As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

New MH2

How precious are we? Our once endearing trademark of “taking the mickey” and our propensity to laugh at ourselves has been hijacked and bleached to suit the bland, spiritless pests whose only industry is selective finger pointing. The Keating days of thought control, when dissidents were bullied and a compliant PC brigade apportioned scorn are returning like spores of mould on a rotting manifesto of evil.

Just weeks ago footballer Adam Goodes wailed about racism, heard around the world when a 13-year-old girl called him an ape. An ad campaign against perceived racism in which Goodes is an actor appeared on TV just days later. The free publicity was worth millions. In another ad running "Say no to racism" Goodes says “…by the way, I’m indigenous—not that that matters.” Bollocks, it mattered enough for him to make it matter. 

More recently, a bolt from the heavens. The Deity of Affectation granted the PM a miracle; Howard Sattler is sacked for his boorish question to her about the First Bloke’s sexuality. Sattler asked the question to which millions would secretly like to know the answer. And now, the nation is left hanging. Is Tim a poof, how ponderous can a question be?

Was Sattler’s question based on myth, probability, or knowledge? According to Psychologist Edgar Gregersen “…In the English-speaking world, male hairdressers and ballet dancers are generally homosexual…” Call that stereotyping if suits your purpose.

Sattler’s question might be offensive—but enough to have the “man” sacked? Would the same condemnation have ensued were the question asked by one of Julia’s “Women for Julia?” After all, who is queer and who isn’t, no longer holds importance. Does it? What was once thought deviant is now accepted. Isn’t it? Reality TV shows invariably shoves a gay couple to centre stage. As do an increasing number of TV commercials.

Australia hosts one of the world’s largest Gay Mardi Gras during which lurid antics by near naked exhibitionists cause most hetros to retch. Gay soldiers march in uniform. Furthermore, Michael Kirby, AC, CMG, former Justice of the High Court of Australia is proud to be gay; enough to course the world telling whom ever will listen, especially young college boys, that being queer is good, it’s OK, come on in lads the water’s fine. Gays are encouraged by society to “out” themselves and be proud of it. The new badge of honour.

Clearly, the goalposts of morality have been moved and if being gay is so socially accepted, normal, and cool, why was Sattler sacked?

Hypocrisy is the answer.

If Julia Gillard was a clever leader instead of a mere political opportunist the question of whether or not her hairdresser boyfriend is gay would have, and should have been laughed off with something like: “well Howard, and I thank you for your question but I think the grin on my face should answer your question, if not you’ll have to ask Tim.”

Ms Gillard chooses to play Prime Victim via her manyfold drives to raise sexism. That she called Christopher Pyne a “mincing poodle” matters not but Sattler had his livelihood terminated. That question, however, almost went through to the keeper, until he pressed her more than once, and then the penny dropped. Gillard took him down, as did Fairfax with Michael Smith for his questions about the PM and her part in the continuing AWU scandal.

As political destruction for Labor descends like a pea-soup fog we witness their front bench cracking under pressure. Gillard’s strategy is to spin the same tired old chestnuts that didn’t work before. 

In its current rant against sexism, Labor bleats about the lack of respect for the office of the Prime Minister and its holder. Is it not Ms Gillard’s behaviour and that of her coterie of shrill, fishwives that damaged that office? And forget not the political grubs Windsor and Oakeshott who betrayed their constituency by maintaining support for Gillard. Trust is trashed and respect ruined.

Couple that with society today where nobody is responsible for anything, except “offending” someone. It is an era where parents are lawfully denied control over delinquent brats, where police, emergency workers, nurses, and the elderly are openly abused and often brutally assaulted—daily.

Could it be that Gillard, the denigrator of her office and self, doesn’t know that the majority Australians have acquired and unprecedented and unhealthy opinion of her? Does she understand why school children are pelting her with sandwiches? Was she truly shocked by a spoof menu about quail’s thighs? Would a scheming, political back-stabber, a spruiker of lies and broken promises be shocked about such trivial nonsense?

Is anyone offended if Tim is a poof—new society norms say no?

Meanwhile, Gillard’s confected tirades over banalities continue to divert our attention from border protection, a $300 billion plus Commonwealth debt, unprecedented policy failure and epoch-making social disunity. Further to Labor’s mess is the possible return of Rudd, suitably dubbed the worst prime minister in Australia’s political history.

Compared to that lot, Sattler’s question has the validity of a Gillard promise.

Labor is blue – through and through

By Perkin-Warbeck

Come September when we spring into Spring, we will all be able to give due honour, respect and love for somebody very important in our lives.

Naturally I refer to Father’s Day, the very first Sunday in September. After all, there’s no other event in September requiring us to show deference to, or respect for, any other sort of so-called authority figure.

In my case, it has been a good few years since my dear old dad went to his maker but I still make a point of thinking kindly thoughts about him on that special day. There was a time when I would give a lot of thought to an appropriate gift and, invariably, I would select a beautiful and tasteful tie. Quite a few were, I recall, blue.

I have profound sympathy this year for those loving children who were planning on giving their dads a nice tie. If their choice of hue is blue then it is very possible that their dads will be spat upon in the streets as vile sexist misogynists who want to make a women’s right to an abortion their plaything.

Prime Minister Gillard has made it plain that men who wear blue ties are just dreadful. I, for one, am planning to show my respect for women – especially the Women for Gillard crowd – with a ritual burning of all even faintly bluish ties. It’s becoming increasingly difficult for a chap to be politically correct nowadays but I am trying.

Once upon a time the ALP liked to think it represented blue collar workers and, presumably, they still like to think that but woe betide any aspirational blue collar worker who hungers for the day when he can wear a blue tie.

Julia did get one tiny little thing wrong in her ringing condemnation of men wearing blue ties when she asked us all to imagine a Treasurer wearing a blue tie bringing down a budget. We don’t have to imagine that – just look at the footage of Wayne Swan delivering the last budget. He was resplendent in blue.

No doubt, many male Labor Members and Senators will be ditching their blue ties now they have been awoken to the crass symbolism of them. Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten and Trade Minister Craig Emerson have always shown a fondness for blue ties but if loyalty means anything in the modern Labor Party, these offending garments will go into a charity bin.

No so, it seems, for the ever-loyal and ever-respectful K Rudd MP.

The very day after Julia alerted the world to the appallingly anti-women agenda manifested by blue ties, Kev was out and about in Sydney wearing – well, you guessed it.

He tried to do a blokey sort of performance for the TV cameras, manfully admitting that like most Australian blokes he had no fashion sense and that his good lady wife and daughter selected his ties. It might have been more convincing in Mandarin.

There was a shot across Julia’s bows when he added, somewhat mendaciously I thought, “Frankly, if I had to get rid of all of my blue ties, I’d loose about a third of them.”

Kev certainly sent a beautifully tailored, sartorially significant message to Julia when he arrived in Canberra on Monday with a bright smile and a blue tie.

Was that called for I ask you! Talk about trying to start a blue with Dear Leader.

President Barack Obama seems to like blue ties quite a lot and perhaps this was a subtle reaching out to Republicans in a wink, wink and nod, nod sort of way. But he’s been re-elected so there’s no reason to keep them. The last British Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown was also fond of these disgraceful bits of neckwear and he went down in defeat probably because the women’s vote. They knew what it meant.

In my more nostalgic moments, I used to listen to Bobby Vinton’s 1963 album which features blue-themed tunes. I especially loved – note the past tense please – Blue on Blue and Blue Velvet.

Of course that came from an era when women were downtrodden and oppressed so in the cause of political correctness, it probably has to go as well.  But why, I wonder, do I think of Julia when I hear his refrain… “blue on blue, heartache on heartache now that we are through, .. now I find I can’t get over losing you.”

Because actually I will get over loosing her so maybe I will keep at least one blue tie – it will be nice to wear on Monday, 16 September.

As Angela Priestly, the editor of the feminist Women’s Agenda website wisely noted after Julia’s speech on the matter, “It could be a good time to get into the blue tie business.”

And I’m keeping Bobby Vinton too.

All women are equal but some are more equal than others

By Perkin-Warbeck

I bet you didn’t know that there are WOMEN and then there are women.

I have this on the highest possible authority – Emily’s List, no less – which proclaims in the preamble on its website, “A woman candidate, to be satisfactory, must be a ‘feminist’ in the best sense of the word…she should believe absolutely in the equality of status, liberty and opportunity between a man and a woman. A woman candidate that is shaky on this matter, or not sufficiently imbued with its importance to be able to speak convincingly on the matter, will do the movement towards establishing women in Parliament far more harm than good.”

Emily’s List is the ALP affirmative action crowd, the official sisterhood, comprising Labor women who presumably pass the “satisfactory” test. Prime Minister Gillard is a proud member.

Given Gillard’s recent attempts to paint Tony Abbott as some sort of primitive throw-back and a gross misogynist, you might have imagined that Emily’s List would be in the front row of enthusiastic backers.

Yet, curiously, they have not issued one single statement praising their star member’s recent forays in her contrived gender war campaign. In fact, they haven’t issued any media statements since 30 January this year when they issued two – one paying tribute to dumped Northern Territory Senator Trish Crossin and one congratulating Nova Paris on being Gillard’s “captain’s pick” candidate for Crossin’s Senate spot.

Just why these “satisfactory” women have remained silent for five months as Julia and her government sink deeper and deeper into a morass of their own making is a mystery.

I’m not surprised they said nothing following the death of former British Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher because although she was the pre-eminent female politician of the 20th century, she obviously wasn’t “satisfactory”. 

The utterly desperate stage of this government’s decline could not be better illustrated by the fact that not only are they trying to control their message but are even trying to control the way it is presented.

Last Sunday, Gillard staged a tea party for parents and children at Kirribilli House in Sydney to sell the Gonski school funding policy. Photographers and camera crews were admitted to take happy snaps but reporters with difficult questions were banned. On Tuesday when the PM spoke at the Women for Gillard launch, reporters with notebooks and pens only were admitted and photographers and camera crew locked out. Julia’s own office released the footage which, no doubt, was carefully edited.

Only a day or so ago, Fairfax journalist Jacqueline Maley wrote about Julia’s recent tactics. It was an assessment that “satisfactory” women would find unpalatable.

She wrote, “For the first two years of her prime ministership, Gillard was reluctant to identify as a ‘female’ prime minister. She said on the record this was how she thought about herself. She wanted to govern for all Australia.”

Noting that Gillard had “been responsible for moving thousands of single mothers off the single parenting benefit and onto the lesser Newstart (the dole), Maley continued, “Gillard refused to back the female candidate for Batman, despite the affirmative action arguments of Jenny Macklin and Penny Wong. She promised to call out sexism in public life, but stayed silent when Labor MP Steve Gibbons called Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop a ‘bimbo’.”

Noting Gillard’s outrageous assertion last Tuesday about how abortion rights would be under threat if Abbott was elected, Maley wrote, “She had no evidence for making the claim…She needs to scaremonger about Abbott’s true attitudes to women and women’s rights. She needs to paint Abbott as dangerously retrograde. She needs to because she is politically desperate.” 

It should also be noted that Gillard’s famous “misogyny” speech in Parliament last October that gave her a temporary boost, was in support of a Speaker whose own position was under threat because of his own blatantly sexists text messages. That Speaker, Peter Slipper, didn’t get any criticism at the time from Gillard because she needed him to help prop up her tottering regime.

Emily’s List as what could be politely described as a curious attitude to democracy.

Last March, when Anna Bligh’s Queensland Labor Government suffered an overwhelming defeat winning only seven seats in a Parliament of eighty-nine, Labor’s “satisfactory” women issued a statement bemoaning that, “Saturday was a sad day for the Labor Party in Queensland, but what has gone unreported is just how sad a day is was also for Queensland women.”

It was a “sad” day for Queensland woman, they alleged, and we all know whose fault this was because Emily’s List told us, “These disturbing figures were further evidence of the contempt the Liberal National Party held for women.” The voters had nothing to do with it presumably.

Seventeen Liberal National women MPs were elected in Queensland in that State election but, of course, they aren’t “satisfactory”.

A woman’s take on Gillard

Melissa McElroy, political advisor.

And didn’t Prime Minister Julia Gillard have a fine old time rallying the sisterhood at the Sydney launch of Women for Gillard when she told the wildly enthusiastic, hand-clapping, feet-stomping crowd of around one hundred women that an Abbott Coalition Government would see women “once again banished from the centre of Australia’s political life.”

There are, incidentally, more than 2.3 million women in Sydney but, hell, its quality that matters, not quantity.

I’m not sure if the adoring crowd broke into the traditional Labor hymn Solidarity Forever – I suspect they didn’t given its rather too masculine antecedents and it was written by a man after all – so, perhaps, Cyndi Lauper’s feminist anthem Girls Just Want To Have Fun would have been far more appropriate. Oops, that was written by a man as well.

Anyhow, Julia was really in her element proving yet again how wonderfully inclusive her attitudes are.

Abortion law, she asserted, would become the “political play thing” of male politicians “who think they know better” and the blue tie industry got its biggest free boost ever when she outlined what would happen under a Coalition Government: “A Prime Minister – a man in a blue tie – who goes on holiday to be replaced by a man in a blue tie; a Treasurer, who delivers a budget wearing a blue tie, to be supported by a Finance Minister – another man in a blue tie. Women once again banished from the centre of Australia’s political life.”

And as new leadership speculation swirled about, there was the obligatory and typically modest assertion that she was the “best person” to lead the Government into the election. When you consider the rest of them, you may well concede that she is actually right.

However, the diatribe didn’t even go down all that well with The Faithful.

Left-wing feminist Eva Cox gave the PM a box around the ears saying it had been an attempt to “insert an anti-Abbott element into her political message to women” noting correctly that abortion law was a matter for State Governments.

Ms Cox also rather tellingly remarked that Julia had avoided any mention of single parents who had been – in her word – “screwed” by the Government taking them off parenting payments and putting them onto the lower Newstart scheme. “I think that was a blatantly sexist policy and not a good look for a Labor Government,” Ms Cox added for good measure.

One female Labor MP, who wisely stayed anonymous, told Fairfax Media of her Leader’s rant, “This seems very strange, why would she say this, no one’s even talking about it.”

And even the men in the Labor Party who might be expected to give the PM a rousing three cheers were less than enchanted. Left Faction convenor, NSW MP Stephen Jones remarked, “I fully support a woman’s right to choose, (but) feel a little bit uncomfortable about it being an election issue.”

Back in October 2012, Sydney left-wing journalist David Marr who has made bashing Abbott somewhat of a personal crusade, admitted in his Quarterly Essay, “Abbott the politician knows that he can’t roll back the law on abortion.”

Around that time Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop – a high profile woman in the Coalition leadership team you will note – told the ABC’s Q and A, “I don’t believe Tony Abbott’s views on abortion are sexist. He has different views on abortion than I do, but when he was Health Minister, at no time did he seek to change the laws in relation to abortion in this country.”

Then again, who will ever take any notice of the female Deputy Opposition Leader because, as PM Julia assures us, Ms Bishop like every other Coalition female MP and Senator will be “banished from the centre of Australia’s political life.” Bye bye Julie, thank you Julia should obviously be the reaction from women who had intended voting for Coalition candidates. Well, no.

Towards the end of 2011, feminist academic Dr Susan Mitchell wrote a book “Tony Abbott: A Man’s Man” in which she asserted that he was afflicted by an “innate and deeply imbedded sexism and misogyny” so, perhaps, Julia’s famous Abbott-is-a-misogynist speech which went viral and gave her a temporary tiny opinion poll boost until sensible folks realised it was a complete crock, had its inspiration there.

It’s a small thing I know but I thought I would mention that Dr Mitchell didn’t feel the need to actually interview Abbott for her book – not that that is important her fans and apologists have argued. I quite agree: I’m thinking about writing a book about Henry V111 and I won’t be interviewing him either.

High flying Kevvie

by Odessa Koblenski

When the fiercely loyal Julia Gillard stabbed her Leader and PM Kevin Rudd in the back to take the top job, she famously issued the excuse that the government had “lost its way”.

Perhaps she was right. Rudd’s government was all over the place and since he was dumped as Foreign Minister after being dumped as PM he seems to be on a global quest to try and find out just where it went.

The disclosure that he has travelled the equivalent of more than half-way to the moon – 205,000 km and more than 45,000 km more than Julia herself – in the past year is not surprising. After all, very few people in Australia bother listening to him so he must, of necessity, journey afar to find an appreciative audience.

Back in September 2011 while he was still Foreign Minister, he created the enviable record of a new international benchmark for travel by Foreign Ministers – even more than the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton – and in his first nine months as Foreign Minister his travel bill was more than $1 million. It was then that Julia told him to “reign in” his travel expenses.

Just why anybody – Julia included – would think that the world is not a better place for all of Kev’s lectures, speeches and appearances is quite beyond me. I’m pea green with envy since I have not been afforded the opportunity to touch the hem of his garment. Perhaps I should get out more.

A spokesman for our world traveller said that he actually only accepts about ten per cent of all global invitations – well, there is a physical limit even for Kev who, regrettably, has to do boring things like sit in Parliament and help prop up Julia’s regime. 

And, it should be noted, his trips nowadays are paid for by others. 

However, just why the Business Council of British Columbia in Canada felt the need to fly him to China to address the People’s Liberation Army National Defence University in Beijing puzzles me. I wonder if he reminded the future communist troops of his observation as PM at the December 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference that, “Those Chinese f@#!ers are trying to rat-f@#! us.”  

At last count there were six former Canadian Prime Ministers alive and even possibly kicking including their first – and, so far only – female Prime Minister Kim Campbell’. I’m sure they would leap at the chance of promoting the British Columbia businesses courtesy of an all-expenses trip to Beijing.

Incidentally, Ms Campbell bravely led her government into the 1993 election with the confident prediction of victory and emerged with only two MPs. A staggering 154 government members, including Ms Campbell, lost their seats.

It is an example that we could do no better than emulate in September.

The Business Council of British Columbia probably don’t know that Kev wouldn’t have been promoting their case to the comrades one little bit at all because, according to his spokesperson, when Kev travels he “also promotes the export interests of businesses in his electorate of Griffith” which is very nice of him. 

The Australian Electoral Commission describes Griffith as “mostly residential with some food processing a light industry” kind of place and I have heard a rumour to the effect that a local florist – to cite but one example – has been overwhelmed with orders from all sorts exotic places his local MP has visited. I also understand that a local butcher can’t keep up with international demand for his special pork sausages – in fact, Kev is apparently so good at promoting this business, the butcher is flat out sending container loads of these sausages to Saudi Arabia.

One does hope that Kev’s behaviour on international airlines is somewhat better than it was on at least one occasion on a RAAF VIP flight when he was PM when he abused a hapless female cabin attendant so much for not delivering the meal he wanted that she burst into tears. Later, he made a rather grudging apology saying somewhat disingenuously, “I’m only human.”

When it comes to how a PM should treat female staff on VIP aircraft, I do prefer the story about PM John Gorton – a World War 11 fighter pilot – who climbed about a RAAF VIP aircraft tired and emotional after a particularly tiring and emotional day in Melbourne whereupon he promptly threw up.

Rightly ashamed of himself, the Hon John shamefacedly said to the female cabinet attendant, “I suppose it surprises you that an ex-RAAF man gets airsick.”

“Yes, Prime Minister,” replied the attendant, “Especially since we haven’t even taken off yet.”

Gorton told that story about himself; Rudd’s chief PR flack originally flatly denied the abuse episode.

It says quite a lot about those who like to think they are a man of the people.

Sandwich attacks and other security worries

by Perkin-Warbeck

The news that our Prime Minister has been subjected to a
second sandwich attack by a student while visiting a school should send
shudders up the collective spines of Australia’s spooks community.

Coming on top of the news that somebody, allegedly in the
People’s Republic of China, has managed to pinch the floor plans for the new
multi-million dollar state-of-the-art ASIO headquarters in Canberra and that a
convicted Egyptian terrorist was allowed into Australia when he arrived by boat
seeking asylum, it is clear that we are plainly living in perilous times.

ASIO Director-General David Irvine admitted that this
terrorist had somehow evaded detection when he arrived in May 2012 because of “a clerical error or some other mistake”
despite the fact that he was the subject of an Interpol “Red Alert”. ASIO has what
could be politely described as a measured approach to incidents of this kind –
although they realised their mistake in August last year they didn’t bother
telling the Immigration Department until February this year. One wonders if the
advice was sent via Australia Post.

Perhaps they were all rather busy deciding the décor for
their new offices which, might I suggest, should reflect an Oriental theme. The
People’s Republic, apparently in possession of the floor plans, might be
persuaded to assist in this regard

However, while it is the sandwich-tossing events which
should cause most concern, they also reveal two admirable facts about contemporary
Australia – our multicultural and ethnic diversity (at least in the culinary
sense) and the extraordinarily ability of our media for cutting-edge
investigative journalism.

In Brisbane, the sanger was a vegemite snack; in Canberra it
was a salami creation. And the media didn’t miss either despite the fact that
the PM’s security contingent immediately threw a tight protective cordon around
the missile of dubious nutritional value in Canberra. No doubt both are still
the subject of a top-secret forensic analysis.

Typically, the PM shrugged off these attacks upon her person
with a marvellous sang-froid. After thinking about the second attack for a
while, her comment that the brat who tossed the sanger probably thought she was
hungry was a brilliant example of grace under fire although I do wonder if the
delay in the comment was due to the necessary reference to a focus group.

Back in 1981 when President Ronald Regan was subjected to an
attack, he told the doctors at the hospital where he was taken, “Please tell me you’re all Republicans”.

And when wife Nancy visited him in that hospital he
confessed, “Honey, I forgot to duck.”

And Reagan had been shot – but, then again, he was known as
The Great Communicator and nobody has flung – or ever will I suspect – that
epithet in Ms Gillard’s face.

We all know, I’m sure, that it was John Montagu, the 4th
Earl of Sandwich, who invented the handy snack which bears his name.

It seems that the Earl who enjoyed a drink, a bit of skirt
and marathon gambling sessions in equally prodigious quantities had a servant
prepare a sustaining bite to eat – a piece of meat between two slices of bread
– so he wouldn’t have to leave the card table. Encasing the meat inside the
bread stopped his fingers from becoming greasy and spoiling the cards which is
not just trail-blazing but polite.

Incidentally, the 11th Earl of Sandwich has
founded – yes, you guessed it – a restaurant franchise called “The Earl of
Sandwich” which serves – and again I bet you guessed it – sandwiches. There,
one can purchase what is alleged to be his ancestor’s “original” sandwich invented
in 1762 and which contains roast beef, cheddar and horseradish. If the latest
Lord Montagu wants to extend his franchise to Australia, he would be well advised
to include vegemite and salami sangers on the menu – Young Liberals would flock
there for nostalgic celebrations and chuck them around with youthful

The 4th Earl, who had a somewhat patchy political
career, had been – among other things – First Lord of the Admiralty three
times, Postmaster-General and diplomat – and he was called in by his maker in

An unkind contemporary suggested that his tombstone read, “Seldom has any man held so many high
offices and accomplished so little.”

It has a certain resonance today and I’m sure our PM’s
critics could appropriately tweak this for her and, indeed, for so many of her
Ministers after September 14.

But she could live on in history after the
election with a clever career change – I suggest the pet food industry where
she could invent “The Gillard”
something quite appalling as a dog’s breakfast.


BTRWe need to oppose Council Recognition, writes Brant Rippon

The Gillard Labor Government has announced a referendum on the recognition of Local Governments within the Constitution of Australia to be held in conjunction with the election on September 14.

As Michelle Grattan highlighted on Friday, there are those on both sides of politics that do not want to see the referendum held – at least, not on September 14. ALP power brokers think it is an ‘extra burden in an election where Labor has almost nothing going for it’.

Back on the ‘right’ side of politics, Tony Abbott has begrudgingly inherited backing for the change, which has been Coalition policy for some time. Many Coalition members and supporters have highlighted the fact that a referendum on September 14 will muddy the proverbial waters. For September 14, Coalition supporters should want the second Saturday in September to be solely a vote on Government. A vote to get the nation back on track. A vote of no confidence in this inept Labor Government that has broken so many promises and left Australians with a mountain of debt and increased costs of living. The Howard era certainly was the halcyon days.

Strategically, the Coalition will want the electorate focused on the negatives and broken promises of the Rudd/Gillard Governments, and not be distracted with a referendum. As Coalition campaign advisors have said, the Coalition should and will be 'campaigning at the election to change the government, not the constitution'.

To borrow a Boswellian phrase, the Australian Monarchist League will be 'manning the barricades' for the NO campaign. You might at first think, 'why would an organisation whose main ethos is to protect the Crown be involved in a referendum on council recognition?'

The League's mission statement is 'Australians protecting the Australian flag, the Australian Crown, and the Australian Constitution.' The primary purpose of the Australian Monarchist League is to educate and inform the Australian public on Australia's history and particularly on the Australian Constitution.

Established in Australia in 1943 as a pressure group for upholding the educational and cultural aspects of our constitutional monarchy, AML has today morphed into a significant and effective 'not-for-profit' voluntary organisation which lobbies State and Federal governments to reverse decades of 'republicanism by stealth'. We consider the appropriate recognition of our Sovereign, Royal Family and traditional institutions, the upholding of the principles of the Westminster System and the maintenance of the concept of competitive federalism on which the Commonwealth was founded, as essential aspects of our system.

The League will be opposing the referendum on two fronts:

(1) Lack of time: According to reports, the Australian Electoral Commission has indicated that it requires a minimum of 27 weeks to properly prepare the arguments for YES and NO cases. There are fewer than 15 weeks remaining to the election and the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 Bill, although drafted, has not even been introduced into the parliament. Our main hope is that the Coalition will conduct a well-funded NO case and this is what we are lobbying for. However, whatever happens, the League will be there doing its best to protect the integrity of our Australian Constitution.

We are also in touch with other organisations to co-ordinate our activities. With the shortage of time, every hand to the wheel counts.

(2) Centralisation of Power: There is clearly a divide over the referendum and whether to support it within the Coalition.   WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith said last week that recognition would "distort the federal structure, give rise to unforeseen and unintended consequences and will lead to an eventual eclipse of the states and their eventual irrelevance as a balance against the centralist power of the Commonwealth".

The Australian Monarchist League echoes Senator Smith's views. A YES vote could result in undermining the very existence of the States. It has long been Labor Party policy to erode the viability of the states by slowly centralising power to Canberra via years of scope creep, much like the 'republicanism by stealth' campaign that has existed over recent decades. It should be noted however that the Howard government was no better in regards to the 'Canberraisation' process.

The League has proceeded to lobby members of the Federal and State parliaments very successfully with a number of politicians coming out to pressure the Federal Coalition party to oppose the referendum. A leading member of the Coalition front-bench has written to the League to say: "May I take the opportunity of personally encouraging you in this campaign."

A member of the Newman Government wrote to AML saying, "I certainly note that there is divided opinion in the community on this issue. With respect, there are much more important issues at stake for the nation in this election. I cannot speak on behalf of the Coalition, however I know that I, and many others do share your view." Queensland Local Government Minister David Crisafulli said the state is not sure whether the wording would allow a federal government to go beyond simply funding. "If it comes with the ability to control, I'm scared".

At this stage, both the Western Australian and Victorian Liberal Councils have voted to incorporate a NO vote in their HTV cards on 14 September.

The League is in the process of setting up a referendum website which should be operative in coming days. We call on all conservatives to lobby their local Coalition member, Senator or candidate to not support the passage of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 Bill through parliament.

Not only has there been a serious lack of public consultation from the Commonwealth Government over recognition of councils, but if there is one thing that this inept Labor Government has proven over the past six years is that the last thing Australians need is more power gifted to Canberra.

Brant Rippon is the State Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League’s Queensland Branch

On Gillard’s Misogyny Furore

When Julia Gillard called Tony Abbott a misogynist in federal parliament
in October last year, it did a severe disservice to women everywhere, writes Jack Baker.

Attempting to bring Abbott to the lowest of the low for a political
stunt downplayed and minimised the seriousness of men who are actual

A misogynist is by definition a “person who hates women”. Gillard
has been read this definition several times in interviews. She has
had the opportunity to clarify her remarks and explain that she
didn’t actually believe Abbott hates women. Yet she has repeatedly
said that she stands by her claims. As a former lawyer, Gillard knows
that words are powerful. Yet she has shown a constant willingness to
mislead for attempted political advantage.

Men who perpetrate violence, hatred and sexual violence against women and
girls are the real misogynists. Abbott is clearly not one of them.
The fact that this needs to be said shows how out-of-touch Gillard’s
speech was.

Abbott has been married for over thirty years. His wife Margie runs a
community-based childcare centre, a demanding job as any childcare
worker knows. The couple have three daughters who unabashedly adore
their father, and whom he clearly loves and respects. Abbott’s
sister, who publicly disagrees with him on a number of political
issues, as happens within many families, describes how supportive and
respectful her brother is to her and her lifestyle choices.

Professionally, Abbott surrounds himself with highly competent and influential women,
whose opinions he values, and who respect him in turn. For the past
fifteen years, he has always had a female in charge of his office.
His current chief of staff is Peta Credlin, who has spoken about
Abbott’s compassionate support for her fertility treatments. His
deputy leader is the devastatingly effective Julie Bishop.

Naval Lieutenant Commander and Barrister Sophie York has known Abbott since
1999. She describes him as “a very genuine, kind, and refreshingly
forthright person. He pays you the compliment of fully jousting
political issues and doesn’t pull back because you are a woman,
which would simply be insulting”. She further notes that “he is a
remarkable listener and not ego driven”.

Now contrast these attributes and the way Abbott treats the plethora of
women in his life with the men who oppress women and girls around the
world and in Australia. Women and girls contend with a litany of
abuses every day. Offences include domestic violence, rape, honour
killings, and the abhorrent crime of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Placing Abbott on the same level as the men who perpetrate these
crimes downplays them in a horribly cavalier way. Calling him a
misogynist lowers the common denominator of what this term actually
entails, resulting in the above crimes seeming less important in

The fact that Abbott has recently been polled as having higher approval
ratings among both women and men then Gillard shows that the
Australian population didn’t buy it. Nor should they! As
Julie Bishop said, it was a “vile charge” and “an utter and
absolute lie and the prime minister knows it”.
Let’s look at examples of actual misogyny.

Misogyny is when girls have Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) performed on them, which involves the barbaric practise of cutting away part of or the entire clitoris. 

The pain and subsequent medical conditions this
practise results in are horrific. Any backing down in relation to
this abhorrent practice and supporting a ‘ritual nick’ so that
this is done under controlled conditions, is tolerating and
encouraging those who practise this form of misogyny. It should be
opposed vigorously everywhere, in all forms.

is also where women are forced to completely cover their faces, concealing
their identities. This is what feminist Mona Eltahawy calls “the
erasure of women” and depriving “a woman of identity”.

Misogyny is when women and girls face physical abuse from intimate partners.
Misogyny is also evident in the rapes committed against thousands of
females in Australia every year.

Putting Tony Abbott or any other good, decent man on the same level as
the perpetrators of these crimes, is appalling. It is completely
false, and does a disservice to women and girls who are abused by
men. The Prime Minister should be ashamed of so brazenly misusing
such language.

Abbott is in fact an excellent example of how men should treat women and
girls. Australia would do well to have more men like him.

Jack Baker is a pseudonym

Similarities in leadership

Top ranking US presenter Bill O'Reilly is not noted for going hard on President Obama, until now. It seems there is a familiar pattern with socialist leaders that surfaces soon after re-election.

Ego, arrogance and incompetence are the common traits – usually all three at once. Readers may recognise similarities between the Prime Minister of Australia and the US President in Bill's article.


What Happened, Mr. President?

By Bill O'Reilly

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Not a great week for the Obama folks, as the scandal du jour tour has firmly taken hold. Every day it seems another federal agency is exposed as either intimidating, snooping, covering up, or going to Vegas on the taxpayer dime. Zimbabwe is even making fun of us.

On January 21, 2009, in remarks welcoming his new presidential staff, Barack Obama said: "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

So what happened, Mr. President? Why so much stonewalling?

Let's take this one by one. Barack Obama has to know that nobody is buying the assertion that Ambassador Susan Rice made a simple error when she blamed the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on a spontaneous Muslim uprising caused by a stupid anti-Islamic video. No one believes that was an honest mistake, Mr. President!

So it is on Mr. Obama himself to explain the Rice deal and also why armed U.S. assets in Tripoli were not immediately sent to help the Ambassador and other Americans under siege in Benghazi.

But for eight months, the President has refused to explain.

The IRS chaos is newer and the president was forced to respond by firing Steve Miller, who ran the agency. But again, how could the powerful IRS get so out of control? Was it loyalty to a liberal president that made agents unfairly target conservatives? We need some clarity here.

On the Associated Press front, all the president has to do is what Attorney General Holder refuses to do – explain in general terms why the Justice Department thought it necessary to secure the phone records of AP reporters. Explain why there was an urgency to the investigation. Mr. Obama can certainly do that without compromising national security. So why isn't he doing it?

The answer to that question lies in accountability. When has Barack Obama ever been held accountable for anything? The press has largely covered for him when mistakes were made and the public seems to be in a very forgiving mood, especially on economic matters where, according to some polls, almost half the voters believe the sluggish economy is Bush's fault.

Sensing blood in the water, the president's ardent opponents will continue to take the scandals as far as they can. The only way this stops is for Mr. Obama to take control, admit whatever mistakes were made, explain how and why they happened, and hope the public understands.

If he doesn't do that, his second term could well be a national nightmare.

(Thanks to reader Jim.)

Kevin Rudd Wins the Golden Fleece Award

The Carbon Sense Coalition has awarded its Inaugural Golden Fleece Award to Kevin Rudd and coal industry leaders for “flagrant fleecing of community savings" writes Viv Forbes

Its appropriate that the Golden Fleece award would recognise futile ‘research’ on Carbon Capture & Sequestration. A costly and complex process designed to capture and bury carbon dioxide gas produced by burning carbon fuels such as 'coal, oil and gas'.

It is obviously possible, in an engineering sense, to collect, separate, compress, pump and pipe gases, so new “research” is largely a waste of money. Engineers know how to do these things, and their likely costs. But only foolish green zealots would think of spending billions to bury a harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in hopes of cooling the climate some time in the century ahead.

About 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burnt in a power station. To capture, compress and bury it could take at least 30% of the electricity produced, greatly increasing the cost of the limited amount of electricity left for sale – more coal used, increased electricity costs, for ZERO measurable benefits.

We have come to expect stupidity from politicians, but coal industry leaders who agreed to waste money on this should be sued by shareholders for negligence. Maybe they were just drooling at all the extra coal they would sell in order to produce the same electricity?

Kevin Rudd wins this award for “a Flagrant Fleece of $400 million taken from tax payers to fund the fatuous Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.” There is little to show for the millions already spent except a lot of receipts for high class salaries, consultants, travel, entertainment and “operational expenses”.

Pumping gases underground is sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to drive oil recovery from declining oil fields.

Normally, however, CCS will just produce more expensive electricity.

This result is not needed as politicians have already invented dozens of ways of doing just that.

More, as well as:

  • The Warming of the last Century is too Small to Notice
  • Clean Coal by Wire
  • The New Cold War
  • The Great Barrier Reef
  • A revival of the Medieval Practice of Book Burning
  • The Beginning of the End

Read the full report: [PDF, 133 KB]

This article was reposted via Viv Forbes who writes from the Carbon Sense Coalition which can be reached at