Australian Politics
‘Heretic’ grandmother banned by Tasmanian Anglican bishop
There is no doubt that the woman is heretical: She defies the absurd Trinity doctrine. But her rebellion is against the hierarchy, not the Bible. The Bible is thoroughly on her side. Jesus said "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and he prayed to God (Matthew 26:39). If he was God, who was he praying to?
I can only hope that she manages to form a study group of others who respect what the Bible says
A 72-year-old grandmother and devoted Christian has been labelled a “dangerous heretic” and banned from Anglican churches upon pain of police action, after a disagreement over theology with Tasmania’s bishop.
Former nurse Sue Carlyon’s exclusion – confirmed in writing – was ordered by Bishop Richard Condie over differences in interpretation of scripture that Christians have been debating for millennia.
Dr Condie has expelled the churchgoer over her view that God did not die on the cross, only Jesus as a man and son of God.
Ms Carlyon, who voluntarily cleaned at her parish church, believes firmly in her interpretation, arguing it helps her and others aspire to be more like Jesus.
She has published a short book explaining her interpretation.
The grandmother of five sent a copy to Dr Condie, seeking his views, and was later invited by the bishop to meet him to discuss it.
At this meeting on November 2, Dr Condie informed her she would be banned from her parish church, in Kingston, south of Hobart, and all Anglican churches in Tasmania.
Dr Condie confirmed the ban in writing on November 7, telling Ms Carlyon her book “contains significant dangerous heresy” and she would be allowed to return only if she retrieved and destroyed every available copy and publicly repented.
“To claim Jesus was not God when he died on the cross does not accord with orthodox teaching in any Christian tradition, undermines the doctrine of the Trinity and the efficacy of Jesus’ death for sin,” Dr Condie wrote.
He said her position “undermines people’s confidence in Christ” and she had continued to ignore directives not to distribute the book. “I am left with no other option that to forbid you from attending any Anglican church in Tasmania,” he said. “This includes Sunday services or visiting the church through the week.”
Ms Carlyon was told by Dr Condie: “If you do attend (any church), I will be instructing the ministers to have you removed from the property by the police.”
A survivor of domestic violence and family abuse, Ms Carlyon said she was “truly devastated” by the ban. “I thought I was settled in this church, I had made some nice connections and it’s a very active church with a lot of functions,” she said. “I find it exhausting to be contending with this at my age.
“To expect me to make a public declaration of repentance is just ridiculous – it’s from the dark ages.”
She would have preferred the bishop hold a group discussion. “There would have been others who would have fully supported what I’m saying,” she said.
The bishop had “bullied” her, Ms Carlyon said. “He was using bullyboy tactics – he was like a dog with a bone.
“He wanted me to cave in and apologise and be submissive and repentive. But it wouldn’t be true if I had given in. “As one of my sons said, ‘It’s just as well they can’t burn you at the stake’.”
Ms Carlyon said she was considering seeking legal advice or appealing to the Anglican Primate.
Dr Condie said it would be “inappropriate” for him to comment on a “matter of private discipline”.
Ms Carlyon’s book argues: “If God had died on the cross at Calvary, the world would have ended because of the fact that God is the ultimate source of life, and life is only sustained because of God. It is understood that Jesus died once He surrendered His spirit to God, His Father.”
However, others argue God died on the cross in the human form he had assumed in Jesus, and that his divine form did not and cannot die.
Ms Carlyon believed seeing Jesus as God when he died, rather than a man and son of God, “distorts people’s understanding of who God is, who Jesus is, what life’s about”.
“If we’re true to the scriptures in the New Testament, there’s nothing in it that says Jesus was God, so it’s an interpretation by church elders that, as Richard Condie said, took them 300 years to work out,” she said.
“They have over-intellectualised and theorised it and come out with a dogma that doesn’t align with the scriptures.”
Dr Condie said Ms Carylon’s views were an “extremely serious matter” as they “undermined” the “good news” that people could turn to Jesus for forgiveness for their sins.
“The Bible teaches that Jesus died to take the full punishment for the sins of humanity so that anyone who turns to him can be forgiven,” Dr Condie said.
“To satisfy God’s own just requirement, it is necessary that he be the one to provide the sacrifice for sin, which he did in the person of the divine Jesus Christ.”
In 2017, Ms Carlyon’s parish priest, Peter Adlem, gave her a reference expressing “no concerns about Sue’s Christian faith” and praising her “bold witness and obvious love and concern for others”.
Dr Condie is no stranger to controversy, with some Anglicans concerned about his key role in the anti-gay marriage Anglican “breakaway” Southern Cross, his sale of churches, and what some see as the spread of evangelism at the expense of “high Anglicanism”.
****************************************************
Excess mortality and Covid vaccination: is there a correlation?
Since the introduction of Covid vaccines, the official narrative in Australia (and other parts of the world) is that these vaccines are safe, efficacious, and working well. However, this claim is considered to be untrue, as demonstrated by both the science and the statistics.
There is compelling evidence that the official narrative promoted by politicians and health bureaucracies, and enforced by politicised police forces, is misleading and even irresponsible in the light of the demonstrable side-effects of mRNA vaccines.
The Australian government effectively treated any reasonable concern about the safety of Covid vaccines as a form of domestic terrorism. From 2017 to 2022, the Department of Home Affairs petitioned social media sites to censor information about these matters no less than 13,646 times. This included suppressed Covid posts from doctors who disagreed with, or even questioned, official public health and vaccine information.
Especially egregious was the admonishment and de-registration of Australian medical doctors who attempted to provide vaccine exemptions or prescribe alternative medicine to alleviate or prevent Covid. ‘The conclusion taken from the collective authoritarian decisions is that medical choice is no longer a prerogative of the doctor-patient relationship in Australia,’ said Robert Clancy AM, a clinical immunologist and emeritus professor of medicine.
We now know that mRNA vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission of the Covid virus. For example, a recent study by Cleveland clinic researchers concluded that people who received two or more doses of the vaccine were more likely to get infected with Covid. They found that, among 48,344 working-aged clinic employees, those not ‘up-to-date’ on vaccination had a lower risk of Covid than those ‘up-to-date’.
‘If a vaccine fails to stop disease transmission, then the idea that you need to vaccinate other people so that I’m protected is just false,’ said Dr Jayanta Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and health research and policy at Stanford University.
To make it worse, a comprehensive comparative research analysis has found that Covid vaccines are directly associated with the disturbing rise in the mortality rate among countries of the Southern Hemisphere.
Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Maurine Baudin has a PhD in microbiology from the Université Paris Sud (Paris XI). Joseph Hickey is a data research scientist with a PhD in Physics. Jérémie Mercier is a chemist and health educator with a PhD in environmental research. Together these researchers have recently produced an empirical research paper entitled Covid vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere.
17 countries were studied by these researchers: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, and Uruguay). Together these countries comprise 9.10 per cent of worldwide population and 10.3 per cent of worldwide Covid vaccinations (vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per persons, all ages) through virtually every vaccine type and manufacturer.
According to these researchers, ‘All-cause mortality by time is the most reliable date for detecting and epidemiologically characterising events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.’ In these 17 countries, they found no evidence of any beneficial effect of Covid vaccination on all-cause mortality, nor any proportional reduction in the mortality rate. On the contrary, the opposite is true.
In that research paper, the authors also showed that every country with sufficient mortality data (Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and Uruguay) invariably exhibited an unprecedented and relatively sharp peak or surge in all-ages deaths during or after January-February 2022, which was synchronous with or immediately preceded by a rapid rollout of a Covid vaccine booster, dose 3 or 4, depending on the country.
Regarding the evidence provided in support of causality and toxicity, the authors of this research paper include examples where no detectable excess mortality occurred until the vaccines were rolled out, thus concluding that ‘it is well-established that Covid vaccine injections have caused and are likely to cause the deaths of individuals’. These researchers, in their own words:
‘…have found no evidence in [their] extensive research on ACM [All-deaths Cause Mortality] that Covid vaccines had any beneficial effect. If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should have been decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases which were observed in every elderly group subject to rapid booster rollouts. And, mortality would not have increased solely when vaccines were rolled out, where no excess mortality occurred prior to vaccine rollouts, as we have documented in 9 countries across 3 continents.’
These researchers previously reported several instances in which anomalous peaks in all-cause mortality appear to be associated with rapid Covid vaccine-dose rollouts, as well as instances where the start of the vaccination campaign coincided with a new period of sustained elevated mortality. These are countries in which, for approximately one year after the WHO’s 11 March 2020 declaration of a pandemic, ‘there were no net extra deaths that could be attributed to a pandemic or to pandemic-response medical or government measures’.
Since the excess mortality in these countries occurred only after vaccine rollouts, the authors conclude that these vaccines certainly did not reduce serious illness (as claimed by manufacturers) enough to reduce any risk of death. On the contrary, according to them, there is strong evidence for a causal correlation between rapid first-doses and booster rollouts and immediate peaks in all-cause mortality, including peaks of mortality in seasonal cycles when peaks never occur. These findings appear to be conclusive and indicate that such vaccines lead to the deaths of individuals, which the researchers then remind us has already been demonstrated by:
Many detailed autopsy studies (reference provided)
Adverse effect monitoring (reference provided)
Studies of vaccine-induced pathologies (reference provided)
An established causal link to vaccine-induced pathology, by histopathology and immunohistochemical staining of skin biopsy specimens (reference provided)
Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in placebo-controlled, industry phase III randomised clinical trials (reference provided)
More than 1,250 peer-reviewed publications about Covid vaccine adverse effects (reference provided)
The known vaccine injury compensation programs of states worldwide, which include death resulting from the Covid vaccines (reference provided)
All 17 countries in their comparative research analysis had transition regimes of high all-cause mortality after the vaccines were deployed and administered. Accordingly, unprecedented peaks occurred precisely in January-February of 2022, which are synchronous with rapid booster-dose rollouts of Covid vaccination. The clearest example provided is the sharp all-cause mortality peak occurring in January-February 2022 in Australia, which is concomitant with the rapid rollout of dose 3 of the vaccine in the country.
Like Australia, countries such as Chile and Peru had a sharp all-cause death peak occurring over that same period, which is concomitant with the rapid rollout of Chile’s dose 4 and Peru’s dose 3 of the vaccine. In fact, the authors found the same phenomenon everywhere that data was available, thus making these findings rather conclusive. ‘There can be little doubt that the mass Covid vaccination campaigns caused the temporally associated excess mortality in the 17 countries of the present study, and in other countries studied to date.’ Accordingly, ‘There occurs an onset or increase of a large excess ACM on rolling out the Covid vaccines, in every country and state or province, studied to date, on virtually all continents, including for initial rollouts…’
Rancourt et al are therefore satisfied that the information available extensively demonstrates that Covid vaccines can cause death and that they did not save lives. On the contrary, these vaccines appear to be lethal toxic agents ‘with a high degree of certainty’. This leads the authors to state that adverse-effect monitoring, clinical trial reports, and death-certificate statistics have greatly underestimated the fatal toxicity of Covid vaccines.
These concerns are too serious to ignore. The suspicion that some people have been misled about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines has been further strengthened by the empirical data. The potential for severe injury by these vaccines is a matter that deserves more serious reflection. None were more instrumental in causing this tragedy than the Australian government and their loyal mouthpieces in the media. According to Professor Clancy,
‘The media has a concerning role in the propagation of misinformation, preferring to support an ideologic narrative, rather than to engage in responsible journalism. Misinformation driven by pharmaceutical companies to protect their vaccines, and strongly reinforced by academic, government and health authorities, leads to many unnecessary hospital admissions and deaths’.
So, the question is: Have the Australian governments and the mainstream media colluded in order to ensure an increase in Big Pharma’s corporate profits, which however, does not prioritise the protection of public health?
Be that as it may, it is increasingly difficult to hide the fact that people have died from these vaccines. The tragic consequences of mandatory vaccination are now all too visible in our society.
Above all, we are convinced that it is important to open up this type of conversation, lift the media suppression, and eliminate the muzzling and penalties imposed on those with alternate views or with a desire to promote further discussion. Then society will have to work out the issues of blame and penalties.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/excess-mortality-and-covid-vaccination-is-there-a-correlation
***************************************************Labor’s asylum-seeker headache lands in WA as arrivals sent to Nauru
The 12 asylum-seekers apprehended by Australian Border Force officials in Western Australia on Wednesday have been flown to Nauru.
After initial processing in Darwin, the 12 individuals have been confirmed as unauthorised maritime arrivals.
The Australian understands they will remain in Nauru awaiting regional processing, which is consistent with Operation Sovereign Borders protocols that have been in place for more than a decade.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says Anthony Albanese has given people smugglers a green light to resume operations, warning the government’s dismantling of Operation Sovereign Borders could see “people drown at sea and kids end up back in detention”.
Mr Dutton, a former immigration and home affairs minister who oversaw Operation Sovereign Borders, on Friday accused the Prime Minister of a “catastrophic failure” after a vessel made landfall in Western Australia.
Attacking the government for not providing details about the group who arrived by boat on an isolated and rugged stretch of the Kimberley coastline, Mr Dutton said “this is the tenth venture (since Labor won the election) and the public is not hearing a lot about it at the moment”.
“The Albanese government dismantles Operation Sovereign Borders and the boats restart. Under this Prime Minister, he stops the economy but he starts the boats,” Mr Dutton told Ray Hadley on 2GB.
“The people smugglers have worked out there’s a Prime Minister who’s weak and doesn’t have the ability to stand up to people smuggling and the human tragedy if it starts again. People drown at sea and kids end up back in detention. It’s exactly what Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd did.”
After the government abolished Coalition-era temporary protection visas and watered-down other immigration enforcement powers, which Mr Dutton says creates a “pull-factor” for people smugglers, the Liberal leader warned “there’s a greater likelihood that these people now stay”.
“If you come from Afghanistan or Iran or other countries where the Albanese government determines you can’t be returned to, then the people smugglers are going to market that,” he said.
“(The people smugglers will) say … jump on the boat because look at what’s happened with the High Court, you can get an outcome in Australia which means you might be in immigration detention for a few months, or even a couple of years, but eventually you’ll get back out into the community and you’ll be given a permanent visa.
“That’s exactly what the government has created. It’s a huge mess and it’s a pull factor for these people smugglers who are selling their wares again. Tragically, people drown at sea as a result, you don’t know who is coming into our country and the Prime Minister has sent all of the wrong messages and signals from the first day he was elected.”
After the Albanese government was last week forced by the Coalition into rushing through emergency powers legislation in response to a High Court ruling on indefinite detention, Mr Dutton said Australians were “shaking their heads at this government at the moment”.
“It’s just not the action of a competent government and I think the training wheels (are) well and truly falling off this Prime Minister and I think a lot of people are really shaking their heads as to how the Prime Minister could put Australians at risk the way that he is currently.
“There are now 340 more people it seems that can get out into the community and the government has no answers.”
Mr Dutton said the government had since June to “deal with this matter and they came into the parliament saying … you can’t pass legislation, we’re just bound by the High Court decision”.
“Then as it turns out you can pass legislation but they wrote the legislation overnight in a very hasty fashion and if that is the way they conduct themselves then they leave themselves open to greater legal risk.”
“If you’ve got a competent minister and a competent Prime Minister … they take the lead, they have a national security committee discussion to iron out all these problems. The government just hasn’t done that because people like Andrew Giles and Clare O’Neil and other people from the hard left of the Labor Party don’t believe that these people should be in immigration detention.
“So, they’re happy to hide behind the outcome of the court and say we tried, we couldn’t do anything … we’ve got to release these people, that’s in accordance to their human rights needs.
And they completely and utterly forget about the victims and future victims of some of these individuals.”
Hitting back at Mr Dutton, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil told The Australian that “national security is the first priority of our government”.
Ms O’Neil accused Mr Dutton of being a “reckless politician who will do and say anything to score political points – even if it puts the national security of Australians at risk”.
“As security agencies have repeatedly warned, inflammatory language has a direct link to increased risk of violence. Everyone in our parliament needs to consider the impact that their language will have,” Ms O’Neil said.
“Our government is careful and deliberate about how we discuss national security issues and especially operational matters. No political objective should ever come before the security of our country and the integrity of the operations and agencies that protect us every day.
“Whether it’s the conflict in the Middle East, tensions at home, Operation Sovereign Borders or even the highly sensitive security operations involved in individuals returning from conflict, there’s nothing Peter Dutton won’t use for his own political ends.”
Education Minister Jason Clare on Friday said an investigation into the boat arrival was underway.
“We don’t comment on Operation Sovereign Borders matters. I just make the general point that if people seek to come to Australia by boat, the boat is either turned back, or people are returned to their country of origin, or they’re settled in a third country,” Mr Clare said.
“That was the position under the former government, it’s the same position under this government.”
********************************************************
Australia’s regulatory environment ‘killing’ $91bn LNG industry, says Santos CEO Kevin Gallagher
Australia’s $91bn LNG export industry is being “killed” by regulatory ambiguity that has been used by opponents to hinder work on several gas developments and deterring much-needed inward investment, the chief executive of energy giant Santos has warned.
Environmental advocates have in recent months won a spate of legal victories to suspend work on new gas developments – a tactic that has badly affected Santos especially.
The company’s $5.3bn Barossa development has been hampered by two legal challenges that threaten the production timetables for a project that Santos has earmarked to fuel future growth.
Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher said the legal challenges have been permitted by regulatory ambiguity around who a company must consult and consider when developing environment plans, and that threatens Australia’s broader LNG market.
“Nothing will drive investment away faster than this regulatory environment,” Mr Gallagher said. “The uncertainty is killing us.”
The warning to Australia’s $91bn LNG export industry is the latest in a string of alarms raised by Australia’s gas industry, which has claimed legal-induced delays to projects will threaten local and regional energy security and inflame diplomatic tensions.
Nations in Asia that are energy resource poor – notably Japan, Korea and China – are major buyers of Australian LNG shipments and have moved to lock in supplies with co-investments in new projects.
But Australia’s perceived willingness to allow legal blocks to new developments had potentially dire consequences for the region. Japan’s former ambassador, Shingo Yamagami, said Australia in March was “quiet quitting” LNG.
Anthony Albanese insists his government understands the vital role of gas to the country’s $2.5tr economy but critics said its lack of urgency in limiting legal avenues to slow LNG developments indicates its commitment to the fuel source.
The federal government insists it will move on the issue, and earlier this month The Australian exclusively earlier revealed that Labor was considering narrowing the criteria about who must be consulted prior to works beginning, but any regulatory changes will not occur before late 2024.
The changes, however, will come too late to ease the legal burden on the Barossa project.
Drilling work at the Santos gas project in the Timor Sea has been suspended since 2022 after the Federal Court found the oil giant failed to consult local Indigenous people adequately on the development.
Adding to its woes, a second Federal Court ruled Santos could not complete works on an undersea pipeline until January 2024 at the earliest, following claims by a Tiwi Islands traditional owner Simon Munkara that the 262KM pipeline would cause irreparable harm to traditional owners’ connection to sea.
To resume drilling, Santos must receive approval from regulator NOPSEMA for its amended environment plan. Mr Gallagher said that if the company can resume operations by the end of the year then it can meet its timetable, but conceded delays and potential cost blowouts could occur if the company continues to await regulatory approval.
Further issues could also occur should the Federal Court rule in favour of Mr Munkara and Santos is forced to submit a new environmental plan.
The previous version of the plan, developed after Santos was barred from drilling, took more than a year to establish.
Mr Gallagher said Santos will vigorously defend itself at a hearing scheduled next month, but warned the company has little wriggle room left.
“We had some contingency in the project, but that has largely all gone now,” Mr Gallagher told investors.
The regulatory environment, Mr Gallagher said, will not only define the Barossa project but potential other investments that Santos could make in Australia.
“It will be very difficult for us to take [final investment decision] on projects in Australia.”
Mr Gallagher said the regulatory environment in Alaska and Papua New Guinea, where it is developing two other LNG projects, is far more amenable to further investment.
Santos has the option to progress its Dorado project in WA, but Mr Gallagher said the company’s appetite for that investment would be limited without legislative changes.
Santos is under pressure to spur future growth, with a group of investors in October urging the company to split the business to create a single LNG entity to unlock share growth.
Mr Gallagher told investors he was frustrated with a stagnant share price, and the board would consider all proposals.
*******************************************************
Aussie with autism rips apart new driving fitness rules
An Aussie woman has delivered a hilarious reality check in response to changes to driving standards that leave her, and thousands of other drivers like her, in legal limbo.
For the first time, the 2022 Assessing Fitness to Drive standards have listed autism as a condition that “should be assessed individually”.
The guidelines are updated every few years by Austroads in conjunction with other groups and cover a range of medical conditions including diabetes, epilepsy and vision impairments.
They are written for health professionals who treat people with conditions that may impact their driving.
According to the guidelines, drivers with autism do not have to report their diagnosis automatically, however the “overarching requirement is that a person with a condition that may impair safe driving will need to report and be assessed”.
But, trouble is, each state and territory interprets the guidelines differently, making for a lot of confusion and some truly eye-watering fines and costs to stay within the new rules.
As a driver with autism, Melbourne mum-of-two Emily Geraghty was left dumbfounded by the changes.
The 27-year-old has amassed more than 99,000 followers on TikTok for her candid videos that share her experience with a “neurodivergent family” and her own late-in-life autism spectrum diagnosis.
Replying to one of her followers, asking whether she had seen the “new legislations with driving and being neurospicy”, the mum-of-two ripped into the new changes and some of her “favourite” attempts at justifying the changes.
“I think my favourite reason that they gave for this (change) was autistic people not being able to pick up on the facial cues of other drivers. What?!” she began.
“What?! Who’s facial cues are we picking up when we’re driving? What? John at the lights next to me having a good dig at his nose?”
Or, perhaps a driver she dubbed “neurotypical Nathan” driving behind her and “getting aggro” because she is driving the speed limit.
“Because, news flash, guess what? Autism comes with this little thing, it’s called cognitive rigidity, so we’re really black and white about following rules. Including road rules,” she said.
Ms Geraghty said she felt sorry for the other drivers “who are apparently supposed to be reading my … facial cues” in the car.
Another reason, which she said she could understand more than the facial cues, was because of “meltdowns” people with autism may have.
“But, like, let’s be f***ing realistic here,” she said. “It's a disability where we’ve got, you know, things with repetitive behaviours.
“I’m telling you, there’d be most of us – including me – we take the same route to places all day everyday. Doesn’t matter if there’s going to be traffic and there’s a short cut, we’re not doing it. We’re taking the same route because that’s the route we flipping know.”
She said even if she was going somewhere and had no idea about the “parking situation”, she would not go.
And, perhaps, the clincher for Ms Geraghty was that she, and many people diagnosed with autism late has always had it. Before she could drive. The only difference is that now she knows she has autism.
“Like, does the government not realise that for late diagnosed people, we were autistic when we sat the original test,” she said.
“If I can sit and do a test with a woman literally perceiving me for 35, 40 minutes while I’m taking a test and not have a meltdown, babe we’ll (autistic people will) be right. We will be right.”
As a Victorian driver, under the new guidelines, Ms Geraghty would be required to self-report any long-term health condition or disability that has an impact on their ability to drive safely. But, at least according to her video, her disability has no impact on her driving.
Most jurisdictions require drivers with a long-term condition to report it in some capacity – less they face a hefty fine – which can cost up to $9288 and cancellation of licence.
GPs can often request an on-road assessment from an occupational therapy driver assessor, which costs around $1500.
If the test is failed, subsequent “driving rehab” lessons cost between $130-$150 a pop.
Although the standards state drivers with autism may struggle with a number of factors on the roads, studies reflecting the actual experiences of such drivers are few and far between. They typically have small sample sizes and centre around young or learner drivers.
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment