The 100 Days of Bill Shorten, PM

Comedy…or reality…gold?

Michael Copeman lets you decide.

Australians opt for the shorter of two options on July 2. What follows brings delight in industrial quantities to wind-turbine operators, gay-studies faculties and a Cecil B. deMille cast of rent-seekers, revenuers, republicans, grievance mongers and social engineers

With just a 4% two-party-preferred swing on 2nd July, William Richard Shorten could become the 30th prime minister of Australia. Let us pause to imagine what the first 100 days of his ALP Government might bring. Remember, what follows is only imaginary — for now.

Ten days in, with the last marginal seat finally declared, the new Parliament is convened urgently to pass a Bill for Marriage Equality. Two ALP Members threaten to resign rather than vote for the bill, but are persuaded not to bring down the Shorten Government, and decide to abstain instead. The bill passes and is celebrated by an impromptu Mardi Gras parade the following weekend. The PM is enthroned on the first float — a hero to the ecstatic 1 million-strong crowd, lining the full length of Sydney’s famous Oxford Street. Several churches indicate they will now be referring all couples to non-religious wedding celebrants, thus avoiding entrapment by gay provocateurs pounding on their doors and demanding to be united in accordance with the law’s dictates.

The new PM also foreshadows that there will be a referendum (not a plebiscite) to make Australia a republic, via the “minimal” change of making the Governor-General the President, in late 2016. If passed, it is planned to swear in Australia’s first President on 26th January, 2017, “Invasion” Day, thereby disavowing the shame of British colonisation and genocide.

Two weeks in, new Treasurer Chris Bowen reveals that the state of the government’s books is much worse than what was forecast in Scott Morrison’s budget of May 3. In a joint press conference, Bowen and Shorten outline their plan for new taxes to balance the budget within three years. Shorten renews his promise that no government spending will be cut in the process.

The discount on taxation of capital gains from longer-term investments is to be scrapped, and from 2018 the family home will be subject to the capital-gains tax. Bowen says the discount and family-home exemption allowed the rich to get richer. The change is projected to raise $2 billion a year.

Federal death duties are also brought in, confiscating 40% of estates over $1 million. Shorten points out that this is similar to the inheritance tax in the UK, under a Conservative government. He notes that the tax will “level the playing field”, previously tipped in favour of wealthy Australians who often inherit untaxed property worth millions. This change is projected to raise $1 billion a year initially, assuming house prices don’t drop markedly as a result of sudden divestments by older people. The following Saturday, record low auction clearances are reported for homes in all Australia’s major cities except Hobart.

Because 2015 was officially the hottest year on record, Shorten says his government has decided to act urgently to reintroduce a Carbon Tax at $25/tonne. This is projected to raise $7billion a year, with $2 billion will be paid back in subsidies to ensure that poorer Australians are not disadvantaged. The measure is aimed to rapidly reduce Australia’s still-high CO2 output per capita. As a result, airfares rise by 10-15%, but this won’t affect politicians or public servants’ travel.

The Medicare levy — which has only ever covered part of Australia’s growing health expenditure — is to be doubled from 2% to 4% for taxpayers earning over $50,000. This will raise $5 billion, which will be spent on health — the majority going to the states to keep their public hospital systems running.

Finally, Federal Government funding to private schools charging fees of more than $5,000 a year is to be discontinued. It is estimated that $2 billion per year will be saved, the promise being that it will be ploughed back into education. Champagne corks pop in gender-, womyns- and gay-studies faculties across the country, where Safe Schools 2.0 lesson plans materialise overnight.

The ASX 200 plunges 10% in its first day of full trading after all this news, with resources and energy stocks plunging up to 50%. But shares in renewable energy companies soar an average of 150% as rent-seekers dust off schemes for wave generators, solar farms, “promising” battery technologies and a wind turbine on every hill. Unfortunately, almost all will be imported. On cold, clear but windless nights around Southern Australia, power costs will soar as high-cost gas-burning plants come on line to make up the missing energy.

Coal companies announce plans to phase out their Australia operations. All steel mills, aluminium and nickel refineries in Australia are to close within two years. The price of standard unleaded petrol at the bowser begins to rise, widely expected to hit $2 a litre within six months.

Fortunately for some Australian oil and LNG producers, a re-drawn treaty with East Timor has moved the huge Sunrise seabed field into East Timorese territory, exempt from Australia’s carbon tax. The producers and the East Timorese are both very grateful.

The next week, Australia’s first indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney — newly elected in the redrawn Sydney seat of Barton — announces that she is working on a treaty to be signed on behalf the government of Australia and all Australians with indigenous blood. She envisages that the Treaty will include reparations – probably in the order of $10 billion (given the $3 billion projected total cost of the Maori reparation program in New Zealand). More significantly, the treaty will re-create individual indigenous territories across Australia, each to have their own law-making parliament, elected exclusively by Australians with indigenous blood from that region.

Ms Burney indicates that it could be important for completion of Australia’s reconciliation process if the Aboriginal flag were also to be chosen as the new Australian flag. Another plebiscite on the flag (to be held along with the Republic referendum) is announced for late 2016.

Deputy PM and Minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, unveils a landmark Equality at Work Bill, which will require that at least 50% of the employees at all levels of any organisation be women, and that the take-home pay of female employees, averaged across all employees in all departments and jobs, be no lower than that of males. Companies that fail to meet these targets within five years will be subject to higher corporate taxes.

Two weeks later, the new Australian Union Powers Bill is unveiled by the PM himself. This Bill gives union organisers rights to enter any workplace in Australia, to inspect which workers are there (and check their Union membership), and review corporate employment and pay documents. Where Union organisers find any discrepancies, the company’s executives may be ordered to a compulsory meeting, chaired by a Fair Work Australia official with “relevant” union experience. The ASX slumps another 10%.

Richard Marles, Minister for Immigration, announces that all detention centres are to be closed, and Australia will provide reception centres in Indonesian ports for asylum-seekers considering taking sea voyages to Australia. To satisfy the ALP’s left factions, and the crucial Green Senators, all would-be immigrants will be flown to Australia on chartered commercial flights and housed “in the community”. Coincidentally, much of this housing is in marginal seats, with cynics noting that the influx of new arrivals can mostly be expected to vote Labor. Airline shares – which fell 50% after the carbon tax announcement – now rise 100% on this news.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Health, Catherine King, announces plans to re-nationalise Medibank Private, and compulsorily take over all other private health insurers. She notes that Australia’s Medicare system is the envy of countries round the world, and that the Government is determined to see all Australians participate in Medicare, rather than a divisive two-tier public/private system.

Within a fortnight, a million Australians drop their private health insurance. Struggling private hospital operators call for urgent talks regarding buy-back of their facilities by the Government. Government spokesmen note that private hospitals were the domains of “the rich” and the move is intended to promote “fairness”.

During a quick trip to the United Nations HQ in New York, Bill Shorten announces that Australia will be backing his former boss, Kevin Rudd’s candidacy for UN Secretary-General. Only this way, Shorten states, can Australia’s reputation as a decent, progressive and fair-minded country be restored. Kevin promises to come and visit Australia within six months of his election as Secretary-General.

In London, the PM and his wife dine with Her Majesty and HRH Sir Philip at Buckingham Palace, and assure them that Australians will always have a soft spot in their hearts for the Monarchy, even after the likely passing of the referendum to create the minimalist model Australian Republic shortly. Bill and Chloe tweet a selfie from the Queen’s private dining room at the Palace to their many followers. The Duke of Edinburgh is heard to mutter something characteristically colourful about the noxious nature of short people

Over the next three weeks, Bill and Chloe visit and meet with national leaders in Washington, Berlin, New Delhi, Beijing and Jakarta. President Obama notes that Bill Shorten reminds him a lot of himself just eight years ago. Hillary Clinton is too busy fending off investigations looking into her use of a private email server but sends him a best-wishes message.

The PM finally arrives back in Melbourne just 98 days after election. Working late in his office on the 99th night of his prime ministership, he hears a knock on his door. Deputy PM Plibersek enters with some bad news. As Shorten remembers it later, the words of another ousted Labor PM came back to him and he recalls that, as Julia Gillard once did, she walked in ‘ice cold, ice cold’.

The next day, Australia had yet another new Prime Minister.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/imaginary-first-hundred-days-shorten-government/

“Safe Sex” Is Only Found In The Context Of Marriage, Anthing Else Is A Cheap Knockoff

When people talk about “safe sex”, they mostly mean “sex that allows me to avoid any responsibilities that are too taxing for my self-absorbed, convenience-centred life.”

Funny how that kind of “safe sex” often doesn’t make for the safest environment for children or for anyone else really.

Here’s the wisdom on saving sex for marriage, or what I like to call “authentic safe sex”:

God only permits sex inside marriage. But why? Western culture largely doesn’t see a problem with premarital sex anymore. And if the couple consent, what’s the problem? J.B. from the U.S. writes:

I have been asked something that had me quite stumped. Someone was questioning why God does not allow people to have sex outside of marriage, claiming there is no good reason. I am not talking about homosexuality or anything like that, but like a man and woman having sex when they are not married. I saw one article that briefly touches around the subject, but my question is how should I answer this to an atheist?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

God forbids sex outside of marriage because outside of marriage there’s no public agreement in place stipulating that each party of the sexual relationship must care for one another and any children that might come from the sexual union. Sexual desire is an incredibly potent force, and sexual activity has massive implications—procreation being the most obvious (Genesis 1:28), but it also binds a man and woman together in a way that nothing else can (Genesis 2:24–25)—the two texts Jesus himself explained marriage from: Christ the Creationist. By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that we must publically acknowledge that we have a duty of care to our sexual partner before we get to have sex. Think about it; marriage constitutes a public agreement to care for any potential children from a sexual union, so it provides a level of accountability to parents for looking after their own children. Marriage thus provides a first line of defense against child abuse and neglect (Raising godly children). If sex is OK outside of marriage, nor do we have a publically acknowledged duty of care to the person we have sex with. As such, marriage is a first line of defense against sexual abuse.

By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that you must publically acknowledge that you have a duty of care to your sexual partner before you get to have sex.

Of course, we all know that child abuse and sexual abuse can occur within marriages. But this doesn’t happen because marriage itself is faulty; it happens because humans are slaves to sin (Ephesians 2:1–3). Is the idea of a car stupid just because my car is a lemon? Of course not! But if sex is OK outside of marriage, then sex and children happen outside of contexts where people have voluntarily acknowledged their duty of care to their sexual partner and their children. Does circumventing that public accountability bode well for lessening sexual abuse and child abuse? Of course not! And so it’s no surprise to learn that child abuse and sexual abuse (of both children and adults) are proportionately more common outside of marriage than within it.

But, people in our society today think sex outside of marriage is OK because we have decoupled sex from a duty of care for our sexual partner. Sex is now a game people play, not an expression of love people share. But if sex is a game people play, then why shouldn’t they be able to make money from playing it? After all, baseball, football, and basketball players make obscene amounts of money just for playing a game, and sex is in many ways more entertaining than any of those, so why can’t people make money from ‘playing’ sex? And if sex is a game, why can’t we change the rules as we feel like, and legitimize all sorts of sexual expressions? And if sex is a game, what’s the point of marriage? Why not redefine marriage to reflect socially acceptable sexual proclivities? And what do we see in the Western world? Homosexuality is now just a ‘sexual preference’, prostitution is legal in many places, and same-sex marriage is sweeping the Western world.

The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated.

But notice in all this how children, as products of sexual unions, have been forgotten. Why? Western culture has (largely) managed to decouple sex from procreation. The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated; it puts an enormous responsibility on those engaging in sexual activity. But of course, the general availability of birth control has largely taken the fear of pregnancy away, so it makes it easy to treat sex like a game.

But even without the threat of pregnancy, promiscuity still has a major consequence—STDs (see Does it matter? for more information). STDs are clearly more prevalent in promiscuous societies. As such, even STDs are a reason to limit oneself to only one sexual partner at most, since then most STDs wouldn’t have a means of being transmitted. And health risks are included in any acknowledged duty of care to a sexual partner and children, so marriage again provides a means of curtailing STDs by binding a person to one sexual partner.

“But sex can still be an expression of love outside of marriage, right?” No. It can be an expression of infatuation, or romance, but not love in the biblical sense of actively putting another’s needs above oneself. “Oh, but I’m a generous lover!” In bed, maybe, but what about the rest of the day? The duty of care God says sex binds us to is not simply our partner’s sexual needs, but all their needs. Food, clothing, shelter, emotional well-being, spiritual well-being—all of it. When we view sex as an expression of that sort of love, then it’s plain that anything less than sex inside marriage cheapens the value of sex. If we are not willing to be so bound to someone that all their needs are largely dependent on us, then we shouldn’t be having sex. And if we are so willing, then we should make the public profession to such willingness (with our partner, of course; it takes two to marry!) before having sex so that everyone else can hold us accountable. For more information, please see Family/Marriage questions and answers.

http://creation.com/premarital-sex

Who Will Be Prosecuted: The Disastrous Impact Of Homosexual Marriage On Freedom

The Australian Family Association have put together an excellent document that cuts through the doublespeak and political spin on redefining marriage to tell us exactly what is going on and how many of us will have to pay the price for it.

You can read the document here.

In times like these when human laws fail us, we are reminded that Jesus Christ alone is our hope.
http://www.family.org.au/marriage/Who_Will_Be_Prosecuted.pdf

Support Homosexuality Today, Criminalize Christianity Tomorrow

If you doubt that this is goal, you might need to check up on the court rulings that have already forced Christians to pay massive fines because they don’t want to partake in redefined “marriage”.

At this rate, Christians will soon have to endure yet another season of persecution. Matt Barber’s recent article lays out this successful and near complete plan to shove Christianity into the closet:

It’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess, but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.

While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges, confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: (1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, (2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and (3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.

The destruction of marriage

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to “marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.

Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy

Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s opinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.

“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Judge Bunning wrote, “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.

Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefell dissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”

The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity, she would be violating her constitutional oath.

The criminalization of Christianity

To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of court and thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”

Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”

The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.

And if they refuse?

Then they go to jail.

That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”

Welcome to America 2015, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

The early Christians were outcasts because they refused to worship the pantheon of false gods and scripture is clear that there is nothing new under the sun. 

Since Christians were the first “atheists” who would not worship the many false Gods of Rome, I’m taking back the title with regard to the contemporary false gods of homosexuality and tolerance of evil.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/24533/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose/

Ashley Madison & The Cost Of Adultery

The threat against Ashley Madison became a bitter reality recently with the release of millions of names and emails by hackers, revealing the identities of people who used this supposedly anonymous adultery service.

It’s a sad and sorry state of affairs – quite literally – and it’s one more sign of the impending implosion of our culture. Frankly, it’s well earned one:

LONDON (AP) — Hackers say they have exposed unfaithful partners across the world, posting what they said were the personal details of millions of people registered with cheating website Ashley Madison.

A message posted by the hackers alongside their massive trove accused Ashley Madison’s owners of deceit and incompetence and said the company had refused to bow to their demands to close the site.

“Now everyone gets to see their data,” the statement said.

Ashley Madison has long courted attention with its claim to be the Internet’s leading facilitator of extramarital liaisons, boasting of having nearly 39 million members and that “thousands of cheating wives and cheating husbands sign up every day looking for an affair.”

(AP) A Tuesday, April 1, 2014 file photo of Noel Biderman, chief executive of Avid…

Its owner, Toronto-based Avid Life Media Inc., has previously acknowledged suffering an electronic break-in and said in a statement Tuesday it was investigating the hackers’ claim. U.S. and Canadian law enforcement are involved in the probe, the company said.

The Associated Press wasn’t immediately able to determine the authenticity of the leaked files, although many analysts who have scanned the data believe it is genuine.

TrustedSec Chief Executive Dave Kennedy said the information dump included full names, passwords, street addresses, credit card information and “an extensive amount of internal data.” In a separate blog, Errata Security Chief Executive Rob Graham said the information released included details such as users’ height, weight and GPS coordinates. He said men outnumbered women on the service five-to-one.

Avid Life Media declined to comment Wednesday beyond its statement. The hackers also didn’t immediately return emails.

The prospect of millions of adulterous partners being publicly shamed drew widespread attention but the sheer size of the database — and the technical savvy needed to navigate it — means it’s unlikely to lead to an immediate rush to divorce courts.

“Unless this Ashley Madison information becomes very easily accessible and searchable, I think it is unlikely that anyone but the most paranoid or suspecting spouses will bother to seek out this information,” New York divorce attorney Michael DiFalco said in an email. “There are much simpler ways to confirm their suspicions.”

Although Graham and others said many of the Ashley Madison profiles appeared to be bogus, it’s clear the leak was huge. Troy Hunt, who runs a website that warns people when their private information is exposed online, said nearly 5,000 users had received alerts stemming from the breach.

Although many may have signed up out of curiosity and some have little more to fear than embarrassment, the consequences for others could reverberate beyond their marriages. The French leak monitoring firm CybelAngel said it counted 1,200 email addresses in the data dump with the .sa suffix, suggesting users were connected to Saudi Arabia, where adultery is punishable by death.

CybelAngel also said it counted some 15,000 .gov or .mil addresses in the dump, suggesting that American soldiers, sailors and government employees had opened themselves up to possible blackmail. Using a government email to register for an adultery website may seem foolish, but CybelAngel Vice President of Operations Damien Damuseau said there was a certain logic to it. Using a professional address, he said, keeps the messages out of personal accounts “where their partner might see them.”

“It’s not that dumb,” Damuseau said.

How many of the people registered with Ashley Madison actually used the site to seek sex outside their marriage is an unresolved question. But whatever the final number, the breach is still a humbling moment for Ashley Madison, which had made discretion a key selling point. In a television interview last year, Chief Executive Noel Biderman described the company’s servers as “kind of untouchable.”

The hackers’ motives aren’t entirely clear, although they have accused Ashley Madison of creating fake female profiles and of keeping users’ information on file even after they paid to have it deleted. In its statement, Avid Life Media accused the hackers of seeking to impose “a personal notion of virtue on all of society.”

Graham, the security expert, had a simpler theory.

“In all probability, their motivation is that #1 it’s fun, and #2 because they can,” he wrote.

Certainly, there are some very serious consequences on the menu now.

There really isn’t a whole lot more to say about this other than it’s worth thinking of these events as a peek at the end of the age, where all our secret actions and thoughts will be unveiled.

It’s a warning we should all need with sobriety.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150820/cheating_website-7a9e6e2c3e.html

Cursing, Lying And Intollerance: When The Left Doesn’t Get Their Way

The homosexual lobbyists know that they are close to forcing their agenda on everyone but a few small thin are holding them back.

That’s why they are getting really angry and cursing and lying about how marriage should be redefined.

They know that a national vote stands a good chance of denying them for a long time and that’s why the ABC is putting their curses in the headlines, tantrum-style.

Apparently not everyone is bent on destroying the institution of marriage after all, despite the left’s attempts to lie to us otherwise.

So at least we can see the internal bitterness, resentment, Intollerance, and outright deceit pouring out of them as they fail to get exactly what they want – much like small, aggressive  and undisciplined children. 

These are, in my experience, constant qualities of the left and perfectly compatible with their values of murdering children, promoting sexual immorality, and destroying things of beauty in the West and even the world.

Here’s the story:

Labor senator Sam Dastyari has described the Government’s moves to hold a public vote on same-sex marriage after the next election as “bullshit”.

After a prolonged debate in the Coalition party room this week, a clear majority of Government MPs and senators voted to maintain the party’s position against legalising same-sex marriage.

The Prime Minister has suggested a public vote in the next term of parliament, but has not specified whether he favours a referendum or plebiscite.

If successful, the referendum option, which is backed by cabinet minister Scott Morrison, would lead to constitutional change.

“The type of issue that could be canvassed under Section 51 of the constitution — simply at the moment, in Clause 21, it just says ‘marriage’,” Mr Morrison said.

“You could equally put in there ‘opposite- and ‘same-sex marriage’ and clarify very clearly what the meaning of the constitution is on this question, and to reflect [what] some would argue has been a societal change since the constitution was first written.”

But Labor argues that given the difficulty of getting the double majority of state and national support required for constitutional change, the proposal is designed to fail.

Some conservatives and Christian groups that are opposed to gay marriage believe a failed referendum could push the issue off the national agenda for many years.

A plebiscite needs to reach a lower bar, only requiring national support, but the Government would not be not compelled to act on the result.

Speaking to reporters outside Parliament House this morning, Senator Dastyari said the Government’s push for a public vote is designed to stop gay marriage being legalised.

“What we’ve seen happen on the issue of marriage equality in the past couple of days is disgraceful,” Senator Dastyari said.

“It’s a rort, it’s a joke, it’s a false premise and frankly we need to call it for what it is and that is bullshit.

“The Australian public have had their say, they want these laws passed, we can pass them now, frankly we should be passing them now.”

Government MP Warren Entsch has been given approval for a private members bill to legalise gay marriage, but he has acknowledged the outcome of the party room vote this week suggests there would not be enough support in the Lower House even if Coalition MPs had a conscience vote.

Two Coalition backbenchers, WA senator Dean Smith and Queensland MP Wyatt Roy have confirmed they are prepared to cross the floor on the issue.

So Christians, vote Labor back in at our own peril.

Pray for our government because priorities are way out of whack.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/labor-senator-sam-dastyari-calls-22bull22-on-coalition-app/6693958

Tony Abbott Is The Prime Minister We Need: Keeps Election Promise, Judgment Is Excellent

As per the leftist playbook, they are slinging mud and ad hominems at Tony Abbott because he did not bow to their pressure and instead stayed true to the election promise that he made about refusing to redefine marriage for a tiny minority who largely have no interest in marriage as we know it.

Abbott is exactly the kind of man we need at this hour and the leftists hate it, hence the attacks on his “judgment” and character.

It’s funny how they love throwing his broken election promises at him – the ABC keeps a permanent record of it on display – but on redefining marriage, they want Abbott to break his promise to the public:

 Conscience vote on gay marriage defeated

The Coalition’s marathon same-sex marriage debate ended in a short-term fix which has reignited internal doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership.

Two thirds of the joint party room supported traditional marriage and binding MPs and senators to the status quo.

But the Prime Minister said in a late-night press conference this was the last term in which his party could be bound, although the policy it would take to the next election was yet to be settled.

“Our position going into the next election should be that in a subsequent term of Parliament this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people,” Mr Abbott said.

It is yet to be decided whether the popular vote will be a plebiscite, where a question can be carried by a simple majority, or a referendum-style vote which would set the far higher bar of needing to be carried by a majority of people in a majority of states.

In the eyes of those in the party who support change, that position resolves nothing.

Even supporters of traditional marriage said the Prime Minister’s handling of the day’s events was “messy” with one senior Liberal describing it as “madness”.

“I have never seen anything as mad as this,” the senior Liberal said.

“They were literally making it up as they went along.”

Ministers, MPs and senators told the ABC the ramshackle same-sex marriage debate and the slow dispatch of former speaker Bronwyn Bishop have rekindled the same doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership that led to a party room revolt six months ago.

The debate began in the Liberal Party room at 9:00am yesterday, when the PM blindsided moderates by saying the issue would be decided by a joint party room vote, which includes 21 National Party MPs and senators.

In an impassioned speech, Education Minister Christopher Pyne argued that was tantamount to “branch stacking”, given the overwhelming majority of Nationals are opposed to change.

Ministers who don’t like party position should resign: Abetz

Some conservative MPs told the ABC they had decided to bring the matter to a head and that they had enlisted the Prime Minister’s support to do it.

They said party moderates should not have been surprised because they had been calling for a vote for months.

While a clear majority of the backbench supported the status quo, half of the ministry argued for a free vote, prompting Senate leader Eric Abetz to say any minister who did not like the party’s position should resign.

That sparked a caustic response from Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

“One thing I did learn as leader is that it’s probably best to keep the team together,” Mr Turnbull said.

“We are eight points behind in Newspoll, 14 points behind in Morgan. Are you seriously saying that having ministers resign would be good for us?”

It is understood Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg quoted the party’s founder Robert Menzies in a passionate speech supporting a free vote, and senator Arthur Sinodinos told colleagues he could not look a gay person in the eye and “tell them they’re the son of a lesser god”.

One Coalition backbencher said “the final count was 66-33 to keep the status quo”.

I’m feeling very disappointed and … I fervently wish the vote had gone the other way.

“This was more like 75 per cent until the executive spoke up,” he said.

“It proves the disconnect between some ministers and the grassroots and why we are having such poll problems.”

Other frontbenchers expressed their surprise that the vote had been called without warning and without being discussed by either the leadership group or the cabinet.

Deputy Liberal leader and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said: “I thought we were supposed to be talking about climate change today”.

Treasurer Joe Hockey was the first member of the executive to propose a referendum in the next term, which was supported by the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister.

Conscience vote debate will be revisited: Laming

LNP MP Warren Entsch said his same-sex marriage bill would be introduced to Parliament on Monday, but accepted it would not pass if put to a vote.

“I can confirm that the Bill will be introduced on Monday morning when I intend to highlight some of the very personal and heartfelt stories that have led me to take this path,” he said.

“I have to concede however that given today’s decision, the likelihood of failure, should it come to a vote, is assured.”

Mr Entsch also said he was not “angry” about the outcome from the six-hour meeting.

“While I’m disappointed with the outcome, I am not angry and I accept the decision of the party room.”

Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.

Liberal councillor and Mr Abbott’s sister Christine Forster, who is engaged to a woman, said she was very disappointed with the result of the party room meeting.

“I’m feeling very disappointed and … I fervently wish the vote had gone the other way,” she told Lateline.

“For me it goes to core Liberal principles [by] which we are all equal before the law.”

Queensland LNP MP Andrew Laming said he argued strongly for a conscience vote.

“There is a very strong and emerging current for this to be revisited but it won’t be happening in this election term,” he said.

Fellow Queenslander George Christensen was pleased with the result.

“I’m very happy with where we’ve landed on this,” he said.

“It was robust in some respects, but also very healthy and everyone was very respectful.”

A Coalition MP said: “[The outcome of the meeting] proves the disconnect between some ministers and the grassroots and why we are having such problems.”

Abbott said it best here:

…this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people…

Redefining the historic definition of marriage, something that will affect all of society, should not be made by politicians behind closed doors.

And really, a nation can redefine marriage all it wants but you can’t actually change what marriage is any more than you can make a dog human by calling it “human”.

So this is a momentary victory for truth and it backs Tony Abbott as sincere, something the left prove consistently to not be as they try to find legal loopholes to change an age-old institution on the whim of the tiny minority that is the LGBT lobby.

Interestingly, there are roughly the same number of Muslims in Australia as there are homosexuals so I wonder why they wouldn’t include polygamy, an acceptable practise in Islam according to Islam’s founder Muhammad, in their attempts to destroy our society. Perhaps time is all they need?

“The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” ‭Genesis‬ ‭2:20-24‬ ‭ESV‬‬


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/same-sex-marriage-ministers-doubt-pms-judgement/6690104

7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage

Ryan T. Anderson’s article makes the case yet again:

Is opposition to same-sex marriage at all like opposition to interracial marriage?

One refrain in debates over marriage policy is that laws defining marriage as the union of male and female are today’s equivalent of bans on interracial marriage. Some further argue that protecting the freedom to act publicly on the basis of a religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman is like legally enforcing race-based segregation. This leads some people to think that the government is right to fine a New York family farm $13,000 for declining to host a lesbian wedding in their barn.

These claims are wrong on several counts, as I explain in my Backgrounder: “Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race.” Here are the top seven reasons why:

  1. Support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal. Great thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community up until the year 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, father and mother. That belief is shared by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by canon, common and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law.
  2. Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were historical anomalies. These bans were aspects of a much larger, insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first arose in the American colonies, they were inconsistent not only with the common law inherited from England, but also with the customs of prior world history, which had not banned interracial marriage. These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas about race that emerged in the modern period and that refused to regard all human beings as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable conclusions about marriage policy.
  3. Great thinkers—including champions of human rights—knew that gender matters for marriage, and none thought that race does. Searching the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Maimonides and Al-Farabi, Luther and Calvin, Locke and Kant, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., one finds that the sexual union of male and female goes to the heart of their reflections on marriage but that considerations of race with respect to marriage never appear. Only late in human history do political communities prohibit intermarriage on the basis of race. Bans on interracial marriage had nothing to do with the nature of marriage and everything to do with denying dignity and equality before the law.
  4. Even cultures that embraced same-sex relationships did not treat them as marriages. Far from having been devised as a pretext for excluding same-sex relationships—as some now charge—marriage as the union of husband and wife arose in many places over several centuries entirely independent of, and well before any debates about, same-sex relationships. Indeed, it arose in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation and in some that fully accepted homoeroticism and even took it for granted. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were the result of racism and nothing more.
  5. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The melanin content of two people’s skin has nothing to do with their capacity to unite in the bond of marriage as a comprehensive union naturally ordered to procreation. The sexual difference between a man and a woman, however, is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race deserve moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what marriage is.
  6. Jim Crow laws were meant to divide the races, but marriage law unites men to women and children to their parents. Marriage has everything to do with uniting the two halves of humanity—men and women, as husbands and wives and as fathers and mothers—so that any children born of their union will know and be loved by the man and woman who gave them life. This is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The argument over redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is one over the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is the result of revisionism about marriage.
  7. The Supreme Court was correct in striking down bans on interracial marriage but it should not redefine marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the Court found bans on interracial marriage to be premised on “the doctrine of White Supremacy.”The Court found “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.” Indeed, earlier this summer, Judge Paul Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit Court explained that “Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions.” But this does not require redefining marriage. Niemeyer concludes: “To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized.”

http://www.acl.org.au/2015/08/7-reasons-why-the-current-marriage-debate-is-nothing-like-the-debate-on-interracial-marriage/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews+11+August+2015&utm_content=eNews+11+August+2015+CID_20f4f76c110099ac971f49c4bde3aaa9&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read%20his%20clear%20arguments%20and%20find%20out%20about%20our%20event%20with%20Ryan
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-race

The First GOP Debate: Some Important Commetaries

I am by no means an expert on U.S. politics but frankly, all it takes is a little bit of research on the various candidates of any election in any country to know who you should vote for to ensure you don’t get the next Obama.

The world often doesn’t bother to do this but the Christian who doesn’t is a fool specifically because a large number of Christians have been brutally murdered throughout history by their governments and it’s in our interest to hold that off in our nations.

Since we live in a generation where we can actually have an impact on who gets into power and who gains political influence, unlike most of history, we are stupid not to engage in this opportunity with prayerfulness and sobriety.

In Australia, Christians have the bad habit of voting for leftist parties that hate Christianity and love destructive and even murderous policies like abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, and anything that weakens Western society.

The sorry consequence is that the various genuinely Christian parties receive very few votes and rarely gain seats at state and nation levels, severely limiting the potential voice and impact that Christianity could have in our parliaments.

Clearly, America suffers from this same disorder.

I had been a Christian for half a year when Obama was leading the charge as the preferred Democrat candidate in mid-2007 and I knew better because I had bothered to do just a little bit if research – it’s a disgrace that so-called “Christian” America did not.

Now, with millions of children dead specifically because Obama and the Democrats love spending tax-payer money funding the murder of children at home and abroad, not to mention redefining marriage and building a catastrophic debt that will crush the nation sooner or later, perhaps some Christians are beginning to wake up and it’s about time.

That brings us to the Republican debate.

The voting history of these candidates speaks louder than their claims in front of an audience so let’s none of us fall for another Barack Obama-type who “evolves” (see: blatantly lies) on issues they have clearly demonstrated their agreement with in their voting record. I encourage you to do the research and here are a couple of starting places:

https://votesmart.org

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

There are also a number of useful commentaries by Christians who actually care about Christian values in politics and therein, they highlight the proclaimed values and beliefs of the hopeful candidates.

Bill Muehlenberg At CultureWatch:

OK, so let me restate a few obvious truths first. At the end of the day, a good Republican President is not going to save America. No one can save America but the one who came to earth two thousand years ago who was ‘despised and rejected by men’.

And until Americans – and primarily American Christians – repent on their faces before a holy and almighty God, the days of the US will soon be over. The US is now a moral and spiritual cesspool, and nothing but divine intervention can save it.

Having said that, I do believe politics is important, and I do believe that getting good and godly leadership can make a real difference. A good conservative POTUS will not usher in the Kingdom, but he or she will at least stop the rot for a while – and that is important.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said about the use of law: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” And again: “Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”

So good laws are important as is good governance. God created the state and he expects us to use it to restrain evil and promote that which is good. Thus the person who becomes the next President of the United States is a very important matter indeed.

I for one take a keen interest in the US Presidential election of 2016, and all that is leading up to it. There are some good men running for the Republican nomination, and we saw a lot to like in yesterday’s debates. Let me offer a few quick thoughts on this.

I must confess I did not see the full debates (I gotta get FoxTel, and quick). But I did see around 50 of the shorter video clips from both debates, and we have the full transcripts of both debates. For those not in the know about these matters, there were two debates featuring all 17 candidates.

repubs 2015 1The first one featured seven of the lesser lights – those who have not been doing as well in the polling. Those seven were:

Carly Fiorina – former CEO of Hewlett-Packard

Jim Gilmore – former Virginia Governor

Lindsey Graham – South Carolina Senator

Bobby Jindal – Louisiana Governor

George Pataki – former New York Governor

Rick Perry – Texas Governor

Rick Santorum – former Pennsylvania Senator

In the first debate there were some good moments by most of the candidates. One of them showed yet again why he should not be running for POTUS. I refer to pro-choice Pataki who said, “My heart has not changed, because I’ve always been appalled by abortion. I’m a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception. But as Bill said earlier, Roe v. Wade has been the law for 42 years, and I don’t think we should continue to try to change it.”

Oh puh-leeese. He might as well have said – if he lived a few centuries ago – that he is anti-slavery, but there is no point in going for abolition, and trying to change the laws on slavery. In marked contrast was Bobby Jindal:

Planned Parenthood had better hope that Hillary Clinton wins this election, because I guarantee under President Jindal, January 2017, the Department of Justice and the IRS and everybody else that we can send from the federal government will be going in to Planned Parenthood.

This is absolutely disgusting, and revolts the conscience of the nation. Absolutely, we need to defund Planned Parenthood. In my own state, for example, we launched an investigation, asked the FBI to cooperate. We just, earlier this week, kicked them out of Medicaid in Louisiana as well, canceled their provider contract.

Jindal is one of my favourite and most consistent conservatives, and he handled himself very well. It would be nice to see him in the top ten. But by every account, Carly Fiorina did exceedingly well. She was the clear winner of the first debate, and certainly belongs in the top tier.

Consider her closing statement:

Hillary Clinton lies about Benghazi, she lies about e- mails. She is still defending Planned Parenthood, and she is still her party’s frontrunner. 2016 is going to be a fight between conservatism, and a Democrat party that is undermining the very character of this nation. We need a nominee who is going to throw every punch, not pull punches, and someone who cannot stumble before he even gets into the ring.

I am not a member of the political class. I am a conservative; I can win this job, I can do this job, I need your help, I need your support. I will, with your help and support, lead the resurgence of this great nation. Thank you.

The main debate featured the ten top runners:

Jeb Bush – former Florida Governor

Ben Carson – former neurosurgeon

Chris Christie – New Jersey Governor

Ted Cruz – Texas Senator

Mike Huckabee – former Arkansas Governor

John Kasich – Ohio Governor

Rand Paul – Kentucky Senator

Marco Rubio – Florida Senator

Donald Trump – businessman

Scott Walker – Wisconsin Governor

The main debate of course is where the real action was. Let me offer a few highs and lows. A quick low to deal with and move on from was John Kasich who repeated his claim that now that we have legalised homosexual marriage, we must just accept it. We don’t need wimps like this seeking the Republican nomination.

On the issue of abortion Walker remained strong on his pro-life stance: “Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has a radical position in terms of support for Planned Parenthood, I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…”

Trump said he has evolved on the issue, and is now against it:

I’ve evolved on many issues over the years. And you know who else has? Ronald Reagan evolved on many issues. And I am pro-life. And if you look at the question, I was in business. They asked me a question as to pro-life or choice. And I said if you let it run, that I hate the concept of abortion. I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I’ve very much evolved. And what happened is friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances. And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.

Said Rubio:

What I have advocated is that we pass law in this country that says all human life at every stage of its development is worthy of protection. In fact, I think that law already exists. It is called the Constitution of the United States.

And let me go further. I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws, whether they can vote or not. Whether they can speak or not. Whether they can hire a lawyer or not. Whether they have a birth certificate or not. And I think future generations will look back at this history of our country and call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies who we never gave them a chance to live.

Mike Huckabee was solid here:

I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother’s womb is a person at the moment of conception.

The reason we know that it is is because of the DNA schedule that we now have clear scientific evidence on. And, this notion that we just continue to ignore the personhood of the individual is a violation of that unborn child’s Fifth and 14th Amendment rights for due process and equal protection under the law.

It’s time that we recognize the Supreme Court is not the supreme being, and we change the policy to be pro-life and protect children instead of rip up their body parts and sell them like they’re parts to a Buick.

On the issue of religion and politics, one of the best lines of the night went to Cruz. Megyn Kelly used a FB question: “I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.” This was another gotcha question from Kelly (and plenty of conservatives were quite unhappy about her performance) but Ted was up to the task:

KELLY: Senator Cruz, start from you. Any word from God?

CRUZ: Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.

(APPLAUSE)

CRUZ: I’m the son of a pastor and evangelist and I’ve described many times how my father, when I was a child, was an alcoholic. He was not a Christian. And my father left my mother and left me when I was just three years old.

And someone invited him to Clay Road Baptist Church. And he gave his heart to Jesus and it turned him around. And he got on a plane and he flew back to my mother and me.

Rubio did well in answering the same question (and got a good laugh as well): “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Carson did real good on a question about God and race:

Well, I think the bully pulpit is a wonderful place to start healing that divide. You know, we have the purveyors of hatred who take every single incident between people of two races and try to make a race war out of it, and drive wedges into people. And this does not need to be done.

What we need to think about instead – you know, I was asked by an NPR reporter once, why don’t I talk about race that often. I said it’s because I’m a neurosurgeon. And she thought that was a strange response. And you say – I said, you see, when I take someone to the operating room, I’m actually operating on the thing that makes them who they are. The skin doesn’t make them who they are. The hair doesn’t make them who they are. And it’s time for us to move beyond that.

As to the closing remarks, we had a few real winners. Trump gave a strong response:

Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t win anymore. We don’t beat China in trade. We don’t beat Japan, with their millions and millions of cars coming into this country, in trade. We can’t beat Mexico, at the border or in trade. We can’t do anything right. Our military has to be strengthened. Our vets have to be taken care of. We have to end Obamacare, and we have to make our country great again, and I will do that.

Ben Carson had a great concluding comment:

Well, I haven’t said anything about me being the only one to do anything, so let me try that.

I’m the only one to separate siamese twins…

(LAUGHTER)

The — the only one to operate on babies while they were still in mother’s womb, the only one to take out half of a brain, although you would think, if you go to Washington, that someone had beat me to it.

(LAUGHTER)

But I — but I’m very hopeful that I’m not the only one who’s willing to pick up the baton of freedom, because freedom is not free, and we must fight for it every day. Every one of us must fight for it, because we’re fighting for our children and the next generation.

And Ted Cruz showed again why he is the man:

If I’m elected president, let me tell you about my first day in office. The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

CRUZ: The next thing I intend to do is instruct the Department of Justice to open an investigation into these videos and to prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations.

(APPLAUSE)

CRUZ: The next thing I intend to do is instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS to start (sic) persecuting religious liberty, and then intend to cancel the Iran deal, and finally move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. c (APPLAUSE)

I will keep my word. My father fled Cuba, and I will fight to defend liberty because my family knows what it’s like to lose it.

So who is my Republican POTUS dream team for next year? While there are some folks I would love to see there, I know they will likely not make it. So dealing with those who do have a chance to make it to the top five or so, I would be more than happy to have one or the other of these two options for Pres and VP:

-Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, or:

-Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina

It is early days yet with 16 months to go before the election. But we can work and pray for the better options to make it for the Republican choice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/06/transcript-gop-aug-6-undercard-debate/

time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/

Mathew Vadum at Frontpage Mag:

The first top-tier GOP candidates’ debate last night demonstrated that Republicans have a bumper crop of impressive candidates ready to give the Democrats a tough fight for the White House in the 2016 election.

They all seemed to agree that President Obama’s effort to fundamentally transform America is a hideous, colossal flop and that the Constitution, so long ignored by Democrats and Republicans alike, needs to be restored to the central place it used to occupy in our nation’s body politic.

The candidates were united in promising to repeal Obamacare because they recognize it is a colossally expensive policy mistake that is both destroying the U.S. healthcare system and impinging on America’s historically vibrant civil society while denying patients the freedom to choose.

Immigration was a central issue in the 10-way debate. The candidates didn’t agree on every aspect of what to do about the country’s immigration policies, but they agreed that at a minimum strengthening America’s borders is key to resolving the illegal aliens crisis.

The contenders selected for the Fox News Channel and Facebook-sponsored debate were those who polled highest according to an average of five national polls. They were: Donald Trump, who is the current frontrunner in the polls; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; retired brain surgeon Ben Carson; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Gov. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who just barely made the cutoff. (Time made a transcript of the debate available here.)

Although there was some acrimony, it was an amazingly civil affair considering the outsized personalities involved.

Debate participants were shown a video from what some are calling the “kiddie table” candidates’ debate that began four hours before the main debate. That debate was for GOP candidates who failed to poll high enough to make it into the top 10 slots.

In the video clip, Carly Fiorina took deadly aim at President Obama’s crazy nuclear nonproliferation framework with the Islamofascists of Iran. She said:

When America does not lead, the world is a dangerous and a tragic place. This is a bad deal. Obama broke every rule of negotiation. Yes, our allies are not perfect, but Iran is at the heart of most of the evil that is going on in the Middle East through their proxy.

People have responded enthusiastically to Fiorina’s statement. According to Breitbart News, people using social media such as Facebook and Twitter thought the former Hewlett-Packard CEO won the debate. Just 33 minutes into that debate, stats whiz Nate Silver tweeted, “Carly Fiorina’s crushing it so far, based on Google search traffic.”

The 10 top-tier candidates enthusiastically embraced, or at least did not oppose, Fiorina’s message. They made it clear that the nation’s foreign policy has to recognize the importance of our relationship with Israel, the sole outpost of Western civilization in the troubled Middle East. American foreign policy also has to align with the nation’s best interests, they said, and it is long past time for the United States to stop sending money to countries that are hell-bent on America’s destruction.

Back in the main debate, Mike Huckabee voiced approval for Fiorina’s sentiments:

Ronald Reagan said “trust, but verify.” President Obama is “trust, but vilify.” He trusts our enemies and vilifies everyone who disagrees with him. And the reason we disagree with him has nothing to do with party.

The Obama administration’s Iran deal “didn’t even get four hostages out. We got nothing, and Iran gets everything they want.”

What the Iranians have said is, “we will wipe Israel off the face of the map, and we will bring death to America.” When someone points a gun at your head and loads it, by God, you ought to take them seriously, and we need to take that seriously.

Chris Christie burnished his credentials as a defense and foreign policy hawk. “The first thing we need to do to make America stronger is to strengthen our military,” he said. He continued:

As we move towards dealing with foreign aid, I don’t disagree with Senator [Rand] Paul’s position that we shouldn’t be funding our enemies. But I absolutely believe that Israel is a priority to be able to fund and keep them strong and safe after eight years of this administration.

Ted Cruz took aim at President Obama’s weak, worse-than-useless response to ISIS. He explained he would “introduce the Expatriate Terrorist Act in the Senate that said if any American travels to the Middle East and joining ISIS, that he or she forfeits their citizenship so they don’t use a passport to come back and wage jihad on Americans.”

He added, “We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt’s President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.”

Some sparks flew whenever immigration-related issues were raised, as candidates criticized their own party for not doing the right thing for years. Americans are angry in part because for decades politicians have been paying lip service to fixing what’s wrong with the immigration system while failing to follow through and actually rectify the various problems.

Accused of flip-flopping, Scott Walker explained that he dropped his support for amnestying illegal aliens and so-called comprehensive immigration reform because that’s what the voters want.

“I actually listened to the American people,” Walker said. “And I think people across America want a leader who’s actually going to listen to them.”

Cruz said he wants to outlaw so-called sanctuary cities which harbor and protect illegal aliens from deportation. He sponsored legislation that Senate GOP leadership blocked.

The senator took the opportunity to gently criticize Trump.

You know, there was reference made to our leaders being stupid. It’s not a question of stupidity. It’s that they don’t want to enforce the immigration laws. That there are far too many in the Washington cartel that support amnesty.

Ben Carson said having Hillary Clinton as the Democrat’s presidential nominee “would be a dream come true.” He continued:

But you know, the fact of the matter is, she is the epitome of the progressive — the secular progressive movement. And she counts on the fact that people are uninformed, the Alinsky model, taking advantage of useful idiots. Well, I just happen to believe that people are not stupid. And the way I will come at it is to educate people, help people to actually understand that it is that progressive movement that is causing them the problems.

The candidates also came down in support of slashing bureaucratic red tape, reforming business-related regulations, and reducing tax burdens. Such action, they said, would spur economic growth and ensure America’s future remains bright.

Marco Rubio urged tax reform. He said:

The first thing we need to do is we need to even out the tax code for small businesses so that we lower their tax rate to 25 percent, just as we need to lower it for all businesses. We need to have a regulatory budget in America that limits the amount of regulations on our economy. We need to repeal and replace Obamacare and we need to improve higher education so that people can have access to the skills they need for 21st century jobs. And last but not least, we need to repeal Dodd-Frank. It is eviscerating small businesses and small banks.

Throughout the two-hour debate, high-flying real estate tycoon Donald Trump exposed some of his flaws as he effortlessly dominated the screen.

There may have been 10 candidates on stage last night at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, but the event was quickly transformed into The Donald Trump Show. The moderators and other candidates took turns attacking the master showman and he punched right back.

Along the way, Trump, whose half-conversion to conservatism is a fairly recent phenomenon, disavowed his past support for single-payer health care in the U.S. and criticized Obamacare, saying he would replace it with a market-based system and take other steps to provide health care for the poor. He also claimed that he had no idea in the past that when he gave sizable donations to the embattled, thoroughly corrupt Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, that the money would be misused.

Trump immediately grabbed the spotlight by being the only one of the candidates on stage who refused to pledge not to run as a third-party candidate in the event he fails to capture the Republican Party’s nomination. No third-party candidacy for the U.S. presidency has ever succeeded and the conventional thinking at the moment is that such a candidacy by Trump would almost certainly put yet another Democrat in the White House.

Trump’s refusal to take the pledge brought boos from the audience and an early attack from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky who shouted, “This is what’s wrong!”

I mean, this is what’s wrong. He buys and sells politicians of all stripes, he’s already … Hey, look, look! He’s already hedging his bet on the Clintons, okay? So if he doesn’t run as a Republican, maybe he supports Clinton, or maybe he runs as an independent … but I’d say that he’s already hedging his bets because he’s used to buying politicians.

Trump was dismissive. “Well, I’ve given him plenty of money,” the billionaire said pointing in Paul’s general direction, thereby implying he bought Paul as well.

The two opening questions specifically aimed at Trump were arguably somewhat below the belt, seemingly calculated to tame the flamboyant reality-television star. Fox anchor Megyn Kelly asked Trump about the past remarks he’s made about women.

“One of the things people love about you is that you speak your mind, don’t use a politician’s filter,” said Kelly. “But that has its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You call women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’”

“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump shot back.

“No, it wasn’t,” Kelly responded.

It was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell. You once told a contestant on “The Celebrity Apprentice” that it “would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.” Does that sound to you like the temperament of someone we should elect as president … how would you answer the question from Hillary Clinton … that you are part of the war on women?

Trump took the question in stride. He said “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.” He continued:

I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.

And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.

But you know what, we — we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brains in this country to turn it around. That, I can tell you right now.

Chris Wallace said to Trump, “it has not escaped anybody’s notice that you say that the Mexican government, the Mexican government is sending criminals — rapists, drug dealers, across the border. Governor [Jeb] Bush has called those remarks, quote, ‘extraordinarily ugly.'” Wallace continued:

I’d like you — you’re right next to him — tell us — talk to him directly and say how you respond to that and — and you have repeatedly said that you have evidence that the Mexican government is doing this, but you have evidence you have refused or declined to share. Why not use this first Republican presidential debate to share your proof with the American people?

Trump shot back saying, “So, if it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration, Chris. You wouldn’t even be talking about it,” he said to applause.

This was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement. And I said, Mexico is sending. Except the reporters, because they’re a very dishonest lot, generally speaking, in the world of politics, they didn’t cover my statement the way I said it. The fact is, since then, many killings, murders, crime, drugs pouring across the border, our money going out and the drugs coming in. And I said we need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly. And I don’t mind having a big beautiful door in that wall so that people can come into this country legally. But we need, Jeb, to build a wall, we need to keep illegals out.

Wallace followed up asking Trump to provide any specific evidence he had that “the Mexican government is sending criminals across the border.”

Trump replied:

Border Patrol, I was at the border last week. Border Patrol, people that I deal with, that I talk to, they say this is what’s happening. Because our leaders are stupid. Our politicians are stupid. And the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don’t want to pay for them. They don’t want to take care of them. Why should they when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for them? And that’s what is happening whether you like it or not.

Insulting politicians in Washington, D.C., by calling them “stupid” may be a crowd-pleaser but it is not particularly presidential. Nor does it actually address the illegal aliens crisis in America which is related to its porous border to the south. Trump is going to have to do better than that in the future if he wishes to be taken seriously.

Jeb Bush was asked by Megyn Kelly about a news story that surfaced yesterday which claimed he called Trump “a clown, a buffoon, [and] something that cannot be repeated on television.”

Bush denied it but acknowledged he has called Trump’s language “divisive.”

We’re not going on win by doing what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do each and every day. Dividing the country. Saying, creating a grievance kind of environment. We’re going to win when we unite people with a hopeful, optimistic message.

Trump replied that Bush has complained about his “tone.” He said:

But when you have people that are cutting Christians’ heads off, when you have a world that the border and at so many places, that it is medieval times, we’ve never — it almost has to be as bad as it ever was in terms of the violence and the horror, we don’t have time for tone. We have to go out and get the job done.

This in itself is a profound insight. We live in a brutal world filled with people who want to harm and kill Americans. It’s time people got more upset and emotional about the external threats the nation faces. It’s time for Americans to recognize that the threat from Islamic terrorism is no longer some vague, distant thing. The Islamists aren’t at America’s gates; they’re already here on the inside, as recent domestic attacks by Muslim terrorists shows. We need to stop worrying about upsetting the easily offended and instead focus on doing what needs to be done to keep this glorious experiment in self-government around for centuries to come.

These crucial topics will be addressed by the candidates again next month. The next top-tier candidates’ debate is scheduled for Sept. 16. It will take place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., and be moderated by CNN’s Jake Tapper and conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt.

“Common Constitutional” at Godfather Politics:

On Thursday rumor had it that instructions had gone out from the RNC or other establishment inner circles to take Trump out during Thursday night’s debate. Those of us who heard the rumor figured one or more of the candidates would be charged with the task.

Who knew it would turn out to be the Fox News team of moderators — or at least two of the three. As it turned out, not one candidate stepped up to take down Trump in any sustained way. It was left up to the two moderators Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly. Bret Baier appeared to remain above the fray.

Personally, I haven’t liked Wallace for years. He’s been on the establishment team for a while now. But Kelly was a major disappointment. I thought she was better than this. But she too has shown herself to be just another establishment toady.

From the very beginning of the debate, I recall talking out loud to the TV saying that this was going to be a night of “gotcha” questions. And that’s what it turned out to be. Whoever the establishment wanted targeted would be taken out, and tonight it was Trump. Next time it may be someone else.

But the other candidates either didn’t get the memo or simply chose not to play the game. They seemed content to just let it play out. Kelly’s motivation seemed apparent when she asked Trump to explain his one-man war on women. When he tried to make a joke of it, she turned cold as ice. At that point it appeared to be a perfect opportunity for one of the other big tent candidates to join in the fray. But none did.

Kelly, on the other hand, appeared to take the confrontation personally, as if she had something riding on the exchange. Who knew she probably did.

Then Wallace went on the attack over Trump’s illegal alien comments. But again the moderators received no help from Trump’s fellow candidates. Quite the opposite.

Politico, the establishment’s new best friend, reported that when it came time for candidates to jump on Trump, Wallace got a shock. Even establishment guy John Kasich said: “Donald Trump is hitting a nerve in this country. People are frustrated, fed up. People who want to just tune [Trump] out are making a mistake.” I’m quite sure Wallace was taken aback by that out-of-character comment by fellow establishment maven John Kasich.

Now some may say that I’m being a bit unfair regarding Fox, but look at the reaction from the left wing media, that normally believe Fox News was spawned by the devil. When liberals praise Fox, as CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and leftist pundits did, you know there’s a problem.

So all that aside, how did the candidates do? Since I did not view the undercard, I will just speak to the main event.

For some on the stage, it doesn’t matter what they do or what they say. They are and appear always to be big government establishment guys. Those are Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Mike Huckabee. It’s too bad about Huckabee, for he says a lot of the right things, but deep down we all know he’s a big government progressive, so that automatically discounts him.

Trump came off as cranky and combative, but also had good reason as he was under constant attack from Wallace and Kelly. Scott Walker did a good job, held his own and did no harm, but didn’t really stand out. Rand Paul’s heated exchange with Krispy Kreme did him quite well, and for those who didn’t already know, exposed Christie as just another big government, Obama hugging, NSA-loving guy.

Rubio was quite poised and stood out for his statesmanship. He did quite well. He should be able to build on this performance.

Cruz had very little exposure during the debate, yet still scored a strong second place in the Drudge poll. He was frozen out for a solid 44 minutes, with no chance to speak. So why is he considered to be one of the winners? For the same reason Ben Carson scored so well. It all came down to the closing statements.

Carson’s Washington half-a-brain joke was a huge hit and it came at the very end of the debate, so everyone remembered it and is repeating it still. Same for Cruz. He set forth in no uncertain terms what he would do in the opening days of his administration, and people will remember it. Voters don’t remember how you start, but do remember how you finish. With such a limited amount of time per candidate, that’s the key to success in these debates — leave them with something memorable.

Overall, I thought the debate was pretty good — but after only one, I’m already tired of the left-leaning/establishment control of these debates and I have a sneaking suspicion it will only get worse.

So please Christians, do your research on these Republican candidates and though it shouldn’t have to be said, never vote for the Democrats ever again.
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/08/08/on-the-republican-presidential-debates/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259716/so-many-good-republicans-matthew-vadum
http://godfatherpolitics.com/24264/scoring-the-debate-and-foxs-meddling/

Leftist Media Censoring The Pro-Marriage Argument

The mainstream media is predominantly populated with leftists and while they like to use the term “tolerance” to establish and force their own views on other people, they have absolutely no interest in anyone else’s opinion.

The recent refusal of Australia’s Channel 7 and Channel 10 to air a pro-marriage advertisement that raises questions over the impact and the myriad dangerous consequences of redefining marriage underlines their willingness to silence any dissenting views. You can view the ad below:

It’s a perverse manoeuvre given that homosexuals make up 3% of the population at best and only a tiny portion of those actually want a marriage that looks anything like authentic marriage.

Over two-thirds of the population identify as Christian and even though many of them clearly don’t act like it, the authentic church undoubtedly represents far more than a piddly 3%. Changing a history long institution on a whim for a tiny minority is as bigger warning sign as one could ever need, even more so because significantly bigger minorities and even majorities are silenced to achieve it.

Bill Muehlenberg understands the issue as well as anybody and his commentary on this situation commands attention:

I have written often about our leftist and censorious mainstream media. And I have written often about the militant homosexual lobby pushing its agenda far and wide. When you bring the two together you have the perfect storm of leftist bigotry, intolerance and tyranny.
I have documented examples of this for years now. The secular left MSM is always willing to do the work of the homosexual lobby, and those with a differing point of view are routinely ignored, attacked, vilified or censored. That is the reality we face in Australia and the West today.

And if any media outlet does dare to air the views of the other 98 per cent of the community, then all hell breaks loose. We see all this at work with the attempt to air a short pro-marriage ad on TV and radio. Many if not most outlets are refusing it, and those that are running with it are already facing the wrath of the militants.

And consider how the media is reporting on this story – when it does. The Sydney Morning Herald wasted no time casting aspersions on those involved with the newly formed Marriage Alliance which is producing the ads. The very first line in their article says this: “Marriage Alliance spokeswoman Sophie York has ties to the Liberal Party.”

Um, and that means what? For every time the MSM features something from a pro-marriage supporter, it would run with a hundred from the other side. Yet does the media ever inform us that a homosexual or a pro-homosexual spokesperson has ties with the Labor Party or the Greens?

Talk about demonising your opponents from the get go. Other news items on this ad tend to be rather short, with as much time devoted to quoting homosexuals as it spends on telling the story. Thus the skewing of news, or the censoring of news, continues apace.

Let me offer the words of several media releases of MA, since it is hard to get their point of view across otherwise. One focuses on the rank censorship and political correctness of the networks:

The newly-formed Marriage Alliance are left bemused by Channels 7 and 10 for refusing to run advertisements expressing concern about potential changes to the Marriage Act that would allow same-sex marriage.

Spokesperson for the Alliance, Sophie York, questions the management of the two television networks for denying her organisation the right to broadcast its concerns about the potential erosion of children’s rights and the rights of ordinary citizens if the Act is changed.

“It is quite shocking that two major TV networks are denying the basic right to freedom of speech and expression on an issue that supports the current law of the nation.

“The advertisement raises legitimate concerns about rights. In no way does it denigrate any element of society, but raises questions that most Australians we believe would want to see answered,” Ms York said.

The Marriage Alliance has written to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten, as well as the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, to make them aware of the denial by 7 and 10 to run the ads, and to seek their response on the matter.

“Has political correctness or the power of a certain lobby group reached so far down that it now erodes the once proud Australian ’fair-go’ character that it is preventing ordinary Australians from having a voice?, Ms York said.

Another release deals with this in more detail:

Rational debate on the impact of allowing same-sex marriage is being denied to ordinary Australians because those with opposing views fear being labelled as ‘homophobic’ or a ’right-wing extremist’ and potentially face attacks on their business or personally.

The powerful SSM activists are entitled in a democracy to state their view, but it is also the right of mainstream Australia to hear opposing arguments and to express their opinion without fear,” according to Sophie York, spokesperson for the newly formed Marriage Alliance.

“The view of the Marriage Alliance is that permitting same-sex couples to marry under a changed Marriage Act would have major consequences not realised or understood by most Australians.

“Our Alliance has the backing of many businesses, community organisations and ordinary people who are alarmed that important public figures and the media are either staying silent on the issue, or backing a misguided ‘politically correct’ position rather than encouraging open discussion,” she said.

Mrs York said the rights of children were being subjugated by arguments about equality between gay and heterosexual adults. Taking a back seat are the more important issues about the consequences and the rights of future generations, sex education, religious freedoms, morality, business and professional regulations, and legal implications resulting from permitting same-sex marriage.

And as already mentioned, the militants are demonstrating yet again just how “tolerant” they are as they attack any media outlet which actually airs the ads. Consider for example how the tolerance brigade is reacting in WA:

Members of the Perth LGBTI community have called on their friends and allies to boycott top rating radio station MIX 94.5 after the station began playing advertisements from the newly formed Marriage Alliance.

The station is part of the Southern Cross Austereo network alongside sister station hit92.9 and home to popular the breakfast show ‘Clairsy, Shane and Kimba’ and the Drive program ‘Lisa and Pete’.

Yep, so much for free debate and the democratic free-flow of ideas. Just shut down any recalcitrants. That is always how the militants operate. They simply cannot stand real debate, and expect only their own views to be heard. All others must be silenced and censored. And they want us all to be tolerant like they are!

As is so often the case, there is a real need for the alternative media, since the MSM refuses to do its job, and refuses to actually allow real debate on the crucial issues of the day. So I am more than happy to once again give an airing to a group which will not be getting a fair go from the MSM.

I encourage all of you to support the Marriage Alliance in any way you can. The MA website is here: www.marriagealliance.com.au/

And please also share far and wide the short video which so much of the media refuses to run with. You can see the video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhEh9jUrbo

We live in staggering times. When an ad focusing on the rights of children to have a mum and a dad, and the threats to liberty because of militant activist groups actually gets censored, then you know we live in very dark times indeed. Could anyone have imagined just a few short decades ago that to stand for heterosexual marriage would become a social evil subject to rampant censorship?

The militants have done a great job of destroying our culture in a very short period of time. The only question is, who will rise up and reclaim our culture, reclaim marriage and family, and stand up for the wellbeing of our children? Will you?

m.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-and-ten-reject-anti-samesex-marriage-advertisement-20150807-giu2f0.html?skin=smart-phone

http://www.outinperth.com/calls-to-boycott-mix94-5-over-marriage-advertisements/

So there it is. Many Christians who are sympathetic to the cause of the LGBTI, but not so sympathetic Tia child’s right to have a mother and a father, will soon wake up in a society where they are no longer free to really be a Christian.

Australia has so far held firm against the homosexual lobby and if these Christians would stand for truth rather than emoting with the world, perhaps Australia might remain a place of refuge for Christians even as Communism and Islam presses down on our brothers and sisters across the world.
http://www.acl.org.au/watch-the-marriage-ad-the-tv-networks-dont-want-you-to-see/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AMF+-+Marriage+TVC&utm_content=AMF+-+Marriage+TVC+CID_e0b838e097a0b3f97551ff5927aa3b17&utm_source=CreateSend
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/08/08/censoring-pro-marriage-views/