PM Albanese surrounded by communists
By Senator Jacinta Price
The Prime Minister has shown clearly this week his true priority. He’s obsessed with his legacy building and has no interest in actually helping Aboriginal Australians. He’s shown it clearly with his damaging games on the divisive Voice. Last week it was denying the Voice is the doorway to a Treaty.
This week it’s denying the truth about the full Uluru Statement itself. The Uluru Statement most people know is, of course, the one pager that’s been taken around the country. It came from a lengthy dialogue and consultation process. But the fact is that one pager statement is the flowery summary. Behind the one page sits the 26 page full statement, that was revealed by an FOI request and is, in extracts, included in the original Referendum Council report in 2017.
The reason the PM doesn’t want you to know about it is clear: the longer statement explains the real agenda. Reparations and compensation, grievance-based history, and forever changing our system of government. According to the full document, a treaty could include “reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP)”. That’s all in there.
No wonder Albo is hiding the truth.He thinks the referendum is how he becomes another Bob Hawke.
But if he really wants to build a legacy, he should do it by focusing on actually fixing the problems in Indigenous communities. But he squibbed the chance by having his government push back my Senate motion to hold an inquiry into Aboriginal Land Councils.Since the divisive Voice was announced I’ve made the point that they need ears, not a Voice because they don’t even know what the programs running right now are doing. We’re spending a lot of money on these councils and we need more transparency about how they operate, how they’re accountable, and whether or not they’re delivering real benefits.
And once we know that, we can adjust them to make them work better and help their communities.But Albo pushed back this simple request. Thankfully, we don’t need Labor to get this done and I’ll be fighting hard for every Senate vote from the crossbench to get this inquiry off the ground.Because working together to face the problems head on and fix them: that’s the way forward. That’s what the PM should be focused on, not this divisive damaging deception.
Autralian Capital (Money/Mon-eye/Horus) Territory
PM ‘admits’ to not reading beyond cover page of Uluru Statement from the Heart
Good one.Ed
We had better look again Betty, Ed
He did email us and say he was going bush but no more. We emailed him but haven’t seen a reply yet. Maybe the yanks on exercise in NT took him home for a mascot? Ed
That Mayo character beside Albo is as indigenous as I am. His ancestors are from a heap of nations around the world but he is not aboriginal. He is a died in the wool communist supporter which of course Albo is too. Labor is an offshoot from communism.
Senator Jacinta Price
You have truck loads of courage, common sense, and intelligence. Thanks for your .real world info.
Alison – “Incorporated Entity, Unincorporated Entity, Local Government Entity Aboriginal Land Councils all have an ABN.
ABN Lookup for Aboriginal Land Council found more than 200 matches”.
Thanks, very good and accurate info.
A submission to the
Australian Law Reform Commission
The Executive Director
https://www.alrc.gov.au › 96._a_manson.doc
states, and I quote:
“the ‘Australian Government’ (as it is commonly known) has been operating as an illegitimate government since 1973 when compared to how government should be established in accordance with Australia’s Constitution.
The event that brought about this change occurred when ‘The Royal Style and Titles Act – 1973’ (refer Appendix 1) was established by both Houses of Parliament to remove the Constitutional monarch from the Constitution and replace her with a fictional monarch without any referendum approval being obtained by referendum to do so. This transition meant:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, who was Australia’s natural, living Constitutional monarch then became the fictitious paper entity titled:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Such an act by the politicians who participated in this event effectively made Australia’s Constitution null and void. Once this and other related legislation needed to transition governmental power away from the people to the politicians was enacted, Australia effectively became a republic, with the CEO of the corporation known as the “COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA” becoming Australia’s defacto ‘President’.
This submission provides sufficient evidence to establish the claim that successive governments have further corrupted our system of government – from being the Westminster-style of government to a Corporatised-style of government.”
The writer shows how, with the use of diagrams, “the Members of the two major political parties under an Australian system of government, from or about 5 December 1972, under a progressive evolution, as well as by removing the words “of the Commonwealth” from “The Parliament” and numerous statutes, created their own “Commonwealth” and “Australia”, to be a sovereign, independent and federal nation, with its own “Queen of Australia”, “Australia’s Constitution”, “Governor-General of Australia”, “Great Seal of Australia”, “Australian Government Gazette”, “Australian Citizens”, “Australian Elections”, “Parliament of Australia”, “Australian Government”, “Australian Courts”, “Australian Currency” in “Australian Dollars”, “Australian Law”, all created under their own legislation “of Australia”.
The various acts that enabled this transfer of Constitutional power from ‘We the People’ to the two major political parties to take place were:
• The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1973, No. 7 of 16 March 1973
• The Acts Interpretation Act 1973, No. 79 of 19 June 1973
• The Evidence Act 1973, No. 80 of 19 June 1973
• The Australian Citizenship Act 1973, No. 99 of 17 September 1973
• The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, No. 114 of 19 October 1973
• The Currency Act 1965-1973, as at 19 December 1973
• The Statute Law Revision Act 1973, No. 216 of 19 December 1973
• The Statute Law Revision Act 1974, No. 20 of 25 July 1974 both No. 216 of 1973 and No. 20 of 1974 that came into operation 31 December 1973
• The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, No. 156 of 9 December 1976
• The High Court of Australia Act 1979, No. 137 of 23 November 1979
• The Judiciary Amendment Act (No. 2) 1979, No. 138 of 23 November 1979
• The Australia Acts 1986.”
“In the [above]* Westminster form of government, individual politicians (not political parties) were to represent their elector’s interests at the national level. In opposition to this, the politicians established a business entity termed the ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ that they registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission for global business purposes to represent their party’s interests.
In other words, the ‘COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ was established to make its owners profits, by encouraging corporations from both Australia and internationally the opportunity to do business in Australia through this entity, as identified below in registration number 0000805157 at the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission.”
*See diagram at the web address above
“The file named, ‘EX-99.D 3 exhibit_d.htm DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’ dated 24 November 2009 found on this website https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/805157/000134100409002335/exhibit_d.htm identifies the power structure of this corporatised government:
Quote: “Federal legislative powers in Australia are vested in the Federal Parliament (the “Parliament”), which consists of the Queen [of Australia 1973] as head of state, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Governor-General represents the Queen [of Australia 1973] throughout Australia.”
Quote: “The executive power of the Commonwealth of Australia under the Constitution is formally vested in the Queen [of Australia 1973] and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. There is a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General. This Council is composed of the Prime Minister and other Federal Ministers. These Ministers are members of either the House of Representatives or the Senate and generally belong to the party or coalition of parties which has a majority in the House of Representatives. Such Ministers form the Government with the practical result that executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the other Ministers.”
“Australia’s corporatised Federal government … illustrate … that the fictitious Queen of Australia (enacted 1973) cannot govern, and the Governor General has no authority in which to intervene in the corporation’s activities because “…executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the other Ministers”.
The writer correctly states,” politicians have corruptly reshaped Australia’s political landscape into a more authoritarian one established as corporate entities – all of which has been done without any referendums being held.”
As Dan Andrews is using the shires/councils to implement more UN Agenda2030 policies, the truth is that “the establishment of local councils [being] illegally elevated to ‘Local Government’ demonstrates that this [LG] Act is in defiance of the Constitution and illustrates the level of corruption that has occurred to Australia’s political systems over many decades.”
“the Hawke Labor Government illegally introduced ‘The Local Government Act 1989’ into all States of Australia the following year, [after the 1988 Referendum] although it was not introduced into some States until 1993.”
It is being discovered, “most shire councils throughout Australia are corporations associated with ABN numbers”.
eg; Local Government Entity / WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCIL/ ABN 39 549 568 822 /Active from 01 Nov 1999/ Registered from 01 Jul 2000 to pay GST
https://abr.business.gov.au/Search/ResultsActive?SearchText=Whitehorse%20council
Everyone should read this excellent submission to the ALRC for a background to the take-over of our true Commonwealth constitutional form of government. This must be exposed publicly.
Incorporated Entity, Unincorporated Entity, Local Government Entity Aboriginal Land Councils all have an ABN.
ABN Lookup for Aboriginal Land Council found more than 200 matches.
Grandmother Mulara exposes the corporatisation of the original peoples who are following the corporate model.
“As a holder of Grandmother Lore and Colonial Juris Doctor law I share my concerns on the Voice for you.”
Gm Mulara exposes the model of the Australian Corporation of 1973 which is masquerading as the founding 1901 Commonwealth Constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty voted on by the politicians and not by the people of Australia, along with the invention of a “Queen of Australia” displacing the true Monarch; all of which are legal fictions.
The constitution that we Australians are being asked to vote on is not the same constitution as the founding Constitution (1901) to this country.
If we say yes to the Voice for the indigenous peoples we come onto the rule-book of the Corporation and the original peoples of this country will cede their sovereignty – and that parliament has a greater say over them.
Gm Mulara says to us – Wake up Australia.
All of us have not been told the truth. We are not voting for the founding Commonwealth Constitution and that old form of governance. But this government is tricking us to say that our original people of this country should be on the Constitution – well that is the founding Commonwealth Constitution – but we are voting on the rules for the Australian Corporation.
Aboriginal people do not have legal personality under colonial law unless they are incorporated.
And we have a lot of issues around the corporatisation of our original peoples who are following the corporate model. We call them the black corporates – the ones who are dealing with and getting the funding that goes into aboriginal Australia and Torres Strait Islanders. However, it goes into the corporate black model. It has nothing for our own people on their country with the real issues that they face every day.
And just like the Apology, which we welcomed, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
And the Voice, I might say to you, vote to put the original peoples sovereignty under Parliament sovereignty, so that the Parliament law rules over (aboriginal natural) lore, and that just CANNOT happen.
So I say to you: Our Old people, my brothers and sisters in lore, aboriginal lore, original lore of this country, we say – Walk with Us, because this aboriginal lore is sourced on natural lore, and the Corporation law is sourced on man-made law. And we cannot have this parliament which is questionable having any sovereignty over our original lore.
Just one last thing: We are being played upon. We are being played emotionally to vote according to – “we want what’s right for our aboriginal people” –
But this is not going to change anything.
Thank you.”
Yes, where is Tony Ryan – its unusual for him to not comment especially on a subject such as this.
Everyone should try and share this article on any media available to get the word out.
It’s worse than that. ‘The Voice’ is a trojan horse to enable the UN/WEF/Globalist Cabal to seize vast swathes of our country and lock it up for the exclusive use/exploitation of the elites and push us all into their crowded 15 minute Smart Cities (aka: Kill Cities)!
Blisskett – re Tony Ryan
Endorsed
Have you read “The Lost Track”?
I hope Tony will share a link or we can find a way to publicise and share it.
Ed. Where is Tony Ryan? It over 3 weeks now or more. Nothing since about the 25th July. I have emailed and checked his substack. Anything your end? I respect privacy don’t get me wrong but I am growing a little concerned.
I hope others realise here he is missing.
If you look at the first page of the 26 page document, you will see that it is DOCUMENT 14.
Then look at the page number…87.
WHY are we only seeing the LAST 26 pages?
What is on the first 86 pages?
‘The Voice” – It’s a Cookbook!!!
Little man’s disease trying to make themselves big only makes them look even smaller.
And causes much destruction.
Alison – giant cross
Looks like the MOAGL – Mother Of All Gas Lights.
I’ll retract if wrong
Radical ‘Uluru statement’ is worse than what you think!
Isaac731 which two are you referring to, many are questionable? I presume one is Bob Hawke one, the other?
Aborigines have High hopes for giant cross erected in the Australian outback
Published 10 April 2023, 7:27 pm
A 20 metre cross, which took more than a decade to build, has been unveiled in a remote part of Central Australia. It’s located in Ikuntji, more than 230 kilometres west of Alice Springs, and locals hope it will bring an economic boost to the area.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/video/high-hopes-for-giant-cross-erected-in-the-australian-outback/uie5wzqpo
“A picture is worth a thousand words”
“…Become another Bob Hawke…”Good one. Let’s compare the two: One man ditches his wife after becoming PM (if I remember correctly), and takes up with a poofta before selling us out. The other a drunken cursing PM who, as a Rhodes Scholar, had his girl friend get an abortion, later married her and finally ditched her when she got Alzheimer’s, after selling us out.
I guess there’s a similarity here, But of course, the secular mantra is that your morals have no bearing on your governing of the country.
It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement. Hebrews 9:27. You know, it’s hard not to be glad there’s a hell.
One point never raised is the fact that 97% of the voters for the referendum are going to have a dramatic impact on 3% of the population.
The 3% mostly Indigenous, are under total control of the yes or no of an incredible majority.
This is frightening.
.
Hi Ed and Co. I came across this during the week a website called dark-emu-exposed.org and checked it out. Whilst, we may all be coming from various angles and I not 100% sure of this particular site. This I found interesting just on Thomas Mayo whose heritage is debatable but clever how the author compares his heritage.
From article/letter
“An open letter to Thomas Mayo, signatory to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, author of the Voice to Parliament Handbook and member of the government’s Referendum Working Group.
Dear Thomas,
I started out as only a ‘soft’ Yes voter in the upcoming referendum. Sure, I wanted to formally ‘recognise’ that Aboriginal peoples had been on this wonderful nation-continent of ours for 50,000 years, but why I wondered, did we need a new ‘power sharing’ Chapter in our Constitution as well?
This doubt is what kept my vote as a ‘soft’ Yes.
After much reading and listening to the ‘voices’ in this debate, I have now become a very firm No voter.
What really convinced me that a No vote was the morally, ethically and politically correct one for me, was a deep study of your advocacy and your own ‘voice’ as you campaigned for a Yes vote in the referendum.
Your writings and speeches, as well as details of your political and personal ‘lived experiences’, are what finally convinced me that a successful Yes vote would be bad for me, my family, my fellow citizens – Indigenous or not – and bad for not only Australia, but for the world as a whole.
Let me explain.
Is Your Proposed Voice Racist or Just Ethnically Challenging?
One of the first responses by strong No vote advocates was that the Voice would be racist – see Andrew Bolt, Peter Dutton’s ‘re-racialization’ speech and the IPA’s ‘Race-has-No-place’ video amongst others.
Pro-Voice advocates are sensitive to this criticism. Both Noel Pearson and yourself have sought to deflect the ‘racism’ charge by claiming that the Voice is not about the ‘race’ of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but rather about their ‘indigeneity.’ You and Pearson both stress the fact that ‘your people’ are different because they have ancestors who were here before 26th January 1788, at the founding of modern Australia.
Your collegue Noel Pearson wrote in 2019,
“Our opponents in the Institute of Public Affairs attempt to put a liberal philosophical sheen on Andrew Bolt’s argument that a First Nations voice would constitute separate treatment on the basis of race in the constitution,” he said. “This argument succeeds only if you ignore the truth that our claim is on the basis of our being indigenous to this country, not on the basis of race. Bolt and the IPA remain steadfastly obscurant on this.” – Source: The Australian, 4 Aug 2019
In the film clip below, you also adopt this ‘anti-race’ argument when you claim that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are being selected to the elite membership of the Voice based on their ‘being indigenous’, and due to their having a long association with ‘this place’. You say, ‘it is not about race, it is about our indigenous heritage and culture’.
And
“But now I find, after studing in depth what you are proposing with your Voice, that the great Australian Democratic Project will be threatened if the Yes campaign wins. Democracy in Classical Athens meant “rule of the people”, in contrast to aristocracy, meaning “rule of an elite”.
To my mind, it appears that you wish to insert a new ‘advisory of an elite’, as a new Chapter, into our Constitution.
This ‘elite advisory’ will be called the ‘Voice’ and it will consist of members who must have a certain ancestry or DNA, that of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, as a pre-requisite for membership. It will thus be ‘hereditary’ and it may easily become an ‘aristocracy’ given that only 3 percent of Australians will qualify for its membership. It will also be discriminatory in that 97% of Australia’s citizens will be denied membership, through no fault of their own, due to factors over which they have no control or influence such as their choice of DNA.
And so here is my dilemma with your Voice proposal.
Until now I was led to believe that, no matter what my ancestry or ethnic background, I had full and equal rights under the law compared to all the other citizens of Australia. We were all of equal citizenship, from the Prime Minister right down to the recently naturalised Sudanese refugee.
I was led to believe that my solid European ancestry – with my mother’s heritage going back to an English convict arrival in 1823, and my father’s back to his post war immigration from Germany – would secure for me the exact same Australian citizenry rights as someone like yourself, who claimed to be Australian, but with Torres Strait Islander heritage.
So here are my questions to you, Mr Mayo.
Why should your claimed ‘indigeneity’ provide you with greater citizenship rights than myself?
Shouldn’t we both be equal citizens under the law and equal voters under our democracy?
Why should you get ‘special’ democratic and political rights as a citizen, based solely on a condition – your DNA and ancestry – over which you have no control and which I cannot change in myself should I wish to obtain those same rights?
To explore the differences between us both, a professional genealogist has undertaken a study of your family tree based on the publicly available records and information that you and your other family members have provided publicly. The results of this alleged Family Tree are shown in Figure 2 and I fail to see how your alleged family ancestry should give you any additional democratic and citizenship rights compared to me.
With all due respect, your family’s heritage looks pretty much like an ‘immigrant’s’, as mine does. The majority of your father’s ancestors appear to be from Malaysia, the Philippines, Nuie, Vanuatu and Singapore. You also even appear to have German ancestry, just like me.
And, like my own mother, your mother appears to be of solid European heritage with ‘Polish, Jewish and English ancestry’, as you have publicly claimed.
Now, I am not denying that the records do seem to suggest that a small number of your 3X great-grandparents on your father’s side may be Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, but our genealogist could not locate any definitive proof that this is the case. ”
In the preparation of your alleged family tree in Figure 2, research notes running to 58 pages were compiled. These research notes, which can be downloaded here, suggest that your family history in most ways is not that different to that of many of us non-Indigenous Australians.
Your father’s ancestors appear to be largely ‘colonising immigrants’ from the Philippines and Malaysia who colonised and settled in the Torres Strait Islands in the late 1800s, when the islands were part of the Colony of Queensland. These ancestors of yours appeared to have expressed their own agency by freely coming to the islands while identifying as Filipino or Malays, and who later freely became naturalised as Queenslanders in the 1880’s and later still, swore to, ‘well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord, the King, in the Military Forces of the Commonwealth of Australia’ as soldiers during WWII.
Other members of your family came as indentured labourers from the Pacific Islands, just like my father did from Germany in 1951 under his assisted passage, work-contract.
I do hope, Thomas, that you can now see my point of view – that your Voice proposal is deeply unfair to your fellow citizens.
The only real difference between you and me is that you claim that some of your distant ancestors were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and therefore you want to claim special citizen rights.
This will inevitably result in ‘push-back’ by many Australians who will clamour for a firm, legislated definition of ‘who is Indigenous’, especially given the apparent rise in the number of ‘fake Aboriginals’, many examples of whom you will find on this Dark Emu Exposed website.
As the astute legal commentator Chris Merritt has observed,
‘the last thing we want in this country are race laws, race tribunals determining who is an Aborigine and who is not. I don’t think we want to go there … you take a wrong turn and you abandon the equality of citizenship and you hit all this nonsense. Race laws are just an abomination and they should form no part of the Australian statute.’ – (Listen to Chris Merritt in the film clip below).”
Written by a Roger Karge.
Here is the link to whole article showing the family trees and videos. I couldn’t post here in full.
https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/thomas-and-me-part-1