Fighting an Unwinnable ‘War’

Kerrod Gream On Tuesday, Tony Abbott made a public statement in relation to the war on drugs saying “We are ensuring that the war on drugs is fought as fiercely as we humanly can. It’s not a war we will ever finally win. The war on drugs is a war you can lose – you may not ever win it, but you’ve always got to fight it.” But didn’t think to question as to why we have to fight this war on drugs.

The war on drugs claims many victims, through abuse and overuse, as well as locking people up for non-violent crimes. Prohibition causes more problems than the reason behind the prohibition. We should be asking why we’re stopping people making decisions for themselves, is it to protect them from themselves? If it’s the latter then we have to ask how locking them up and ruining any future career prospects for non-violent crimes helps the individuals.

Continue reading

And on it goes


by Perkin-Warbeck 

here is only one person standing between open warfare between Queensland’s judiciary and the Newman Government on the matter of the new laws to control bikie gangs – the Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey.

CJ de Jersey, both wily and wise, has been a Supreme Court justice since 1985 and got the top job in 1998. He has seen a succession of Premiers and Attorneys-General in his time and will undoubtedly see more before his scheduled retirement aged 70 in September, 2018.

Last weekend he did make some guarded comments about the controversy saying, “The public commentary bears a highly political flavour and thereby the courts should remain detached from that,” he said.

“(And) a challenge to the validity of the new (bikie) legislation could proceed in the Supreme Court, and that’s where challenges to grants of bail will be heard. (I) cannot by any public comment risk compromising the perceptions of the way in which the court discharges its duty in those situations,” he said.

The Chief Justice is first among equals and is not inclined to tell his fellow jurists what they can and cannot say even if he could but, clearly, his measured comments were aimed at them – in effect, he was telling Queensland judicial officers to pull their heads in.

Without a doubt, most if not all magistrates and judges resent governments restricting their independence in sentencing by, for example, imposing minimum mandatory sentences on those convicted. The new bikie laws do exactly that and the Newman Government is in no mood to compromise. They know they are on a winner with the public.

Some judges cannot help themselves from making comments which are easily exploited by the government and others as showing they are woefully out of touch with public sentiment. Judicial officers – unless they commit some horrendous crime – have a job for life and retire at 70 with a vastly generous superannuation. Queensland governments have to face the voters every three years.

Last week when sentencing a paedophile, District Court Judge Milton Griffin said, “I want to make it absolutely clear in this case the sentence I impose is not a sentence affected by any consideration of what might be said the public of Queensland wants.”

And just in case people didn’t get the message loud and clear that judges know best, he added, “Judges won’t be affected by what the public of Queensland want and to do so would be contrary to the oath of office.” 

It wasn’t calculated in the slightest degree to dispel any notion that judges were living in ivory towers.

Meanwhile the second most senior Queensland judge, Court of Appeal President Justice Margaret McMurdo, has written to the Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie urging him not to interfere with judicial discretion.

This letter, which mysteriously found its way to The Courier Mail, was written on 31 July after the government flagged dumping court-ordered parole and suspended sentences but before the new sex offender and bikie laws were introduced. She wrote that, “The interests of justice and the community are best served by arming judicial officers with the widest possible range of options when sentencing offenders. That is the way judicial officers can ensure the punishment fits the crime.”   

Justice McMurdo thoughtfully attached to her letter a clipping from The Economist which highlighted that tougher sentences around the world were not reducing crime.

Bleijie’s tart response, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” was about as close as he could get without descending to obscenities when dismissing the concerns out of hand.

As this debate rages, the Acting Head of the powerful Crime and Misconduct Commission, Dr Ken Levy, got the legal fraternity, the Opposition and sundry other usual suspects into a lather by expressing his support for the government’s bikie laws.

Dr Levy, who was Director-General of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General during the ALP reign, faced a grilling from the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission over his statements which he strongly defended saying, “I certainly don’t accept that being in an independent role requires me to disagree with the government on every occasion or that I must remain silent.”  

Opposition Leader Anastacia Palaszczuk – a member of the Committee – said Dr Levy no longer had Labor’s confidence. The Committee chair, Independent MP Liz Cunningham, said she would not support a vote of no confidence in Dr Levy.

Divisions between the Police Union and the Police Commissioner – never far from the surface at the best of times – have also opened up over the bikie crackdown with President Ian Leavers appealing to the Police Minister Jack Dempsey to do more to protect officers from any bikie retaliation.

Leavers claimed that Commissioner Ian Stewart didn’t “have the will” to provide sufficient protection and that officers should be allowed to decide themselves if they could take home their guns to protect themselves and their families.

Stewart responded by saying that, “ … we have policies around this and we are happy to deal with any officer who feels the need to take their weapons home, particularly if it is around personal security.”  

With the Newman Government hoping that bikies would get long jail sentences under the new laws, Queensland’s already crowded jails will be an even tougher environment from next May when smoking is banned.

Prison guards’ union secretary Michael Thomas has warned, “This is just putting more fuel on the fire and we have real concerns there’s going to be a crisis.”

For your average bikie, not being able to light up will be a far more provoking penalty than wearing the suggested pink uniforms.




by William Puisne

England soccer manager, Roy Hodgson, had a PC poison dart shot at him for telling this joke;

After using only monkeys in space capsules, NASA decided to send a man into space with a monkey.
Following launch, the intercom crackled, “Monkey, fire the retros.”
A little later, “Monkey, check the solid fuel supply.”
Later still, “Monkey, check the life support systems.”
The astronaut is annoyed and testily radios NASA, “When do I get something to do?”
NASA replied, “Feed the monkey in half an hour.”

Raceophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, lesbophobic, fatophobic, transgenderophobic, youthophobic??
Come off the grass.

Nevertheless, a complaint was made. The remark was capable of offence. And he had to apologise – to the universe at large – saying he hadn’t intended any hurt.

Just one more success for the PC brigade.

Prosecuting people in the news in these mushrooming hurt feelings courts is great fun.

It wasn’t so bad when they blethered about being offended and there was no law about it. No court. No penalty. Just the ABC and Fairfax. But things are different now.

Al Gore, upped the ante recently when he said that anyone holding a view different to his on Climate Change was a racist. This meant that if one of Australia’s Offended Feelings Tribunals held that such a view was, in fact, “racist” then penalties would follow for disagreeing with Tim Flannery or Christine Milne.

Gore’s outburst is not unique.

In May just gone, the French Assembly legislated the word “race” and the word “racist” out of all French laws – to combat racism !! Blind Freddy predicted in his weekly address to the Futurologists Society that the French will later pass a bill outlawing the word “poverty” and everybody will then be rich. Same thing with “disease”.

Now, any remark or phrase does not have to be objectively offensive. It does not have to be offensive by any known standard. It only has to be offensive to someone who claims he/she was offended.

In Victoria, there is the case of Tess Corbett. Tess Corbett was Bob Katter’s candidate for Wannon. She runs a kindergarten and told a local reporter, “I don’t want gays, lesbians or paedophiles working in my kindergarten”.

When asked if she considered homosexuals to be in the same category as paedophiles, Ms Corbett replied “Yes”. “Paedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same way as gays and lesbians and get rights.”

Objectively, the additional remark was capable of being interpreted as a prediction that paedophiles will eventually be recognised by the law and society as homosexuals have been. And she doesn’t want any of them to work in her kindergarten.

But the fact that it can easily mean that was not enough for homosexual activist Gary Burns who took her to the institutions that deal with this sort of thing.

In 2009, the same Burns took action against Jeff Kennett, for making comments in 2008 which, like Corbett’s remarks, appeared to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. A conciliation hearing was held in NSW, with Kennett listening to Burns’ demand that he apologise publicly to the gay community and donate a sum of money to a homosexual organisation. Kennet told him to rack off and Burns dropped the charges.
He was luckier this time. His target was not the resourceful Jeff Kennett.

The decision of the Tribunal on Corbett was, “[A]ny pronouncement that ‘brackets’ . . . homosexual people with paedophiles is capable of . . . urging [people] to treat homosexuals as deserving to be hated or to be regarded with serious contempt.”

So it isn’t what she said, it isn’t what she intended, it is what her expression was capable of.

On that same principle, if one walks down a street with a gun in his pocket, he is capable of bank robbery. If he has a long bladed knife at home, he is capable of murder. If he is a man he is capable of rape. A citizen, simply because he has a tongue, is capable of saying that the tribunal’s deputy president Michael Chesterton has announced a decision that is as mad as a two bob watch, and that Gary Burns action in prosecuting Tess Corbett is that of a publicity seeker.

In short, it doesn’t matter in the end what one says, it is what the Thought Police and the Naughty Thoughts Court says words are capable of meaning, even if taken out of context.

There is a NSW Supreme Court Appeal Court decision involving a man in just such a position. He was tagged with a shottie and a balaclava in his car. Must have been intending to stick someone up… or something… said the police.

“Come off the grass,” said the Court.

Is this why all these ridiculous “Tribunals” exist? To avoid having to prove guilty intent?
And substitute some kind of Monkey Law?

PINK – Trademark of the macho


by Harley Jamieson

Pretty in pink – dealing with bikies in Queensland

In late September in the most public outbreak of bikie violence on Queensland’s Gold Coast, a violent brawl broke out in a Broadbeach restaurant. It was all caught on CCTV and broadcast later to an understandably apprehensive public.

It was the last straw for the Newman Government and they sprang into action. Previously bikie violence was very largely inter-gang warfare and, to be frank, nobody much cared if they assaulted and shot each other so long as they didn’t put members of the public at risk.

A flurry of announcements from the Government followed. A special police taskforce was set up to target the gangs and all sorts of hairy chested pronouncements made. Leading the charge was Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie who has become something of a poster boy for law and order.

He introduced the beautifully named Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) Bill and it was rushed through Parliament, Yes, young Jarrod is now a latter-day Vlad the Impaler – and like the first Vlad, Jarrod is determined to restore law and order.  

Under his legislation, twenty-six bikie gangs have been declared criminal organisations and their members are barred from their clubhouses, from gathering in groups of three or more, face the prospect of extra jail time on conviction of serious offences, are automatically refused bail and not allowed to work in tattoo parlours.

They should be grateful that they will not actually be impaled. We have come some little way since the 15th century fortunately. 

The Police Commissioner Ian Stewart chimed in telling coppers that they should quit if they didn’t want to be part of the bikie crackdown. “If people aren’t prepared to do that, to step up when the going gets tough, then they really do need to consider another career,” he said.

For that bit of advice, he got a backhander from the Police Union who said officers didn’t need that sort of lecture one bit. To be fair, Queensland Police have a long history of doing their political masters bidding and sinking the boot – both metaphorically and actually – when absolutely necessary to protect civilisation.

The Government’s moves attracted the predictable opposition – from the Labor Opposition which tried to be critical out of habit but didn’t want to go too far and appear as sissy whimps, from the Australian Motorcycle Council which has launched a “fighting fund” to stage court challenges and from lawyers.

The Queensland Law Society tut-tutted that the VLAD legislation “applies to a much broader section of the community, beyond bikie gangs.”

“The principles of the VLAD Bill are so broadly drawn they can apply to any association or business, or anyone out in public with three people or more,” said President Annette Bradfield.

It was the sort of legal purity statement that does the legal profession no public good at all – as if the coppers are going to raid and arrest the Baptist Ladies Knitting Guild for having in their possession needles which they openly share. 

As the Government’s campaign really hit its stride Attorney-General Bleijie bravely confirmed that he has his family had been threatened by bikies saying with a stiff upper lip, “There have been threats made. That’s as far as I am going.”

Then in came the Police and Community Safety Minister Jack Dempsey – himself a former copper.

He announced that he had asked the Corrective Services Department to investigate changing the colour of prison uniforms, possibly to fluoro pink.

“We will start with members and associates of criminal gangs and will look at rolling it out to other inmates over time,” he said.

He got full marks from Premier Newman himself who observed about bikies, “They are bullies – they like to wear scary-looking gear, leather jackets, they have the tattoos, they have the colours. We know that telling them to wear pink is going to be embarrassing for them.” 

We can all imagine, of course, some flabby middle-aged prison inmate who is doing time for fraud sneering at a bikie who is pretty in pink and saying something like, “What a sissy you are, you big girl’s blouse.”

From what I’ve seen of bikies, you could dress them in bras and suspender belts – the full drag in fact – and they would still look and be bloody frightening. And since the Government is planning to reopen Woodford Jail just for bikies, presumably they would be all in pink – so hardly much embarrassment.

Minister Dempsey has asked Corrective Services “to investigate the Arizona model to see if it would have any benefit in Queensland.”

The “Arizona model” is the brainchild of Sheriff Joe Arpaio who, reputedly, is America’s toughest sheriff. We know that because his own book is entitled “Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America’s Toughest Sheriff.” He has been elected five times since 1992 and, whatever else he is, he doesn’t suffer from any painful shyness.

It was he who introduced pink underwear for inmates of Maricopa County Jail and he followed that up with introducing pink handcuffs. His other innovative penal reforms include having prisoners live in canvas tents and work in 40 degree summer heat in chain gangs. And he is an equal opportunity law enforcer – women are treated the same way and it doesn’t faze him one bit that most of these inmates are actually still enjoying the presumption of innocence and are awaiting trial.

This intrepid officer’s service to law and order in the USA includes his investigation into President Obama’s birth certificate – and he is certain that it is a forgery. Gosh, I wish I could see the Briefing Paper Minister Dempsey gets from his Department.

And another really bright idea from the Sheriff for a cash-strapped Government – he now sells customised pink boxers emblazoned with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s logo and “Go Joe”.

Back in 1941, when German General Erwin Rommel had a largely Australian garrison surrounded in Tobruk, the British traitor dubbed Lord Haw Haw broadcast from Berlin that they were the “poor desert rats of Tobruk” 

The Aussies proudly claimed that for themselves and to this day the last survivors are still proud to call themselves the Rats of Tobruk. 

I suspect that any self-respecting bikies who didn’t get to wear pink, if that ever happens, would be the ones who were embarrassed – imagine the shame of knowing that the Government and prison authorities don’t think they are bad enough!

Applaud for Mia Freedman



B. P. Terpstra

In which I applaud Mia Freedman’s rape prevention post 

I applaud Mia Freedman for highlighting the links between drunkenness and sexual assault. Or as she put it, “I’ll tell her [my daughter] that getting drunk when she goes out puts her at a greater risk of danger. All kinds of danger. I’ll tell her that being drunk impairs your judgement, slows your reflexes and dramatically reduces your ability to asses risks and escape from harm.” 

In other words, prevention is a good thing. 

However, I’ll condemn the selfstyled feminists who associate warnings with victim blaming because being drunk makes one vulnerable.

In point of fact, it’s misleading to say that a tipsy woman is safer than a sober lady on the town because rapists (or wouldbe rapists) tend to prey on vulnerable people. This is just a reality. 

Here, in the real world, we know that partygoers don’t deserve to be raped. But we also understand that rapists don’t think like normal people. That’s why we call them monsters.

 I’d advise women to lock their doors at night too. Does that mean I’d blame them for being robbed if they ignored my advice? No. But, regardless, I’d keep on warning them. 

You see, monsters don’t care for feminist theories. They know that women who leave their doors open at night are easy prey. And, they’ve worked out that tipsy women are easier to violate. 

As a male, I understand that men are vulnerable too, which is why you won’t spot me mincing around in certain clothes at certain nightspots during certain times. It’s just too risky. 

So, of course, vigilant mothers have every right to warn their vulnerable daughters (or sons) about the fact that monsters don’t play by the rules, and will see flesh and drunkenness as sexual invitations. Why wouldn’t they?

As Freedman recognises, “theories can’t always withstand the conditions of real life. Which is why I believe it’s crucial to educate girls about the link between alcohol and sexual assault and warn them about the increased risk to their safety that comes with getting wasted.”

Indeed, politically correct feminists endanger women, when they underestimate the barbarity of rapists. To say that wolves don’t target vulnerable women is naive at best, or borderline insane, at worst. 

As for promiscuous parents who drop their tipsy daughters out at night wearing nexttonothing outfits? Well, there’s a reason monsters adore them so.

The William Bugmy Case


High Court's William Bugmy ruling 'a good call'

It is always sad when a person's self-worth diminishes into a life of criminal activity or poor mental health but it is somewhat reassuring that the High Court has set a precedent and disagrees with the Criminal Court in that suffering does not diminish in time. Suicide and self harm rates show that mental illnesses which manifest later in life stem from entrenched personal issues—or negative mental tapes. 

In the William Bugmy case before the High Court where lawyers for the defence argued that Mr Bugmy's cultural history should be considered in sentencing him for an assault on a Police Officer, such a conclusive defence was disregarded. The High Court did however agree to take into account Mr Bugmy's ill mental health in the decision making which, and like Mr Bellear ( said to the ABC's Drum blog, the outcome is nothing new in determining sentences as many courts will consider mental illness, however to have the precedent set by a High Court judge means that in all courts the mental health and background of a person should be considered in the present. In respectful contrast to Mr Bellear I believe that this aspect of the case's outcome should indeed be celebrated.

The High Court didn't factor in ancestral, historical or heritage related suffering and rightly so in my view (and yet again in respectful difference to Mr Bellear), while an injustice anywhere is an injustice to everybody everywhere, the right way to go about addressing current or prior injustices to a people is to fight for a better future. Lapsing into criminal behaviour may stem from mental illness but it grows from personal circumstances; heading down a road of crime on behalf of the struggles of our people is not respecting our people and it should never be used as a defence for criminal grievous behaviour. 

Behaviours stemming from poor mental health have a personal catalyst not a cultural one (as in the Bugmy case), behaviours of activism and civil disobedience is a different matter and should be (depending on their severity) able to be defended in a cultural context. Just because you're a First Australian does not mean all your negative actions are defensible by your cultural history. In short, if one's personal background is one of Stolen Generation, forced adoption or missionary abuse and personally directed cultural denigration by the State or Church, then in that sense the "greater" cultural struggle should be relevant in one's sentencing. On the other hand, if one's background is simply of low socio-economic, perhaps a home of substance abuse and misuse, low quality of life due to lack of mainstream education and employment opportunities—as is now the contemporary circumstance by and large, then simply being of Aboriginal heritage should not excuse you over someone of another ethnic background but has similar life circumstances.

Our first priority is to be accountable for our own actions and further to support the healing of those who suffer from poor mental health. I hope that combination of sentiments is what people take away from the High Court's ruling in this case.

Jack Andrew Wilkie-Jans 

A&TSI Affairs Advocate

Really Not Part Of The Plan


Sustainable Development?

by Allan Essery. Part 2

Resulting from an enormous volume of evidence gathered by a small army of those suspicious of the intent of the Club of Rome and the United Nations it becomes very clear that there was and currently is a plan to undertake the greatest act of socialist treason ever visited upon mankind.

AGW hysteria was created as means of the UN achieving its intended goal and it was said, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.''  They went on to say, ''It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose.”

In introducing the latest buzz word ''Future Earth'' the UN and its agencies have a global plan to:

• Research and develop methods to control food, water, energy.  

• Utilise technology, sciences and economics fraudulently to create an illusion.

Pressure governments and law makers to support their efforts.

• Manifest agendas with academics and corporations  to appropriate  funds and control production.

Control under-developed nations by forcing ''sustainable'' technologies.

The success or failure of UN intentions to impose upon mankind total control of every aspect of human life is reliant upon the specific so-called ''sustainability'' orientated education of children from very young ages and the reeducation of adults – the dumbing down of mankind.  In this endeavour the UN Agenda 21, and Common Core, exponents are prepared to use all methods available to them to get their message over and bring about the early education of children and the reprogramming of mankind.

One father in the US was alarmed to learn what his 5 year old daughter was being taught by her public school.  ''Daddy . . ., today we learned that driving cars is making the ice caps to melt and all the polar bears die.'

It is worth noting that our former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is taking up a post with a US group-think institute to work on methods of  ''Global Education''.  There should be concern that people like Gillard are prepared to move Australia in the direction of ''one-size-fits-all'' approach to child education.

That madness extends far beyond the classrooms of your local school and even politicians, especially those of the socialist persuasion, are willingly jumping on the UN Agenda 21 band wagon, but they are not telling you.

The UN programme says, ''Countries and the United Nations system should promote a cooperative relationship with the media, popular theatre groups, and entertainment and advertising industries by initiating discussions to mobilize their experience in shaping public behaviour and consumption patterns . . .''

In the US a congresswoman, Barbara Lee, and friends are pushing a resolution that calls on Congress to, '' . . . recognize that climate change will hurt the plight of women more than men; driving women into “transactional sex” for survival — among other horrible fates.''  

It won't take long for Emily's List and such feminist groups to pick up on this foolishness and it is alarming to think that should you debunk climate change, Agenda 21 or Common Core you stand a good chance of being accused of being part of a movement that forces women into prostitution!

Throughout the past 21 years the various governments Federal and State have failed to be up front with the Australian people.  Agenda 21 has purposely not been mentioned and the Australian people certainly have not had a chance to learn of its full intentions nor have they had a chance to vote for or against.

On the other hand gullible politicians have been bewitched by the promises of globalisation.  Alexander Downer once tried to send the Australian people on a guilt trip by suggesting that politics is no longer about left and right but about globalisation (World Government).  He inferred that if you are an opponent of globalisation then you're a globaphobe and hate your country. ''The triumph of globaphobia would be a death note for Australia.'' Downer claimed.

Globaphobia means that Australia and its people come first, but according to Downer and those that think like him, Australia and Australians should come last and the globe first.  It appears that Downer and like minds believe that there is no longer any place for democracy and we should all become drones of the United Nation's ''World Government'' and its agents.  I believe that is bordering on treason.

Sustainable development not part of their plan


by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.

Agenda 31: First, castrate all the Conservatives

New MH2

Hatched in the social laboratories and classrooms of our tax-funded learning institutions comes the new Politically Correct, Agenda 31—the neutering of common sense.

The fungoid do-gooders have re-branded as Correctionalists and their mission is to neuter the minds of sane people—social conformity. Last week the Labor inspired Agenda 31 had its trial run.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott attributed the Coalition candidate Fiona Scott with “feistiness” and “sex appeal.” Although the nation is poised to decide what may be the most important federal election in a generation, the Correctioalist choristers crowed in high “C”, “Henny Penny the sky is falling.”

Leading that barnyard charge of cloned battery birds was a brain-dead editor at Fairfax who herded writers like Jonathan Swan and Judith Ireland like Christmas chooks to the chopping block. With fingers removed from their readership pulse it’s no wonder Fairfax newspapers are failing with corporate shares at a shameful 55 cents. People have wearied of uniform bias pushed by boring, socialist dunderheads.

Apart from dole bludgers, Centrelink fraudsters and other social dross who believe the taxpayer owes them a living, the halcyon days of correctionalists’ are numbered. With a change of government likely, perhaps we can dispose of the pests that lead us into this cul-de-sac of gormless souls where uniformity is rewarded and enterprise is sabotaged.

Abbott’s remark set a politically desperate prime minister to suggest court action. It was not the foul retort, “get f****d”. The Correctionalists chose to pervert the incident and batter the notion of natural logic from the brains of those who refuse to be controlled by leftist morons pushing long failed Marxist doctrine.

If “Sex appeal” were to become a social sin what do you suppose would happen? What would become of the kindly compliment, words of praise, and acknowledgement of the obvious? Is that what the correctionalists would outlaw?

Here lies another tenet of social control, further nonsense that seeks to ignore how the world functions. Expression, like love, and freedom to choose has always been the subject of personal approval, that’s what makes us different and interesting.

Fairfax Media may have taken a bit of flack from their advertisers who might view an attack upon Tony Abbott as bad for business in a climate of tough times. And why is that you might ask? Well, billions of dollars are spent every day in every country on earth for goods that ameliorate in one way or another that dreadful “sex appeal.”

High heel shoes, designed to make ladies lower legs look sexy. Jeans to show off a bare belly and curvy bottom. Gowns, blouses, and tight jackets accentuate a bust not to mention cleavage. Hairstyles, perfumes, makeup, soaps, and even fake suntans are used for sex appeal. And so it goes.

Then you have the merchants of quality wines, gourmet foods and fine dining, all of which are enjoyed in pursuit of sexually appealing moments—as a rule. The truth is, just about every person on earth appreciates being told they are attractive regardless of gender and sexual proclivity. 

So why would Fairfax run with a story so silly? Perhaps the editor responsible was blinded by dislike of Tony Abbott? Maybe unanimous applause was expected by again exposing the misogynist Abbott? Well, it backfired. Only the Correctionalists cheered the side.

As the election nears, supporters of the left are panicking. Rudd the saviour is not delivering as hoped. Voters are now smarter having been swindled for six years watching policy after policy bite the dust. They are aware of accumulated massive debt. They remember the promises not kept, and many lies told. Labor has created a gun-shy electorate that craves honesty in politics.

Before that happens, however, we must suffer mud slinging and personal insults that cause cringe. Australian voters like never before stand upon the cusp of changing the behaviour of those who seek to govern us. September 7 presents opportunity for us to get even with those who have betrayed our trust.

Even some of the Henny-Pennys in the many leftwing barnyards might see a bright blue firmament, rather than a falling grey sky. It matters little whether they do or not because a Coalition victory will humiliate the Correctionalists dream of an Agenda 31.

Socialism is pie-in-the-sky ideology never worked and never will while individuality prevails. And thus, the Correctionalists will have neutered themselves.

To my furtive imagination that prospect is appealing—a kind of sex appeal. Not for some I suppose – Is it?