Category Archives: malcolm turnbull
Letter to the Editor
In 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed a remarkable law, beginning with a few simple words that defined Israel’s central purpose: “Every Jew has the right to immigrate to this country…”
With the inception of the State of Israel, two thousand years of wandering were officially over. Since then, Jews have been entitled to simply show up and request to be Israeli citizens, assuming they posed no imminent danger to public health, state security, or the Jewish people as a whole. Essentially, all Jews everywhere are Israeli citizens by right.
In 1955, the law was amended slightly to specify that dangerous criminals could also be denied that right.
In 1970, Israel took another historic step by granting automatic citizenship not only to Jews, but also to their non-Jewish children, grandchildren, and spouses, and to the non-Jewish spouses of their children and grandchildren. This addition not only ensured that families would not be broken apart, but also promised a safe haven in Israel for non-Jews subject to persecution because of their Jewish roots.
.Federal MP’s alleged to be Jewish
…………….“While Israelis may hold dual citizenship, a Basic Law passed in 1958 states that Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance as parliamentarians unless their foreign citizenship has been revoked under the laws of that country,” the article states.
Another Israeli politician, who was elected at the same time as Svetlova is Rachel Azaria, who was also forced to renounce her foreign citizenship–in the US! Again from the Times of Israel:
Azaria, a 38-year-old Jerusalem deputy mayor, renounced her American citizenship, which she had held by virtue of her mother having been born in the US.
It is astounding, is it not? Israel gets billions of dollars per year courtesy of US taxpayers–but anyone holding US citizenship is barred from serving in the Knesset! But we are not allowed to have a similar law here in the US banning Israeli citizens from serving in Congress!
And not only do we not have a similar in the US, but apparently Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at finding out which Congress members do in fact hold dual citizenship–are denied. The following is a 2015 article that was published at Counterpunch.
Read on –
Editor: This potential bombshell could be why the JSCEM (Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters) wants to abolish s44 and 45 of the Constitution
Malcolm Turnbull, Plague Bacillus
The PM and his Black Handers hijacked the Liberal Party, and in this shameful endeavour they have had far too much success. Barely recognisable as the party of Menzies and Howard, its flight from principle can end only in electoral doom
Niki Savva is apparently unaware of how sadly comic her obsessive Turnbull sycophancy and Abbott-hatred have come to look, repeated monotonously in The Australian. One of the more recent effusions by this spouse of a prime ministerial staffer is headed Turnbull is flawed but only he can win for the Libs and breaks new ground in the reversal of fact. She even managed to dredge up that greatest beat-up of all time, Abbott’s “knighting” of Prince Philip, which unlike Turnbull’s energy policies, cost the community nothing. It simply brought Australia into line with other Commonwealth countries. The remainder of her article is long on abuse but short on facts, plus religious statements of faith such as that under Turnbull the next election is “eminently winnable.”
If the Liberals go into the next election under Turnbull, I believe that they will stand not only to lose but to lose on a scale that will make their recent wipe-out in Western Australia look like the proverbial vicarage tea-party. Forget about merely losing government for a term, let alone any chance of retaining it: the Liberals, as the standard-bearers of Australia’s liberal-conservative tradition, under a continuing Turnbull leadership, stand a good chance of disappearing from history, or perhaps, like the British Liberals, dragging out existence as a sort of ghost of a party. A conservative party under a man with no belief in conservatism is simply not viable.
They just might be saved in the short term by the electorate’s quite justified dread of Shorten’s ruinous 19th century socialism and generally dubious connections, but that’s not the way to bet. And remember 1982, when Labor in a last-minute ambush produced Bob Hawke as leader and trounced Fraser?
The closest thing to values that Turnbull has evoked has been the near-meaningless mantra of “Jobs and Growth.” There is no sign that he comprehends there are things of more transcendent importance. He has given no sign of any awareness of warnings like that given by Italian writer Giulio Meotti:
Without the courage to insist on safeguarding our values, and passing our inheritance on to our children, we Europeans will simply disappear — as many groups have before. With us, however, will disappear the most enlightened civilization the world has ever known.
It is conservatives who take values seriously, who see society not as a machine to be re-jigged but as an old growth to be trimmed and tended with care, the traditions, conventions and values of the past to be take seriously (as Chesterton said, “the democracy of the dead”). They will find precious few signs of such attitudes in what the ABC/Fairfax axis calls the “moderate” – ie Turnbullite – wing of the Liberal Party today.
As Whitlam, Fraser and others discovered to their cost, one thing the Australian electorate dislikes is arrogance. Voters are hardly likely to flock to a prime minister who is arrogance personified — and whose arrogance seems, moreover, to be quite without justification.
Turnbull has allowed the Australian government to pay, on an annual basis, $43.8 million to the Palestinian Authority and $17.6 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The PA is not only a vicious, corrupt dictatorship but both are directly connected to anti-Jewish terrorism and murder. About half the PA’s budget goes to paying terrorists and their families. The fact Turnbull and Bishop have made simultaneous warm overtures to Israel bespeaks either ignorant confusion of an attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. This is shocking and indefensible.
The Liberal powerbrokers, if there are any left, cannot depend on conservatives voting for them because, as Mark Textor shamefully and inaccurately opined, they have nowhere else to go. They do. This time there are a number of conservative, patriotic or generally-right-of-centre alternatives. None can be seen as achieving power in its own right but they do not need to. There are none, so far, I agree with completely, and I have deep disagreements with some, but compared to Turnbull’s Black Hand gang, they offer, so far, an awareness of honour and courage. It must take some bravery to be Pauline Hanson.
I write this with no pleasure. My family are rusted-on Liberals. My father and maternal grandfather were Liberal MPs and founding members of the party (my father being briefly Premier of WA). I have twice been a Liberal State candidate and have worked for the party in various capacities since I was teenager. With my children, that makes four generations.
The salient point is that many of the conservatives who make up a large part of the Liberal Party are utterly disgusted by Turnbull’s betrayal of Abbott in particular and betrayal of Liberal principles in general. And they have maintained their rage. The Turnbull regime amounts to nothing less than an attempt to hi-jack the Liberal Party, and in this endeavour it has had far too much success. It has already made it in some places unrecognisable as the party of Menzies and Howard.
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The next NATs’ Party meeting could set Australia back on track by deciding to reverse what Turnbull tried to do to them. Turnbull made no secret of the fact he was trying to get the NATs to sack Barnaby. Well, that’s heresy and guess what, as I have been saying from day one, Barnaby is going nowhere, it’s Turnbull who should be worried.
A deputation of NATs should now go to Turnbull’s office and demand he step down or the NATs will rip up the coalition agreement and leave the Libs to wallow diseased and deceased.
So, at the next joint Party meeting, the proposition should be put to the entire Liberal Party where many would be quite excited by the idea.
The NATs, in the meantime, will have had meetings with Bernardi and all other Right of Centre Parties and Independents, who I believe would break their necks to preference the NATs at the next election but not the Libs.
Turnbull support diminished and still shrinking
There would no doubt be Liberal Party defections as it became clear that this NAT coalition would stop Shorten dead in his tracks and the Liberal Party would effectively become defunct, never to rule again.
Those who always voted Liberal will also naturally preference the NATs. The Liberal Party deserves to die for allowing Turnbull to capitulate to his Lefty Labor mates, deserting the Menzies centrist doctrine.
The combination would see the NATs as the senior conservative Party in Government as it already holds 21 seats in the Parliament. The three-corner election deals would be scrapped and the NATs could field and win with candidates in seats, where it formerly could not.
This would give Aussie voters what they crave… a clear choice between socialist and conservative and if you add to that Shorten’s appalling popularity figures it would be impossible for even Graham Richardson to predict a Labor/Green win.
The NATs would undoubtedly win between 35 and 40 seats, most at the expense of the Liberals, but it would be the NATs, combined with a diminished Liberal Party, who would be able to convince the GG that they could easily form government as one Party.
The Liberals would then have to agree to a One-Party Conservative Coalition where grubby Lefty wastrels like Bishop, Payne, Frydenberg, Hunt and Pyne etc would no longer run the joint and they would have to toe the line as they did before Turnbull assassinated Abbott.
A One-Party Coalition Government would likely elect Dutton as PM and retain Joyce as his Deputy.
Now Australia could have an honest Conservative Government that will kill off the ABC and Fraser’s SBS, dump the Paris accord, start re-mining coal, get energy costs back to normal, ban RETs, develop the north, start on nuclear power, halve immigration, combine and halve our security agencies, decimate the corrupt and bloated SCSIRO, ban immigration from known terrorist nations, reduce QUANGOs by 75%, reduce all Departmental budgets by 10%, reduce the Public Service by 5,000, cap their salaries, allow the States to collect and spend their own GST, stop ‘nominated’ Aboriginal status, reform the judiciaries, Reform the Senate, force States to reform the Family Court and the CSA, stop Islamic welfare rorts, tell the Islamic dominated UN to go root its boot, ban deficit spending, rip up 20,000 regulations, cull crocodiles and bats and at the next election include a fair dinkum referendum on restoring a trashed Marriage Act. (You can look forward to a much different result than the last Green inspired dodgy one.)
Okay so I might have my hand on it but really, Turnbull must go, and the only people with the testicular fortitude to make that happen are the NATs.
Larry Pickering at his best
How many people know there is a ‘Bill of Rights’ bill sitting on the table in the House of Representatives in Canberra which already has survived a first reading.
It is called the Bill of Rights Act, 2017, tabled by Tasmania Independent MP, Andrew Wilkie.
According to Mr Wilkie it is a bill for an Act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia, and for related purposes.
This bill paves the way, setting the framework for Turnbull’s republic.
Mr Wilkie is obviously unaware we already have the inalienable Bill of Rights 1688, which cannot be altered by any parliament.
“If you were not worried before you need to be very concerned now”
The objects of this Act are:
15 (a) to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human
16 rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons without
17 discrimination; and
18 (b) to that end, to enact an Australian Bill of Rights giving effect
19 to certain provisions of:
20 (i) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
21 done at New York on 16 December 1966; and
22 (ii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
23 Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December
24 1966; and
25 (iii) the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New
26 York on 20 November 1989;
27 being guided by:
28 (iv) the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded
29 Persons; and
1 (v) the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons; and
2 (vi) the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
3 Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or
4 Belief; and
5 (c) to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as set out
6 in the Australian Bill of Rights are infringed by or under any
7 law in relation to which that Bill of Rights operates has an
8 effective remedy; and
9 (d) to promote, enhance and secure, as paramount objectives, the
10 freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of
11 opportunity for all persons and full and free participation by
12 all Australians in public affairs and public debate.
Submissions called to investigate the unlawful removal of Senator Rod Culleton from the senate earlier this year.
What really happened? Why did the Attorney General Liberal George Brandis, intentionally mislead the senate about Culleton and how did the Senate President Stephen Parry(former Port Arthur undertaker) remove Culleton without a motion of the senate? Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia says only the senate can rule on the eligibility of a senator.
Brandis is hightailing it to London as the new High Commissioner. He will no doubt be called to give evidence. He has a problem.
‘On 6 December 2017, the Senate resolved that the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 6 February 2018:
The implications of recent decisions by the Court of Disputed Returns concerning section 44 of the Constitution on questions referred by the Parliament under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, with particular reference to:
(a) the decisions in connection with the disqualification of former Senators Bob Day and Rodney Culleton;
(b) a regime for disclosing information relating to aspects other than section 44(i), for which the Parliament has already provided;
(c) the form such a process might take and how it could be implemented; and
(d) any related matters.’
Committee Secretariat contact:
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
PO Box 6021
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2374
Fax: +61 2 6277 4773
Letter to the Editor
Turnbull confirms Australia a part of the New World Order on a Current Affair
Come on people wake up. Turnbull is Prime Minister of the Political Parties Australia created in 1973 by and for the Political Parties = TREASON.
The Political Parties own the Justices of this High Court of Australia created by and for the Political Parties since 1979.
The Political Parties owned private Justices are telling us
Chief Justice French in his speech “The Judicial Function in an Age of Statutes
“As with the common law, there are statutes in which broad terms are used which are capable of application to a wide range of fact situations. Where that is so, it means that Parliament has left the courts to work out the appropriate application of the statute on a case-by-case basis. A new kind of common law evolves derived from many decisions applying the same broad statutory language.” = TREASON
Re Wakim  HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power where none exists. ” = TREASON
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) HCA 24 (12 September 1996)
DAWSON J. : “ It may be observed that a legislature wishing to enact a statute ordering that all blue-eyed babies be killed would hardly be perturbed by a principle of law which purported to deny it that power. ” DAWSON is telling us that this Australian Government and its Parliament of Australia is a TOTAL DICTATORSHIP. = TREASON
Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth  HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is NOT a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia’s domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
Australia is a party
Australia’s domestic law
its Constitution.= Australian Constitution. The word Australia is UNDER the Political Parties definition of Australia created by and for the Political Parties in 1973 = TREASON
These so called judges are telling us that the Australian Government its Parliament of Australia, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) are NOT acting UNDER the Founding and Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted = TREASON
The Political Parties removed the Common Law of England in 1988 = TREASON
The Political Parties each under their own Party’s Constitution and policies are a TOTAL DICTATORSHIP = TREASON
OUR “Common Law of England” is entrenched in Clause 5 of the Founding and Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted
The Political Parties Australia is NOT the Australia as established UNDER the Founding and Primary Law Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.
The Political Parties Australian Constitution doesn’t recognize the Preamble and the first six Clauses = NO people, NO God, NO Her Most Excellent Majesty, NO Crown of the United Kingdom, NO Short Title, NO Act to extend to the Queen’s successors, NO Proclamation of Commonwealth, NO Commencement of Act, NO Operation of the Constitution and laws, NO Definitions.
The Political Parties Australia Constitution is UNDER The Australia Act 1986 = TREASON.
Manus Island violence, sexual assault and regular bashings of staff by inmates
by Alanah Robinson, whose husband worked at the centre
My previous Facebook post has been taken down. I find it interesting that it has seemingly breeched FB community standards for attacking someone’s race or ethnicity when not once did I do that. Apparently, it’s not OK to criticise violent behaviour. I would like to point out that I immigrated here from a Muslim majority country, I’m not white and spent many years in PNG.
Due to the recent spike in publicity surrounding the Manus Regional Processing Centre, I feel that I must speak up. First of all, whether or not I think that the men in the centre are refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or little green men from Mars is irrelevant to what I am about to share:
For some time my husband worked at the centre. He, his former work colleagues, local staff, female and male were subjected to violent assaults and even assaults of a sexual nature on a daily basis; with my husband having been assaulted DOZENS of times.
The staff there were spat at, some being knocked unconscious and beaten whilst incapacitated, another was struck from behind with a metal bar (being partially scalped from the attack), chairs, rocks and poles were all used as weapons against the staff which, included females. There was even a recent incident of a female doctor surviving a strangulation attempt; these are just some of the hundreds of examples…..
There have also been numerous incidents involving the local populace, including children that have had physical attempts of a sexual nature made against them, by men staying in the centre. Despite what some elements within the media and politics would have you believe, they were able to leave and access places outside the centre, including beaches, villages and towns. Further to this almost one thousand of these men have elected to return home to their country of origin. Some of those who chose to remain on the island had to be escorted when leaving the centre as they had been identified as being high risk repeat sexual offenders… LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MINUTE…. This group of men have been caught using lollies and chocolates in an attempt to lure young children into their accommodation, for purposes I would shudder to imagine, with one of these men being recently charged for the sexual assault of a ten year old child.
The men at this centre have been coached by advocates in Australia on how to cultivate an image of who they are, and of their conditions that would best serve their political aims in Australia and abroad. They have for years now deliberately provoked the local population, routinely making threats, throwing rocks and defaming the local culture, race and the PNG nation itself. This type of deliberate and concerted behaviour has naturally elicited a reaction from the people of Manus Island and has helped to achieve the (false) narrative that Manus Island was an unsafe place to live.
My heart is breaking for the Manus Island people, as it is for every staff member, many of whom are Australian and New Zealand citizens that have had to endure sustained verbal and physical abuse.
After hearing so many first-hand accounts, I am grateful for the mental and moral resilience of the men and women who have been tasked with the difficult job of maintaining order within the centre, and hope that they have not suffered in their mental health at having to witness such depravity by these perpetrators.
Knowing now what I do, I could hardly care less about the “plight” of these rapefugees, where they have come from, their culture or religion – my thoughts are only for the people of Manus Island and Australia.
I find it interesting that here in Australia many women leading the protests – determined to put pressure on the government to bring these low life’s here…..why is that? Why are these particular women making excuses for the violence against fellow citizens and ignoring the sexual assault of CHILDREN?!
The men there, in collusion with advocates from Australia, created a Facebook page (thankfully now removed) dedicated to finding out and posting the addresses of staff members’ family homes here in Australia (after viewing this page I was deeply disturbed by its content and its implications). The page contained images, locations and was threatening in nature. With this in mind the expatriate and local population in addition to the staff, all had threats made against their families (wives, girlfriends, parents and children) of a graphic, sexual nature…
So if you are a person who has a good heart and has been deceived into having sympathy for these young men and seek to bring them to Australia, I implore you to make decisions based not on emotion but on the raw tactile situation and make these decisions with your head. We are lucky to live in a safe country – lets keep it that way!
There is deep seated misogyny, violence and an often paedophilic nature that permeates their culture which is at odds with our values, that which we try to uphold, as Australians. We cannot hold them to a standard which they themselves have no desire to be a part of. We are also lucky to live in a country that allows for different ideas and opinions, but in the name of self-preservation, for the sake of ALL our families and children; if you are seeking to import these men, then your right to an opinion is directly endangering the public (particularly the families – myself included) should your ideals be reached.
Minister Cormann refuses to answer questions regarding the security of the postal ballot
by Lex Stewart, President of Vote Australia
Possibly, Yes. Massive frauds cannot be ruled out yet.
It might be that the officers of the ABS (with staff seconded from the AEC) have conducted the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey in an honest and accurate manner, so that the Australian public can trust the result.
However it is also possible that massive frauds have been conducted, and that the true result could have been 60% no, and 40% yes.
We do not yet have sufficient information to rule out the possibility that the AMLPS result was massively frauded.
Over the period 26 September to 8 November I asked about 30 questions of the ABS and of the Minister Cormann.
In the absence of answers at this stage, it is impossible to verify the accuracy and integrity of what happened in the AMLPS.
I say this from my perspectives both as President of Vote Australia, and as a Consultant Engineer who does Audits of factories and farms for Workplace Health and Safety and for Food Safety, issuing ‘HACCP’ compliance certificates.
It is almost meaningless if I inspect a factory and find that the food being produced is free of contamination, or that nobody was killed or injured on that day.
It is not just what happens when I am present in a factory or farm that matters. There needs to be in place a robust “quality assurance” program, with transparency and accountability.
Before I can issue a compliance certificate, I need to check the management, methods, training, etc to make sure that hazards have been assessed and that procedures are in place to ensure food safety or human safety for the other 364 days of the year.
The lack of evidence of a robust “quality assurance” program and procedures in the ABS is alarming.
Based on the somewhat limited information to hand so far:
- Website www.abs.gov.au, notably the two sections with titles:- “Quality & Integrity Statement” and “External Observers”
- The “Fraud Control Plan and fraud control measures”and its related ‘comprehensive risk assessment’ mentioned on www.abs.gov.au have not been made public
- And this plan and assessment seem not to have been audited by independent experts
- Unsatisfactory answers by the ABS to some of my 9 questions of 26 September
- Lack of answers by the ABS to my questions numbered 10 to 22 of 7 and 8 November
- Lack of answers by the Minister’s office to my 8 questions numbered A to G
- Apparent anomalies in the mathematical patterns of votes
- The refusal by Protoviti, the auditor engaged by the ABS, to answer my questions
- The ABS not making public the Protoviti reports (likely they have done excellent work, but only within the scope of the ‘terms of reference’ set for them by the ABS)
- The strange phenomenon that Protoviti employees were forced to sign a “non-disclosure” agreement – the sort of thing only relevant to matters of defence and commercial competitiveness re tenders etc
- The lack of any publicly-available knowledge as to whether the ‘terms of reference’ (i.e. the scope of activities that Protoviti was asked to address) were adequate or had been set too restrictively by the ABS
- The inherent possibility that ABS computers could have been ‘hacked’ unless the “cyber security controls including extensive use of data encryption” were of a higher standard than that which normally prevails in Canberra public service agencies