Not just for the ADF community, but for most Australians. Many who, being estranged from the faith of the ANZACs, now put their faith in the ANZACs.

Criminal convictions of our decorated protectors in the ADF will strike at the heart of pagan ancestral worship that’s being slowly adopted by Australians.

Largely because of an expert class ejecting Jesus Christ, and Biblical Christian objective morality from the center of the cenotaph, Australian life, society, and Government.

For instance, during ANZAC services I’ve heard people yell “this is about the ANZACs, not God.” I’ve also seen public school teachers encourage their students to drown out the memorial message with slow, monotonous claps.

Another real moral issue here is the low integrity of the free press legacy media, who seem to be drooling with glee, leaping before they look, in order to sell more disaster porn; not caring about who they destroy in the process.

The focal point for them has been the media’s “guilty-until-proven-innocent,” Cardinal George Pell like, witch hunt of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith.

Like Pell, Roberts-Smith has repeatedly denied the allegations, but found himself being tried by a largely leftist media, who seem to have no patience or affection for the basic civil right of due process.

In a statement, denying the allegations, brought to light by 60 Minutes, Roberts-Smith was right to be ‘concerned that [the program airing] the story, and the previous publications by the SMH/Age are an attempt to improperly influence the outcome of the (Inspector-General of the Defence Force) inquiry.”

If Andrew Hastie’s reflection is to be believed, Roberts-Smith is no saint, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of war crimes.

Should Roberts-Smith be summons to defend himself, let him have his day in court without interference from an activist media, and the self-righteous, Leftist expert class.

As David, an army veteran, wrote,

‘I feel that the Australian community and the media have turned against veterans. I have received a dozen messages from upset veterans already today. All we have are allegations, nothing more. Australia needs to calm down. Due process needs to be followed.’

In addition, ADF chief, Angus Campbell’s decision to revoke meritorious recognition ‘for all special forces task groups who served in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2013’, is as bizarre, and as reckless, as Julia Gillard’s 2011, blanket ban of beef exports, which shut down an entire industry, affecting lives, and livelihoods, all based on media coverage, and outrage online.

Stripping the ’99.3% [of medals] for the actions of the 0.7%’ is to commit an injustice that will further demoralize our valuable veterans. A large portion of them suffer in silence, because of the ignorance of an indifferent public, a hostile media, and now, self-centered public “servants” looking for a quick P.R. fix, without concern for who they’re throwing under the bus.

Liberal member for Hughes, Craig Kelly’s response to the ADF’s decision – which will punish the brave actions of the many for the sins of a few – hit a home run, saying,

‘Oh, no they won’t. But if we do, then we’ve set a precedent, so next is that we must also strip away every award and retirement benefit from every politician due to [the corrupt] conduct of [politicians] the likes of Orkopoulos* Obeid & Maguire?’

Prime Minister, Scott Morrison in acknowledging the seriousness of the claims, has also publicly backed the ADF, stating

“I wouldn’t want any Defence Force member, serving men or women, or veterans to feel that anyone is looking at them differently, I’m certainly not … we’re incredibly proud of them.” (Sky News)

If the Prime Minister is sincere about this, he needs to advise the Governor-General against stripping good soldiers of their medals, under the callus justification of ‘collective guilt.’

Aussie soldiers being hunted by radical leftist jihadists today, means open season on the people those soldiers step up to protect and serve.

For example, the largely Leftist, Australian Broadcasting Commission, giddy-at-the-prospect of having soldiers in their sights, provided detailed analysis on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

Not one to miss out on celebrating the demonization of Western Civilization, and its Biblical Christian foundations, Victoria’s Socialist Alliance, despite COVID-19 rules, has even organized an anti-ADF protest.

I agree with Hastie. We need reform and accountability. We also need to recognize why war crimes occur. All this should involve improving how we as a society look after, show appreciation for, and serve our military, and its veterans.

This process shouldn’t involve hurting our veterans in order to help them.

Of course, high and lowbrow contempt for Diggers, with the poor going to die for the smug elite, and entitled intellectuals, isn’t new.

It’s a societal fact immortalized by Rudyard Kipling,

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please; An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!”

You can show your support for Australian soldiers by visiting Voiceofaveteran.org and signing the petition to help stop this persecution of the majority who served with honour.

To rephrase Hastie:

The battlefield criminality of a few, does not justify stripping meritorious recognition earned by the good deeds of ‘the many.’

#istandwiththeADF


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th November, 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

William Barr has hit out at the collective mindset, and organized myths which permeate what the mainstream media now call journalism.

Commenting on filtered coverage concerning the Black Lives Matter™ protests, and riots in Kenosha, Seattle and Portland, Barr criticized the MSM for co-operating together in passing down to the public a coordinated narrative.

In exclusive comments made to Townhall.com Barr said,

“I think there are a handful of reporters in the mainstream media that still have journalistic integrity, and there are some, but the overwhelming majority don’t have it anymore…The national mainstream media – has dropped any pretense of professional objectivity and are political actors, highly partisan who try to shape what they’re reporting to achieve a political purpose and support a political narrative that has nothing to do with the truth.”

This was preceded by Barr calling the largely Leftist run and operated media a “collection of liars.”

“They’re basically a collection of liars. Most of the mainstream media. They’re a collection of liars and they know exactly what they’re doing. A perfect example of that were the riots. Right on the street it was clear as day what was going on, anyone observing it, reporters observing it, it could not have escaped their attention that this was orchestrated violence by a hardened group of street fighting radicals…”

Exhibit (B) was the orchestrated narrative echoed by major news organizations claiming that riots in all three cities were “peaceful protests” vs. the high casualty rate among police officers.

Exhibit (A) was the (now infamous) chyron (worded graphic) CNN used in front of footage of a burning building, stating that the protests were ‘fiery but mostly peaceful.’

Barr, who is the current Attorney General; head of the DOJ (America’s Department of Justice), said, that the mainstream media [“national media”] are ‘not really interested so much in what really happened but in pursuing a preformed narrative that suits some kind of ideological agenda. That’s what it’s all become.”

This is Barr’s strongest condemnation of the media to date. His remarks coincide with the DOJ’s official investigation into the rioting, governing bodies, and financial backers.

Townhall stated that ‘the organizing behind the rioting in cities across the country is under investigation and federal law enforcement agencies are working to identify the individuals behind the chaos.’

The chief provoketors, Barr said, were likely to be ‘Antifa and Antifa like groups.’

Barr is without a doubt one of THE unsung heroes of the Trump Presidency. He’s no novice.

Last year he refused to issue un-redacted version of the much-hyped Mueller report for the sake of objective reasoning. Expressing concern for how the report might be mishandled, if placed in the wrong hands, such as activists posing as journalists, and concern for the legality of internal spying carried out by the previous administration on the current one.

It’s no wonder that news about Barr continues to go under-reported.


First published on Caldron Pool, 30th September 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020

One of the first rules about giving is not parading it for all the world to see.

There’s a difference between me sharing with someone that my family and I have financially supported Compassion Australia for nearly two decades, and me boasting about how much money we’ve given to them.

Unless those asking are the tax office, it should be enough to simply state the fact about our giving, without having to prove it with subtotal, decimal, and dollar sign.

For the sake acknowledging it. The exceptions here are small businesses and corporations. Transparency exists for tax purposes. Accountability on giving to charity from a corporate income is as much for shareholders as it is for tax payers, re: the appropriate governing bodies.

Giving from personal income operates by a similar accountability structure, but has a different set of rules when it comes to freedom of information. Anonymity is to be applauded and protected. It’s none of anyone else’s business how much an individual gives from their own personal income.

There’s also a difference between a foundation, set up in a person’s name, giving to charities, and donating money to charities from that person’s own finances.

Businesses never refer to a product, or cash given out to meet a charitable need, as having been given out by the CEO, or his family. They correctly state that the business donated them.

The foundation has to be transparent; the individual doesn’t. He, or she, can remain anonymous.

As Jesus emphasized twice in His criticism of hypocrites posturing righteousness in public for all to see: ‘when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.’ (Matthew 6:3-4, ESV)

This criterion makes the morbid quest to squeeze Trump’s wallet for information that could discredit his presidency, all the more lopsided and vindictive.

As The New Yorker’s, John Cassidy made more than clear in his 2016 piece on ‘Trump & the Truth: His Charitable Giving.’ Cassidy’s piece reached hard for the fraud card, up to criticizing Trump for where, when, and how much, Trump was donating of his own money to charity.

Forbes, in a convoluted attempt at the same game, insinuated that then Presidential candidate – whom they estimated to be worth ‘$3.5 billion’ – put revenue before helping ‘kids with cancer.’

Forbes accused Trump of having ‘paid their businesses with charity money.’ Speculating that money changing hands, ‘had more in common with a drug cartel’s money-laundering operation than a charity’s best-practices textbook.’

In short, Forbes acknowledges that the Trump family gives to charity, but isn’t happy about the amount they give, where, or how they do it.

Outlining how Trump’s charities allegedly paid Trump organizations for services rendered. Forbes questions the legal and ethical aspects of Trump Charity organizations, but ultimately feeds into the now far too common dissonance of “hate Trump, because love trumps hate”.

Worth noting. Forbes lists this article as one of their “best pieces of the decade.”

Most recently, Phillip Hackeney penned a piece published by NBCNEWS, responding to news about a Nov. 2019 court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the N.Y. Supreme Court, ordering that Trump to pay $2 million in restitution for alleged misuse of Trump foundation funds.

The ruling was based on arguments presented by N.Y. Attorney General Barbara Underwood (who’d boasted about the ruling on Twitter), alleging that the Trump family ‘”illegally” used Trump foundation to further Trump’s political interests.’

The Trump’s responded by noting that all the funds collected were eventually donated to the designated charities – something Judge Scarpulla acknowledged (NBC).

Nevertheless, the Trump family were ordered to pay the $2 million to three charities, presumably pre-chosen by the prosecuting Attorney General.

It was a political win against the President, not an ethical one.

Facebook’s “independent” fact-checkers are doing the same. Flagging posts about Trump’s giving as “missing context” isn’t out of a concern for ethics, or even charities, it’s about partisan political gain.

Snopes rated the above facts as “unproven”, even though they have video of Trump stating: “well, I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they’re doing is amazing. And we’ll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.”

USA Today claims they’re false, and the NY Times (predictably) doubts it.

My criticism isn’t about the attempt to keep Trump accountable for claims he makes about charitable giving. It’s the motive behind the “fact checking”.

By tone, it’s easy enough to discern how the real motivation isn’t to help charitable organizations. The motivation is to sink Trump.

Should said “fact checking” take down someone they don’t like, and win them a Pulitzer in the process? Well, hey, “it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”

It’s rich for any journalist to accuse a family of being ‘vainglorious’. Only to then go looking for glory in a financial shake down of the Trump family’s charitable works.

Had Trump not been running for President, and had there been no potential personal benefit involved, it’s unlikely many in the Leftist dominated mainstream media would even care.

Have the New York Attorney General and others, chased how the $2 million ripped from the Trumps was spent by court designated charities, with the same vigor? 

Have they looked into George Soros’ or the Clinton Foundation’s financial reach in the world of politics with the same scrutiny?

If I were in a diplomatic mood, I’d roll out the uber-understanding-wagon, layer on some sugar-coating, then dismiss the morbid quest to turn Trump into Scrooge, as a true-hearted selfless act of benevolence.

The truth is it isn’t. 2016 was an election year. As is 2020.

These are never-Trump self-serving gestures. Fueled by self-aggrandizement, and tinged with the flare of agitation propaganda, written for a rabid, radicalized mob who’s view of the Trump presidency only comes from the lens that’s been prescribed for them.

I doubt that even if Trump were to give away his entire fortune, those dragging him down, in order to raise themselves up, would find any benevolence in it.

Outbidding wars have their place in charitable auctions.

Outbidding wars over who is the greatest of givers has no place in politics.

For ‘each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor.9:6-7, ESV).


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd September 2020.

Photo by Photoholgic on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

The murder of Cannon Hinnant exposed systemic bias in the mainstream media. The majority of news outlets not reporting the execution style murder of a five-year-old white boy at the hands of a black neighbor, wasn’t a glitch.

WaPo dismissed concerns about media bias, claiming conservatives were politicizing Hinnant’s death, because Hinnant’s family don’t believe “race was a motivating factor in the killing.”

An assertion which went against WaPo’s acknowledgement that investigating authorities have not yet established, or released a motive for why Hinnant was executed.

Though, the “Democracy dies in darkness” news organization begrudgingly took a moment to shine a light on the tragedy. Half of it was a criticism of conservative media, employed as part of a justification for the silence of, or half-hearted reporting from, most leftist news organizations.

The article then rationalized the lack of reporting (read: justification for a lack of concern) strongly suggesting that reporting the execution of five-year-old Cannon in front of his sisters, would contradict the “white privilege” and “systemic racism” narrative being pushed by these organizations.

The apparent apathy, and moral rationalizing, for what amounts to a relative media ‘black-out’ when compared to George Floyd’s horrific death, further suggests that these mainstream media organizations are complicit in protecting the us vs. them, black vs. white, and Left vs. Right propaganda that’s been circulating since Hilary Clinton’s election loss in 2016.

The WaPo article overlooked – rather omitted – that the chief concern over the lack of reporting about Hinnant’s death, was the double standard within Leftist media organizations, not “race.”

Had Cannon been a black five-year-old child, executed by a white male, the largely leftist mainstream media would be lined up for days fueling division, supporting riots, and filling panels with “expert” upon “expert”, fresh off-the-conveyor-belt conformity of Leftist dominated academic ivory towers.

The double standard is as clear as day. The value of Hinnant’s life was weighed, and measured according to the colour of his skin by so-called “anti-racists.” The mainstream media’s concern for how this might impact their image, and that of the Black Lives Matter movement, over against the death of an innocent child proves my point.

The apologetic self-justifications prove it. Media organizations are lying if they say otherwise.

The blunt, simple truth behind the lack of widespread reporting, and public concern, is that young Hinnant was the wrong colour melanin to be of any use to Leftist power-brokers, their groupies, and propaganda machines.

Left-wing media do not consider Hinnant’s execution at the hands of a black man to be newsworthy, because his murder is a strong counter-point to the Marxist Black Lives Matter, us vs. them, fear-based false narrative, which they use ad nauseum, to stigmatize “all white people as racists chasing down black people in order to execute them.”

This is the general rule of thumb for Marxists.

Martin McCauley gave the practice sharp relief when he explained in ‘Stalin & Stalinism’ that ‘Stalin deliberately exaggerated the danger from the right [within the Soviet bureaucracy] by accusing them of betraying the working class and the revolution. If anyone refused to fight the right then he too, declared Stalin, was a traitor.’ (1983)

Such thinking might explain why a few “fringe” Black Lives Matter supporters celebrated the execution, here and here.

In addition, if BLM were solely about police brutality, as some claim, then why did they not fight for Justine Damond? Why did they turn her murder at the hands of a black police officer into a defense of that police officer?

It’s reasonable to assume that the Marxist BLM movement and its sycophants could have stopped the police behind George Floyd’s death. If BLM Inc. hadn’t thrown the Justine Damond incident upside down by disregarding the victim, in trying to exonerate the villain because of their obsession with melanin.

Damond’s murder was a warning sign, but BLM never pushed for police reform, never rioted in the streets.

Why? a) Damond wasn’t the right melanin. b) because BLM Inc. are busy selling Marxism like crack on every street corner they can find, to an easily manipulated, gullible public who think they’re buying a cure for the sinful condition of the human heart.

What’s established by the behavior of BLM in the Damond case, is that it’s well within the parameters of Marxist privilege to once again disregard the victim, in an attempt to exonerate the villain.

The privilege on display isn’t white, nor is it black. Our fight isn’t about black vs. white, neither is it left vs. right, it’s about truth vs. falsehood.

There is solidarity in suffering.

But there were no black squares for Cannon, or his sisters. Just convenient silence.

Here’s the straight-up, fact-based bottom line.

If you sent a shout out about George Floyd’s horrific death, but have no clue who Cannon is, or what happened to him, you’re not only a hypocrite, you’re a social media show-pony of the highest order.

Media bias is revealed by its blanket silence.

Cannon Hinnant’s life mattered.

#sayhisname


First published on Caldron Pool, 17th August, 2020.

Photo by Alex Dukhanov on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Peter Tabichi, a 36 year old Franciscan Monk from Kenya, has just won the Global Teaching prize, funded by the Dubai-based Varkey Foundation. This year the award was hosted by Hugh Jackman, and carries with it a $1 million prize for excellence in teaching.

Tabichi was selected from ‘over 10,000 applicants from around 179 countries’ and was one of ten finalists, which included U.K. teacher, Andrew Moffat, famous for gaining the ire of parents in Birmingham, for teaching LGBT ideology to kids, in a primary school with a large Muslim demographic.

Largely focusing on the fact that Tabichi “gives away 80 percent of his monthly income to the poor”; like most media outlets, SBS in Australia, stopped short of giving any direct mention of his Christian faith, or giving any credit to Christianity.

Maybe SBS thought, why state the obvious? This would be a legitimate excuse, had they shown a pattern of consistency with their headlines and reporting in the past.

Why single out SBS? It’s not a good look for a broadcaster whose charter claims to be the epitome of anti-racism, anti-phobias, intolerance and inclusion.

Google, “SBS Christian wins”. Then compare that with a search of, “SBS LGBT Wins”, or “SBS Muslim Wins”, and a pattern emerges.

For example (et.al):

Muslim Wins Veil Case, 22nd Aug, 2013

Muslim Woman Wins Handshake Discrimination Case, 16th Aug, 2018

Australian Muslim Challenging Mainstream Narrative, 7th Feb 2019

SBS is congratulated for not misidentifying those who self-identify as LGBT or Muslim, but their concern appears to end, when it comes to Christians, the Church or Christian theology making achievements beyond that break the negative stereotypes.

In an age where not using the correct 62+ gender specific pronoun, can land someone in prison, or see someone arrested, it’s not unfair to suggest that SBS (and others) need to do some soul searching.

If misgendering or misidentifying someone is a modern sin, why avoid a direct reference to someone being a Christian?

There aren’t too many answers to choose from:

Either, a) SBS doesn’t want to upset their viewer base, which would suggest that there’s a ton of bigotry against Christians among SBS’s viewer base; b) SBS is betraying its own anti-Christian prejudice through discriminating against Christians. c) SBS doesn’t care.

On balance, there are a few milder exceptions to the rule, The Guardian, noted that Peter was from the Franciscan Religious Order, but The Guardian avoided any direct reference to his Christian faith. In addition, The ABC didn’t do much better.

Had Peter been of the approved variety and/or minority, there’s no doubt that his Christian faith would have been mentioned, if not highlighted.

Still, given the work Peter is doing, and the difficult context he’s doing that work in, he deserves every pat on the back he gets.

According to the Varky Foundation, Peter ‘teaches Science at Keriko Mixed Day Secondary School in Pwani Village, situated in a remote, semi-arid part of Kenya’s Rift Valley; and takes joy in seeing his learners grow in knowledge, skills and confidence.’

The same page also noted that his

‘Students come from a host of diverse cultures and religions learn in poorly equipped classrooms. 95% of pupils hail from poor families, almost a third are orphans or have only one parent, and many go without food at home. Drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, dropping out early from school, young marriages and suicide are common. Turning lives around in a school with only one computer, poor internet, and a student-teacher ratio of 58:1, is no easy task, not least when to reach the school, students must walk 7km along roads that become impassable in the rainy season.’

In January, Peter posted a short bio to his Facebook wall:

“I was raised up in a remote village, in a family of teachers. I lost my mother at the age of 11. We were brought up by our dad, who would look after everything, including preparing meals, educating us and most importantly instilling moral and Christian values in us. This tough experience taught me how to tackle various challenges of life. Growing up I saw first-hand the dedication that teachers bring to the community, and I have come to view the teacher’s role as enlightening others on how to tackle the challenges of life. I wanted to give teaching the honour it deserves. I joined the religious life because I wanted to be able to dedicate myself wholeheartedly to helping others. Your prayers and support have made everything possible. United, we can make this world a better place to live in. Thanks be to God and be blessed!”

Peter’s Christ-like example teaches us.

According to The ABC, ‘Peter plans to use the prize money to improve the school and feed the poor.’

Teachers Magazine also quoted Peter as saying,

“I’m immensely proud of my students. We lack facilities that many schools take for granted. As a teacher, I just want to have a positive impact, not only on my country but the whole of Africa. To be a great teacher, you have to be creative and use technology – you really have to promote those modern ways of teaching. You have to do more and talk less.”

Perhaps we would all benefit from Peter’s example, by acknowledging the source and motivation for it, instead of actively trying to suppress it.


References (not otherwise linked):

[i] Teachers Magazine also refused to mention Tabichi’s Christian faith.

Global Teacher Prize, Peter Tabichi

The Guardian, Teacher targeted over LGBT work shortlisted for $1m global award Sourced 25th March 2019

The Guardian, Kenyan science teacher Peter Tabichi wins $1m global award Sourced, 25th March 2019

Magdalene Wanja, Daily Nation (Kenya), 31st Dec. 2018 Award winning teacher raising hopes for poor students, sourced 25th March 2019