An Ignorant Australian Greenie

I put up yesterday some arrogant, elitist comments from an Australian Greenie.  The Greenie, Dayne Pratzky, also uttered  some ignorant Leftist stereotypes about the USA. Because it is rich and powerful, all Leftists hate the USA.  Even American Leftists do. A conservative American  reader was rightly incensed at the unbalanced comments.  And has replied to them.  First the comments then the reply:

“I’m a custodian of society, we all are. If you don’t want to live in a gun-filled and drug-filled society like America, you’ve got to fight to keep Australia the way it is now.”

We are a country of 326 million of which 325 million are not criminals. There are a lot of drug users but by far the majority of the population are not drug addicts. We become alarmed when 100 people in a small state overdose on illegal and tainted drugs. I will not miss nor will I grieve for  these misfits but I will support trying to protect the citizens from these drugs. Pharmaceutical companies continue to find ways to make life more comfortable but leave it to some to find the drug world a place to retreat into to avoid all of life's responsibilities.

Our constitution makes it very clear that the forefathers had a built in fear of government, to the extent that they wrote in a single demand that citizens would never be disarmed so as to safeguard against powerful people strong arming the removal of all rights. Many people miss the fact that such freedoms come with responsibility as well as risks of abuse. People own guns for all kinds of reasons, some for pleasure, some for protection, some for crime.

We are a long way from armed uprising but the possibility remains in the minds of government people. Almost every state in the Union has more armed citizens than the entire standing army and you can bet that even the army would not stand on the side of a tyrant government. Every citizen has at least one bullet, it is called a vote.

Our second amendment does not endorse crime, rather crime uses what ever advantage it can gain. Drugs are another issue but it is people that use drugs that make the issue.  Our country is under siege both from in and from without. It will always be that way as long as there is big profit in drugs.

In summary........it is people like Pratzky that our constitution protects us from.






Oh look, the rainbow fascists are at it again

Miranda Devine

THE rainbow fascists are at it again. This time they’re trying to erase tennis great Margaret Court from the sport’s history because she dared to express a view on marriage contrary to Qantas’ gay activist CEO Alan Joyce.

“I am disappointed that Qantas has become an active promoter for same-sex marriage,” she wrote in a letter to The West Australian last week.

“I believe in marriage as a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible. Your statement leaves me no option but to use other airlines where possible for my extensive travelling.”

Court is free to boycott Qantas if she wishes, and she is hardly the only Australian affronted by Irishman Joyce’s hijacking of our national airline as his personal political plaything.

But for sticking her head above the parapet, she has been pilloried, with a growing chorus, driven by Czech-American Martina Navratilova, pushing to delete her name from the Melbourne stadium named in her honour.

As a reader points out, this is a modern version of “Damnatio memoriae”, a punishment in Ancient Rome considered worse than death. Latin for “condemnation of memory” it was a form of dishonour aimed at erasing the person from history.

Such an extreme reaction to an honestly held Christian belief in traditional marriage is what is driving fence-sitters away from the cause.

SOURCE





Turnbull warns Australian voters 'conservative' on constitutional change

He's spot on about that

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has cautiously responded to Indigenous leaders' calls for a constitutionally enshrined "voice" to parliament, warning that Australians are "conservative" about constitutional change.

Speaking at a lunch at Crown on Saturday to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, Mr Turnbull thanked Indigenous leaders who agreed on a historic declaration at Uluru on Friday to reject a minimalist version of constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. But he gave a thinly veiled warning that their more ambitious recommendation would face challenges in a nation in which referendums have historically been defeated.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, speaking at the same gathering, also did not specifically endorse the Uluru statement, but urged Australians to consider the calls with an "open mind".

The Prime Minister warned that a successful constitutional referendum must have "resolute solidarity" or "minimal or at least tepid opposition".

Mr Turnbull did not directly address the contents of the statement of the Heart, which outlined a roadmap for a treaty and called for the constitution to enshrine the Indigenous voice in parliament, through the creation of an elected indigenous advisory body.

"As I know better than most, changing the Australian constitution is not easy - 44 referendums and only eight successes," he told the audience, which included campaigners for the 1967 referendum and plaintiffs in the historic Mabo case.

"Indeed, history would indicate that in order to succeed, not only must there be overwhelming support but minimal or at least tepid opposition.

"No political deal, no cross-party compromise, no leader's handshake can deliver constitutional change. To do that, a constitutionally conservative nation must be persuaded that the proposed amendments respect the fundamental values of the constitution and will deliver precise changes that are clearly understood to be of benefit to all Australians."

The Referendum Council is yet to advise Mr Turnbull and Opposition Leader Mr Shorten in a report delivered on June 30.

Mr Shorten, who last year indicated a willingness to consider a treaty but has been more muted on the question since then, said there was "sincere desire for bipartisanship" on reconciliation.

"We owe those members and those that participated the time and the space to finish their work and we owe them an open mind on the big questions: the form that recognition takes on treaties, on changes required in the constitution and on the best way to fulfil a legitimate and long-held position for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people," he said.

But he warned that arriving at a final proposal may be challenging.

"I do not doubt the size of the mountain that we will have to climb," he said. "But for any Australian in need of inspiration, I would say look to our history, look to that spirit of '67, or Eddie Mabo."

Greens leader Richard Di Natale criticised the Prime Minister for not endorsing the Uluru declaration. He supported calls for a treaty and an Indigenous voice in Parliament.

"I'm deeply concerned, the Prime Minister had an opportunity today to say, 'I stand with our First Nation people, I've heard them and we are going to work towards a treaty and towards as a strong Aboriginal voice', and instead he appears to have backed away from any significant change," he said.

The National Reconciliation Week Luncheon marked the first opportunity for both leaders to respond to the Uluru Statement, which moved away from the symbolic recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution in favour of enshrining a "First Nations Voice".

"In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard," read the statement.

The Uluru declaration also called for a "Makarrata Commission" that would supervise agreements between Indigenous groups and government and a period of "truth-telling" about the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

"Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle," read the statement. Makarrata is a Yolngu word for treaty or settlement.


The Referendum Council's co-chair Pat Anderson said in its statement on Friday that "delegates agreed that sovereignty has never been ceded or extinguished".

High rates of suicide, closures of communities and youth detention were all proof of the need for constitutional reform, the co-chair said.

 The 1967 referendum included Aboriginal Australians in the census. The luncheon also fell on the 25th anniversary of the High Court's decision to uphold native title rights in the Mabo case.

SOURCE





Ramshackle federation lives on

Robert Carling

The recent federal budget clearly marks a shift to higher spending and higher taxation; and a retreat from the Coalition government's previous (at least rhetorical) emphasis on expenditure discipline rather than tax increases. What has been less noticed is the budget's affirmation -- by action if not explicitly -- of Australia's ramshackle version of federalism.

The recent history of false starts towards reform of federalism includes the Abbott government's federation white paper, which aimed to make the states 'sovereign in their own sphere'. This raised hopes that the Commonwealth might withdraw from state functions and give the states revenue capacities and powers more in line with their spending responsibilities.

Regrettably, the white paper project was aborted when Malcolm Turnbull took the reins.
Turnbull was still apparently thinking in the spirit of the white paper when he proposed, a year ago, that the Commonwealth withdraw from school funding and give the states greater revenue capacity to pay for schools themselves. But that idea was also quickly withdrawn.

In contrast, we now have a budget that revels in using the familiar levers of grants and conditions to impose the federal government's policy will on state functions. That the states are willing accomplices does not alter the fact that the principles of competitive, accountable and efficient federalism are being trashed.

The budget takes Commonwealth involvement in school funding to new heights. Just one other example of the budget's bossy, Canberra-knows-best tone is the proposal to change the grant for public housing to require the states 'to deliver on housing supply targets and reform their planning systems'. This begs the question: why should the Commonwealth be involved in public housing at all?

The approach to federalism in this budget is not an historical aberration. It represents a further instalment in the decades-long trend towards more centralised government. Vertical imbalance is now more entrenched than ever, and our federal system further than ever from the principles of competition, accountability and efficiency.

The system will continue to lumber on, but it could be so much better.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here