Australia
All posts tagged Australia
Now you are saying I should go back to school; right? Well, read Ephesians 5:31 which says “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” That verse by Paul is taken from Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Only in a union sanctioned by God is this true. What many are seeking to push on society today has never been and will never be sanctioned by the Creator.
True, marriage should have love in it but marriage is much more. Marriage includes reproduction and man + man or woman + woman can nver fulfill that. In Genesis 1:28 God said to the man and woman “…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…”
Australia is facing the onslaught of the LGBTQIU crowd as never before. What is written above and the following video will probably be deemed hate speech if the definition of marriage is changed here in Australia. Remember, changing the definition of marriage will change more than just the definition of marriage!
I remember in the sixties when we lived in southern Missouri gasoline was only .10 cents per gallon. Good ole days?! Don’t know about that, but has so much changed that gas prices should be as high as they are now? This video makes sense but there again it isn’t made by politicians.
http://www.conservativeuniversity.org/how-government-keeps-gas-prices-high/
What did I expect when I sat down to watch the US Presidential Debate on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) Channel 24? Yes, I should have known better than to begin watching 20 or so minutes before the debate as that gave me the agony of listening to the Hillary lovers ABC had gathered together so they could spew forth their distaste for The Donald. As I watched and listened for perhaps five minutes I muted the sound until the debate began. Tinitus is sometimes a blessing.
I didn’t continue to listen to the ABC commentary after the debate as I already knew what road they would take but an example of the ABC post commentary from the states is posted below.
Now, two days after the debate who does the ABC see as the winner? Why did I ask? “Mr Trump lost the debate — and he knows it — but it may not matter.” What else would anyone expect from our ABC? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/trump-lost-the-presidential-debate-and-he-knows-it/7883826
However, the ABC’s take on the debate winner differs from other sources. For instance; “Of the 21 polls (including CNN’s) mentioned in the Daily Mail story, Trump won 17 of them, including:
- Time: Trump 58 percent, Clinton 42 percent
- CBS New York: Trump 24K votes, 17,600 votes
- San Diego Tribune: Trump 66 percent, Clinton 34 percent
- Slate: Trump 54 percent, Clinton 46 percent
- Variety: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 48 percent
- Fortune: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent
- CNBC: Trump 51 percent, Clinton 49 percent” http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Trump-Won-Debate-Snap/2016/09/27/id/750421/?ns_mail_uid=30193271&ns_mail_job=1689800_09272016&s=al&dkt_nbr=pdtyyfys
The ABC is so biased toward the left that I ask myself why I punish myself by watching it? One reason; no two reasons why I do are; I do not pay for cable television so I am limited somewhat on certain news sources and secondly the mute still works.
The first five or six minutes shows their bias but that’s the ABC!
The “One Nation is a political party representing the people of Australia who are concerned that their will is being ignored by the two party system. One Nation is committed to Australian sovereignty, the Constitution and Government of the people by the people for the people. Based on this view we have developed policies reflecting the will of the people. Our role as a political party is to select and recommend to the people candidates that we feel reflect our objectives and policies and are worthy of representing them and their will as dedicated parliamentary representatives.”
What Hanson said was so disturbing to the Greens Senators they walked out. You or I may not agree with everything she said but at least she had the fortitude to speak against the PC Police. So with Mr. Roberts. These two spoke to some real political issues Australia and the United States are facing today; The religion of Climate Change and Immigration by many who may never integrate into a democratic society.
Well, the issue of two sodomites getting together and calling it marriage is confronting all of us in the face again. Those of the Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle are almost evangelistic in pushing for the misnomer they call same-sex “marriage”.
In rural New South Wales, Australia “A Dubbo businesswoman and marriage equality advocate has accused the federal government of avoiding action on same-sex marriage, following reports a plebiscite on the issue may be delayed until 2017.”
This annoyed “Local Coffee Co owner Karen Payne, who opposes a plebiscite and subsequent costs, has criticised the delay.
‘The consensus is that marriage equality would pass through the upper and lower house if it went to a vote today,’ Ms Payne said.”
Ms. Payne “…suggested it could take a strike to prompt the politicians into action.”
She told the newspaper, “I sometimes wonder what would happen if all LGBTI people decided to go on strike until the marriage equality issue was resolved,”. http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/4113247/mps-do-your-job-payne/?cs=112 I hate to shock Ms. Payne but I think the world would go on in spite of the strike.
Now, of course I don’t for one minute think quoting the Bible to Ms. Payne or others in agreement with her on this sodomite issue will change anything but here goes. Genesis 2:20-24 “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
The Lord Jesus said in Mathew 19:4-6 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Then Romans 1:22-27 tells us that “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Pretty clear, I think!
Then there is 1Corinthians 6:9, 10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
I relinquished my government approved religious celebrant’s license several years ago because I knew there would come a time when the government of the day would sanction two sodomites getting together and calling it “marriage”. However, God settled the issue in the beginning of time and no matter what a government or a nation decides I “ought to obey God rather than men.”
This is from David and Roslyn Phillips of Family Voice Australia’s Voxpoint, August, 2016. “Is the Census – not to mention SBS – politically biased? You be the judge! An SBS TV journalist phoned FamilyVoice recently, wanting to interview us about the 2016 Census question on gender. In previous years, the Census has asked Australians whether they were male or female. But in 2016, we have been given three choices: male, female or “other”. “What do you think of this change?” the SBS journalist asked us. We replied promptly, with full references – saying (in part): The three gender options in the Census – “male”, “female” or “other” – officially endorse the unproven view that humans can have a sex different from that of the chromosomes in every cell of their body. When a boy, with male genitals and other sex characteristics, says he feels he is a girl, he is said to suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not a condition he was born with. Research shows that identical twins may include one twin with gender dysphoria and the other without, even though each twin has the exactly the same genes and hormone exposure in the womb. Life experiences – including bullying by peers or older siblings, or mental illness in a parent, may contribute to this condition. Studies show that the vast majority of children with these feelings lose them before reaching adulthood. Encouraging irreversible interventions in childhood could be harmful. Gender dysphoria is similar to body integrity identity disorder, where a person feels uncomfortable with one of his or her healthy limbs, and seeks to have it amputated. Like gender identity disorder, body integrity identity disorder is a condition of the mind. It should be treated with compassion, but like other identity confusion issues, should not be affirmed. Gender dysphoria should not be given official endorsement in a Census question. But this compassionate, evidence-based answer was not what the SBS was looking for. A few days later the journalist got back to us, saying they no longer wanted an interview. They had decided to take a “slightly different angle”, she said, but declined to tell us what that angle was. Perhaps we did not fit the “bigot” image SBS was hoping to portray. Not long after this knock-back, The Australian (20/7/16) and other media revealed the irony that girls at Cheltenham Girls High School in northwest Sydney were no longer allowed to be called “girls”. At a staff meeting called to discuss the implementation of the controversial “Safe Schools” program, teachers were told they could be breaking the law if they did not support decisions of LGBTI (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex) students. Terms such as “girls”, “ladies” and “women” were to be replaced by gender-neutral language. Daily Telegraph columnist Miranda Devine commented (19/7/16, in part): “This is presented as a way to make a small minority of LGBTI students feel comfortable, but its insidious effect is to impose a transformation of the traditional view of male and female. “We are told that it is bigotry to have a ‘hetero-normative’ view of gender as binary — male or female — or to believe that heterosexual attraction is the norm. But children who don’t go along with the illogical sexual and gender fluidity agenda are finding themselves excluded.” Miranda quoted Joe Carolan, a former maths teacher at Wollongong High School of the Performing Arts, another “Safe School”. He quit his job in protest at the program, saying the banning of “hetero-normative” language such as “mum and dad” is just the start. “The whole program is marketed as being about creating safe schools but it’s creating the opposite,” he said. “It’s promoting extreme gender ideology that’s harmful to students in adolescence who are already going through issues and this is complicating things a lot more.” Cheltenham Girls High has a significant number of Asian students whose parents have been deeply upset by the ostracism and bullying of those who disagree with the “Safe Schools” agenda. Chinese concern about “Safe Schools” is believed to be a key reason why two inner-west Sydney electorates with many Chinese constituents re-elected Liberal MPs, while nearby seats went to Labor. Labor had fully endorsed “Safe Schools”, promising to increase federal funding. By contrast, the Coalition announced significant restrictions, including a requirement for parental consent. Education minister Birmingham said funding would cease when the contract signed by Labor in June 2013 ended next year. But the evidence of harm is already so great that the program and its funding should be cancelled immediately.”
“Reprinted from VoxPoint by permission of FamilyVoice Australia, 4th Floor, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000.”
It seems if you are a white conservative male, you are to keep silent unless asked to speak. Well, “A free speech revolution is just over the horizon. Several recent events are demonstrating that Australians are sick and tired of a political class that gets to decide the limits of public debate and restrict the free flow of ideas. Such a system is anti-democratic, and it is being rejected.
Three key events are shaping the debate on freedom of speech, and in particular, the infamous section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This insidious provision infantilises Australians by presuming we are all so mentally feeble that the law ought to be used to protect us against being offended or insulted.
Section 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. This law has been the subject of sustained criticism for its clear restriction on freedom of speech.
The first of the three events that are leading to a growing understanding of the dangers of section 18C has its origins back on May 27, 2013. Alex Wood, then a 20-year-old engineering student at the Queensland University of Technology, was looking for a computer on campus on which to do some study. He found a computer lab and sat down to complete his homework at one of the free terminals.
A short time later, Alex was approached by a university administrator named Cindy Prior, who asked Alex whether he was indigenous. He replied that he wasn’t, and the administrator told him that the computer lab was reserved for indigenous students at the university and asked him to leave. Alex obliged, and went looking for another computer lab in which to complete his work. Once he had found another computer, he logged on to Facebook, and posted about his experience at the indigenous computer lab.
His post on the ‘QUT Stalkerspace’ page read: ‘Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.’
Several other students replied to Alex’s post. Prior, upon becoming aware of the post, had the comments scanned and sent them to an equity officer at QUT and asked that action be taken against the students. The officer contacted Alex and asked him to delete the post, to which Alex agreed. When he went back to the page, it had already been removed.
This sequence of events has snowballed into what has become a three-year legal saga. Prior first made a formal complaint to the university, but was not satisfied with the result of that process after a year of negotiating with QUT.
She then made a complaint under section 18C to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC investigated the matter without notifying the students that a complaint had been made against them. And finally, after the AHRC could not resolve the dispute, Prior lodged an application to the Federal Court of Australia. The case is ongoing and a decision is expected soon on whether it will proceed to trial.
This is not the sign of a healthy, thriving democracy. Students at university should be free to write on Facebook pages without racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and risking official sanction. This is not acceptable in a liberal democracy based on the rule of law.
But the troubling conduct of the AHRC extends beyond conducting secret trials of university students for making remarks online. Just last week, race commissioner Tim Soutphommasane pleaded with the public to make 18C complaints to the AHRC about a cartoon in this newspaper.
The cartoon, by Bill Leak, depicted an indigenous man who appeared not to know the identity of his own son. There’s no doubt the cartoon was provocative – that’s the role of a
cartoonist. They poke and prod accepted wisdom and social conventions in ways that people can find uncomfortable.
But a government bureaucrat using his position to make public pronouncements about what is acceptable to print in newspapers is intensely, classically undemocratic. And Australians are sick of it. One of those Australians is NSW Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm, who has shown his 
disdain for 18C by lodging a complaint under the provision he wants to repeal.
Leyonhjelm ignored Soutphommasane’s instructions and instead complained about an article by Fairfax’s Mark Kenny, in which Kenny described Leyonhjelm as an ‘angry white male’.
Leyonhjelm has been open about the fact that he is not offended by the description but that others may be. While there is obviously an element of mockery behind the complaint, the case will be a fascinating glimpse into the thinking of the AHRC, and whether there exist double standards depending on the ethnic group to which potentially 18C-breaching conduct is directed.
The tide is going out on 18C. ‘Offend’ and ‘insult’ must go. Watch this space.” http://ipa.org.au/news/3548/time-to-act:-curbs-on-free-speech-must-go
whatyareckon 