THE PROBLEM SOLVED!

*An old station hand named Billy was overseeing his flock in a remote pasture in the outback when suddenly a brand-new $193k  BMW X5 M advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust. *


*The driver, a man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the old man, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?” *

*Billy looks at the young man, who obviously is a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, why not?”*

*The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell Precision 5520. Laptop, connects it to his Iridium 9555 Satellite phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. *

*The yuppie then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany* 

*Within seconds, he receives an email on his iPhone 8 Plus smartphone that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his KeyOne Blackberry  and, after a few minutes, receives a response. *

*Finally, he prints out a full-colour, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturised HP OfficeJet All-in-One 250, turns to Billy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.” *

*”That’s right. Well, you’ll be help-in yourself to one of me calves, then, since you won it fair en square.” says Billy. *

*He watches the smartly dressed yuppie select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the man gingerly picks it up & stuffs it into the boot of his car. *

*As the yuppie is carefully brushing the dust & hair off his suit, Billy says, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what work you do & where you come from, will you give me back my calf?” *

*The yuppie thinks about it for a second, wondering what  this wrinkled up dirt encrusted uneducated old man could possibly know? He grins and then says, “Okay, old fella, why not?   I’m a believer in fair play.”*

*”You’re a politician” * 

&

*” You work in Canberra.” says the old timer. *

*”Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but, tell me how on earth did you guess that?” *

*”No guessing required.” answered Billy “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked.   You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don’t know a thing about how working people make a living – or about cows, for that matter. *

* This is a flock of sheep. *

* Now give me back my dog.”*

* AND THAT FOLKS IS WHAT *

* THE PROBLEM IS ALL ABOUT *

Share

USA’s Naughty (128) and Nice Lists (65)

USA Presidents Seal (Transparent Background)

TOTALS: 128 YES  | 09 NO | 35 ABSTAINED | 21 ABSENT

Nikki Haley to UN on Jerusalem. Dec 21, 2017.
UN General Assembly meeting on US embassy move in Israel

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley spoke to the UN General Assembly ahead of its vote on the status of Jerusalem, December 21, 2017: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-nikki-haleys-speech-to-un-general-assembly-on-jerusalem/

Thank you, Mr. President.

To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.

I’ve often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because it’s important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation; but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.

Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country – the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.

But we’ll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected.

In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.

We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.

The arguments about the President’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law dating back to 1995, and it’s position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem’s boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that. The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. There is no need to describe it further.

Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.

America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.

But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.

Thank you.



YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT
Member state + X Ο
Afghanistan Afghanistan +
Albania Albania +
Algeria Algeria +
Andorra Andorra +
Angola Angola +
Antigua and Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Ο
Argentina Argentina X
Armenia Armenia +
Australia Australia X
Austria Austria  +
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan +
The Bahamas Bahamas X
Bahrain Bahrain +
Bangladesh Bangladesh +
Barbados Barbados +
Belarus Belarus +
Belgium Belgium +
Belize Belize +
Benin Benin X
Bhutan Bhutan X
Bolivia Bolivia +
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia & Herzegovina X
Botswana Botswana +
Brazil Brazil +
Brunei Brunei Darussalam +
Bulgaria Bulgaria +
Burkina Faso Burkina Faso +
Burundi Burundi +
Cape Verde Cabo Verde +
Cambodia Cambodia +
Cameroon Cameroon X
Canada Canada X
Central African Republic Central African Republic Ο
Chad Chad +
Chile Chile +
China China +
Colombia Colombia X
Comoros Comoros +
Republic of the Congo Congo +
Costa Rica Costa Rica +
Ivory Coast Côte d’Ivoire +
Croatia Croatia X
Cuba Cuba +
Cyprus Cyprus +
Czech Republic Czech Republic X
North Korea DPR of Korea +
Democratic Republic of the Congo DR Congo Ο
Denmark Denmark +
Djibouti Djibouti +
Dominica Dominica +
Dominican Republic Dominican Republic X
Ecuador Ecuador +
Egypt Egypt +
El Salvador El Salvador Ο
Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea X
Eritrea Eritrea +
Estonia Estonia +
Ethiopia Ethiopia +
Fiji Fiji X
Finland Finland +
France France +
Gabon Gabon +
The Gambia Gambia +
Georgia (country) Georgia X
Germany Germany +
Ghana Ghana +
Greece Greece +
Grenada Grenada +
Guatemala Guatemala
Guinea Guinea +
Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau Ο
Guyana Guyana +
Haiti Haiti X
Honduras Honduras
Hungary Hungary X
Iceland Iceland +
India India +
Indonesia Indonesia +
Iran Iran +
Iraq Iraq +
Republic of Ireland Ireland +
Israel Israel
Italy Italy +
Jamaica Jamaica X
Japan Japan +
Jordan Jordan +
Kazakhstan Kazakhstan +
Kenya Kenya Ο
Kiribati Kiribati X
Kuwait Kuwait +
Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan +
Laos Lao PDR +
Latvia Latvia X
Lebanon Lebanon +
Lesotho Lesotho X
Liberia Liberia +
Libya Libya +
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein +
Lithuania Lithuania +
Luxembourg Luxembourg +
Madagascar Madagascar +
Malawi Malawi X
Malaysia Malaysia +
Maldives Maldives +
Mali Mali +
Malta Malta +
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Mauritania Mauritania +
Mauritius Mauritius +
Mexico Mexico X
Federated States of Micronesia Micronesia
Monaco Monaco +
Mongolia Mongolia Ο
Montenegro Montenegro +
Morocco Morocco +
Mozambique Mozambique +
Myanmar Myanmar Ο
Namibia Namibia +
Nauru Nauru
Nepal Nepal +
Kingdom of the Netherlands Netherlands +
New Zealand New Zealand +
Nicaragua Nicaragua +
Niger Niger +
Nigeria Nigeria +
Norway Norway  +
Oman Oman +
Pakistan Pakistan +
Palau Palau
Panama Panama X
Papua New Guinea PNG +
Paraguay Paraguay X
Peru Peru +
Philippines Philippines X
Poland Poland X
Portugal Portugal +
Qatar Qatar +
South Korea Republic of Korea +
Moldova Republic of Moldova Ο
Romania Romania X
Russia Russian Federation +
Rwanda Rwanda X
Saint Kitts and Nevis St Kitts & Nevis Ο
Saint Lucia St Lucia Ο
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines St Vincent & Grenadines +
Samoa Samoa Ο
San Marino San Marino Ο
São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome & Principe Ο
Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia +
Senegal Senegal +
Serbia Serbia  +
Seychelles Seychelles +
Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Ο
Singapore Singapore +
Slovakia Slovakia +
Slovenia Slovenia +
Solomon Islands Solomon Islands X
Somalia Somalia +
South Africa South Africa +
South Sudan South Sudan X
Spain Spain +
Sri Lanka Sri Lanka +
Sudan Sudan +
Suriname Suriname +
Swaziland Swaziland Ο
Sweden Sweden +
Switzerland Switzerland +
Syria Syrian Arab Republic +
Tajikistan Tajikistan +
Thailand Thailand +
Republic of Macedonia Republic of Macedonia +
East Timor Timor-Leste Ο
Togo Togo
Tonga Tonga Ο
Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad & Tobago X
Tunisia Tunisia +
Turkey Turkey +
Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Ο
Tuvalu Tuvalu X
Uganda Uganda X
Ukraine Ukraine Ο
United Arab Emirates UAE +
United Kingdom UK/GB +
Tanzania UR Tanzania +
United States USA
Uruguay Uruguay +
Uzbekistan Uzbekistan +
Vanuatu Vanuatu X
Venezuela Venezuela +
Vietnam Vietnam +
Yemen Yemen +
Zambia Zambia Ο
Zimbabwe Zimbabwe +
YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT
 TOTALS  128  09  35  21
Share

1.25 million people voted from WA, with a yes vote of 63.7 per

Malcolm Turnbull says Australian’s Voted Yes for Love

The nation as a whole has spoken – it was a comprehensive win for the yes vote in the same-sex marriage survey.

And the yes vote was strongly endorsed by West Australians.

More than 1.25 million people voted from WA, with a yes vote of 63.7 per cent – the third strongest vote behind the ACT and Victoria.

The WA voting turnout was strong, particularly given it was a voluntary survey – 78.4 per cent of eligible voters had their say in the West..

Hundreds of West Australians gathered in public places such as the Northbridge Piazza to watch as the Australian Bureau of Statistics delivered the results.

There was nothing but joy at the results, with tears and hugs all around as the comprehensive yes win became apparent.

THE RESULTS

Participation rate by age and sex1)https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-survey-how-australia-voted-electorate-by-electorate

Full table of results2)https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-survey-how-australia-voted-electorate-by-electorate

Electorate State Yes % No % Non-responding % Participating %
Banks NSW 44.9 55.1 19.9 80.1
Barton NSW 43.6 56.4 22 78
Bennelong NSW 49.8 50.2 18.8 81.2
Berowra NSW 54.6 45.4 15.3 84.7
Blaxland NSW 26.1 73.9 24.8 75.2
Bradfield NSW 60.6 39.4 16.3 83.7
Calare NSW 60.2 39.8 21.9 78.1
Chifley NSW 41.3 58.7 26.1 73.9
Cook NSW 55 45 17.8 82.2
Cowper NSW 60 40 20.8 79.2
Cunningham NSW 65.7 34.3 18.1 81.9
Dobell NSW 65.7 34.3 21.1 78.9
Eden-Monaro NSW 64.9 35.1 20 80
Farrer NSW 55.2 44.8 22.6 77.4
Fowler NSW 36.3 63.7 27.6 72.4
Gilmore NSW 62 38 19.4 80.6
Grayndler NSW 79.9 20.1 14.9 85.1
Greenway NSW 46.4 53.6 23.5 76.5
Hughes NSW 58.4 41.6 16.2 83.8
Hume NSW 58.6 41.4 21.1 78.9
Hunter NSW 64.4 35.6 21.5 78.5
Kingsford Smith NSW 64.1 35.9 20.3 79.7
Lindsay NSW 56.2 43.8 23.5 76.5
Lyne NSW 55.3 44.7 18.7 81.3
Macarthur NSW 52.1 47.9 24.6 75.4
Mackellar NSW 68 32 16 84
Macquarie NSW 63.9 36.1 17.3 82.7
McMahon NSW 35.1 64.9 22.2 77.8
Mitchell NSW 49.1 50.9 18.4 81.6
Newcastle NSW 74.8 25.2 17.3 82.7
New England NSW 52.5 47.5 23.1 76.9
North Sydney NSW 71.8 28.2 16.2 83.8
Page NSW 59.7 40.3 21.4 78.6
Parkes NSW 52.7 47.3 27.4 72.6
Parramatta NSW 38.4 61.6 25.2 74.8
Paterson NSW 65.5 34.5 20.6 79.4
Reid NSW 52.7 47.3 22.3 77.7
Richmond NSW 67.9 32.1 19.7 80.3
Riverina NSW 54.6 45.4 22.8 77.2
Robertson NSW 65.7 34.3 18.6 81.4
Shortland NSW 67.7 32.3 17.5 82.5
Sydney NSW 83.7 16.3 19.5 80.5
Warringah NSW 75 25 16.1 83.9
Watson NSW 30.4 69.6 23 77
Wentworth NSW 80.8 19.2 17.4 82.6
Werriwa NSW 36.3 63.7 25.9 74.1
Whitlam NSW 62.3 37.7 19.9 80.1
Aston VIC 62 38 18.4 81.6
Ballarat VIC 70.5 29.5 18.3 81.7
Batman VIC 71.2 28.8 16.1 83.9
Bendigo VIC 68.7 31.3 17.3 82.7
Bruce VIC 46.9 53.1 22.3 77.7
Calwell VIC 43.2 56.8 21.1 78.9
Casey VIC 68.1 31.9 16 84
Chisholm VIC 61.6 38.4 17.6 82.4
Corangamite VIC 71.6 28.4 14.9 85.1
Corio VIC 67.7 32.3 16.4 83.6
Deakin VIC 65.7 34.3 15.4 84.6
Dunkley VIC 72 28 18.1 81.9
Flinders VIC 70 30 17.9 82.1
Gellibrand VIC 68.1 31.9 17.8 82.2
Gippsland VIC 60.2 39.8 19.3 80.7
Goldstein VIC 76.3 23.7 14 86
Gorton VIC 53.3 46.7 22.7 77.3
Higgins VIC 78.3 21.7 15.6 84.4
Holt VIC 50.7 49.3 23.2 76.8
Hotham VIC 59.6 40.4 19.6 80.4
Indi VIC 63.1 36.9 17.9 82.1
Isaacs VIC 65.3 34.7 19.2 80.8
Jagajaga VIC 73.5 26.5 14.7 85.3
Kooyong VIC 73.7 26.3 14 86
Lalor VIC 56.8 43.2 23 77
La Trobe VIC 67.5 32.5 17.1 82.9
Mallee VIC 54.3 45.7 21.2 78.8
Maribyrnong VIC 59.9 40.1 21 79
McEwen VIC 65.4 34.6 19.3 80.7
McMillan VIC 62.7 37.3 18.6 81.4
Melbourne VIC 83.7 16.3 17.2 82.8
Melbourne Ports VIC 82 18 17.8 82.2
Menzies VIC 57 43 15.9 84.1
Murray VIC 57.6 42.4 20.4 79.6
Scullin VIC 53.4 46.6 20.1 79.9
Wannon VIC 61 39 18.6 81.4
Wills VIC 70 30 17.1 82.9
Blair QLD 60 40 23.3 76.7
Bonner QLD 62 38 17.6 82.4
Bowman QLD 62.1 37.9 18.6 81.4
Brisbane QLD 79.5 20.5 18.4 81.6
Capricornia QLD 54.1 45.9 25.2 74.8
Dawson QLD 55.1 44.9 25.8 74.2
Dickson QLD 65.2 34.8 18.2 81.8
Fadden QLD 61.8 38.2 23.7 76.3
Fairfax QLD 64.3 35.7 19 81
Fisher QLD 62.8 37.2 19.1 80.9
Flynn QLD 51.5 48.5 24.4 75.6
Forde QLD 60.5 39.5 23.9 76.1
Griffith QLD 76.6 23.4 18.2 81.8
Groom QLD 49.2 50.8 20 80
Herbert QLD 62.8 37.2 27.9 72.1
Hinkler QLD 50.7 49.3 21.8 78.2
Kennedy QLD 46.7 53.3 29.5 70.5
Leichhardt QLD 63.4 36.6 32.2 67.8
Lilley QLD 67.7 32.3 18.6 81.4
Longman QLD 60.4 39.6 22.2 77.8
Maranoa QLD 43.9 56.1 21.8 78.2
McPherson QLD 65.5 34.5 21.9 78.1
Moncrieff QLD 63.8 36.2 24.1 75.9
Moreton QLD 60.9 39.1 20.4 79.6
Oxley QLD 60.3 39.7 23.9 76.1
Petrie QLD 61.6 38.4 21.3 78.7
Rankin QLD 54.6 45.4 25.5 74.5
Ryan QLD 72.7 27.3 15.3 84.7
Wide Bay QLD 55.6 44.4 20.5 79.5
Wright QLD 56.8 43.2 21 79
Adelaide SA 70.1 29.9 18.6 81.4
Barker SA 52.3 47.7 23 77
Boothby SA 68.5 31.5 15.7 84.3
Grey SA 53.3 46.7 24.8 75.2
Hindmarsh SA 63.3 36.7 18.3 81.7
Kingston SA 68.1 31.9 19.3 80.7
Makin SA 60.4 39.6 20.5 79.5
Mayo SA 64.7 35.3 16.2 83.8
Port Adelaide SA 61.3 38.7 23.7 76.3
Sturt SA 61.6 38.4 18.6 81.4
Wakefield SA 61 39 24.3 75.7
Brand WA 67.1 32.9 24 76
Burt WA 57 43 23.8 76.2
Canning WA 60.2 39.8 21.5 78.5
Cowan WA 58.8 41.2 22 78
Curtin WA 72.2 27.8 16 84
Durack WA 59.2 40.8 32.1 67.9
Forrest WA 63.8 36.2 21.1 78.9
Fremantle WA 70.1 29.9 19.4 80.6
Hasluck WA 62.4 37.6 20.3 79.7
Moore WA 68 32 16.8 83.2
O’Connor WA 56.2 43.8 24.3 75.7
Pearce WA 63.9 36.1 23.7 76.3
Perth WA 71.5 28.5 19.5 80.5
Stirling WA 61.1 38.9 21.6 78.4
Swan WA 64.7 35.3 22.3 77.7
Tangney WA 61.6 38.4 16 84
Bass TAS 61.7 38.3 20.8 79.2
Braddon TAS 54 46 24 76
Denison TAS 73.8 26.2 17.6 82.4
Franklin TAS 68.8 31.2 17.3 82.7
Lyons TAS 58.7 41.3 21.9 78.1
Lingiari NT 54.5 45.5 49.9 50.1
Solomon NT 65.3 34.7 33.2 66.8
Canberra ACT 74.1 25.9 16.8 83.2
Fenner ACT 74 26 18.4 81.6

Original Source 01: Date-stamped: 2017, November, 15. | Time-stamped: 7:01 AM | Author: Chris Leitch | Article Link: PerthNow  | Article Title: Same-sex marriage: How Perth, WA voted.

Original Source 02: Date-stamped: 2017, November, 15 | Time-stamped: 10.45 AEDT | Article Link:theguardian.com | Article Title: Full results of Australia's vote for same-sex marriage, electorate by electorate – interactive
Share

References   [ + ]

1, 2. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-survey-how-australia-voted-electorate-by-electorate

Same-sex marriage: discriminatory bill won’t get through, Malcolm Turnbull says

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says he will not support changing laws to the marriage act to increase discrimination.

Malcolm Turnbull has warned far-reaching religious protections that are discriminatory would “have virtually no prospect of getting through the parliament” as the Coalition grapples with division over how changes to the Marriage Act should look if the Yes vote succeeds in the postal survey.

The Prime Minister said amendments could be passed by any MP in the free vote but cautioned he would not support changing laws to increase discrimination, as some fear would happen if parliament passed a bill drafted by Liberal senator James Paterson.

Senator Paterson’s bill would extend religious protections to allow businesses that provide services to weddings the right to refuse service to gay couples.

Mr Turnbull said MPs would be free to move “any amendments they want” to a private-members bill that enters the parliament to change the Marriage Act.

“I don’t believe Australians would welcome, and certainly the government would not countenance the making legal discrimination that is unlawful today,” Mr Turnbull said.

“The fact is that assuming there is a Yes vote tomorrow — the pollsters will really be rocked if there isn’t — but assuming there is there will be a private-member’s bill and amendments could be moved and if people want to move an amendment of that kind, well they can.

“I think it would have virtually no prospect of getting through the parliament, but as far as the government is concerned, we are keeping our promise.”

He said the conservative push for extensive religious protections did not mean his authority was undermined.

“It is under my prime ministership that all Australians have been given a say on this issue and if the answer is Yes then, as I promised, there will be a free vote and that means that you will have members of my party taking different views to members of the same party and ditto on the Labor side. That is what a free vote means,” he said.

Divorce ‘teachings protected’

Attorney-General Senator George Brandis has warned against creating new forms of discrimination. Picture Kym Smith

Attorney-General George Brandis says the protection of religious freedom does not include “other interests” as he warned against creating a “new form of discrimination”.

“When we talk about the protection of religious freedom, we are talking about the protection of religious freedom, not other interests,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

“We are certainly not going to remove one form of discrimination and at the same time instate a new form of discrimination.

“You can protect religious freedoms ads — our law does — without creating a new form of discrimination.”

It comes as conservative cabinet minister Mathias Cormann said Dean Smith’s bill was a “good starting point” but further religious protections needed to be added.

Senator Brandis noted divorce had always against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

“I’m a member of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has always said it will not remarry divorced couples,” he said.

“Nobody has ever said that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be allowed to teach that according to Catholic doctrine and teaching that it won’t remarry divorced couples in a Catholic Church, so there is no inhibition on churches at the moment in teaching what their view, according to what their faith and doctrine of marriage means.

Date-stamped: 2017, November, 14. |  Time-stamped: 9:26 am | Author: Greg Brown | Article Title: Same-sex marriage: discriminatory bill won’t get through, Malcolm Turnbull says | Article Link: theaustralian.com.au
Share

The Truth About The Same-Sex Marriage Plebiscite In Australia

What the government does not want you to know…
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: 
1: There will be no such thing as NATURAL PARENT but LEGAL PARENTS as defined by Government, thereby removing all rights and authority of “BIOLOGICAL PARENTS” ie all parental rights will be taken away by the Government and placed in the hands of “The Law” which is set by the ruling Government

Share

Golden Rule No. 1: Never Trust a Politician! Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque SSM

 


Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque on Gay Marriage


Posted by Coalition 4 Marriage on September 15, 2017

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today admitted the Australian people will not know the detail of any final legislation to change the Marriage Act before casting their votes in the plebiscite.

The Australian reports the Prime Minister foreshadowed a lengthy parliamentary debate that would involve numerous as-yet-unseen amendments. In a stunning admission today Prime Minister Turnbull said the government had no control over the legislative process in the Senate.

The Prime Minister said:

“Private members will get a bill to protect religious freedoms and there could be an amendment here and an amendment there, a debate about this and a debate about that… No doubt it will be amended and debated and we don’t have a majority in the Senate and in any event, it is a free vote.”

Coalition for Marriage spokesman Lyle Shelton said this was an extraordinary admission from the Prime Minister.

“The Prime Minister has confirmed the Australian people are being asked to sign a blank cheque,”

said Mr Shelton.

“The Prime Minister has said he does not know the detail of the bill. He has said he does not control the legislative process. He has said that Australians will not know what protections the legislation will or will not contain.

“It’s regrettable that the dynamics in the Senate are such that members of the Government can’t even be relied on to produce a bill that protects parents’ rights, free speech and freedom of religion.

“Given the fact the Prime Minister couldn’t even convince the parliament to hold a plebiscite on marriage in the first place, how can the Australian people have confidence the parliament will ‘get it right’ on protections for parents, speech and faith?

“I say to all Australians – if you don’t know, vote ‘no’,” he concluded.

Alan Jones

A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage will give Politicians a Blank Cheque.

David Flint
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017, September 15. | Author: Coalition 4 Marriage | Article Title: PRIME MINISTER ADMITS AUSTRALIANS ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A BLANK CHEQUE ON GAY MARRIAGE  Article Link: coalitionformarriage.com.au

PROFESSOR DAVID FLINT: A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Will Give Politicians a Blank Cheque


The Daily Telegraph
September 12, 2017 10:00pm

It’s not urgent. That’s what the proponents of same-sex marriage told the High Court. So why are we being rushed into trusting the politicians, giving them a blank cheque in what is no more than a pretend or fake ­referendum?

Voters might recall Alan Jones’s advice on the politicians’ republic: “If you don’t know, vote No.”

As to trusting politicians, it’s hard to think of even one of today’s problems which, if it weren’t created by them, they’ve not made significantly worse. From replacing the lowest ­energy costs in the world with the world’s highest, from declining educational standards to the way the criminal justice system better protects the criminal than the victim, today’s politicians have hardly earned our confidence.

Professor David Flint says politicians have hardly earned our confidence, so why are we now trusting them to change the constitution without telling us what exactly they plan to do?

David Flint

Like Professor Flint, Alan Jones was a one of a small number of media commentators recommending a No vote on whether Australia should be a republic in 1999.

Alan Jones

This is because too many of today’s politicians are out of touch, coming from a narrow class of staffers, union and party officials and chosen not on merit but because of their loyalty to some factional boss or lobbyist.

The founders of this country proposed and the people agreed that the new federal Parliament would be authorised to make laws with respect to a limited range of issues. These ­included marriage.

Although they’d never heard of same-sex marriage, the founders and the people were well aware of other forms of marriage, including polygamy. They certainly weren’t about to give the politicians any power to allow men to have four wives, some underage. The meaning of marriage in the Constitution was — and still is — crystal clear. It means marriage ­between one man and one woman, nothing more and nothing less.

Thousands of demonstrators took part in a same-sex marriage rally in Sydney last weekend. Picture: AFP

This meaning should prevail until the Constitution is properly changed.

In any democracy, words in a constitution must mean what a reasonable person at the time it was adopted thought they meant.

And having seen what can happen in other countries, the founders were very careful that the final decision on changing the Constitution should rest with the people. They certainly weren’t going to leave it to the politicians or indeed, to seven judges.

To make sure the people would be properly informed, it was agreed that the only way to change the Constitution would be by a Swiss-style referendum with the precise change and legislation approved both nationally and, to ensure there was widespread support, in a majority of states.

The founders were well aware of the dangers of using plebiscites to change the Constitution. Like opinion polls, plebiscites are just a question. This can too easily be loaded or misleading, as we saw in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum where exit polls revealed that many Yes voters actually believed they were voting to stay in Canada.

The point is that in a plebiscite all the details and especially the consequences of a Yes vote are not known in advance — they’re not on the table. The voters haven’t the foggiest idea what the politicians will get up to if you give them a Yes vote. Just as in the current postal survey or plebiscite.

The founders had seen how plebiscites — fake referendums — can be used to manipulate the voters. They were well aware that Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew had used them to soften up the French until they agreed to turn them both into ­emperor-dictators.

Why won’t Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reveal his hand concerning what happens if a Yes vote gets up? Picture: Kym Smith

Is this a face of someone you give a blank cheque too?

Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t ­reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.

The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of ­traditional marriage.

Sydney Uni law courses push for Sharia law recognition

We have no idea what these could be. Some European politicians and clergymen have seriously proposed that sharia law be introduced to ­legitimise polygamous marriages, ­demeaning seriously women’s rights.

This could subsequently lead to the recognition of other practices, ­including underage and arranged marriages.

Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t ­reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.

The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of ­traditional marriage.

clip

If there is a Yes vote, we have no guarantee that our existing freedoms of speech and religion will be maintained. The bullying and fake news by some of the self-selected leaders of a community, one which seems to only exist in a never-ending series of initials, should put everyone on guard.

There is nothing to stop the introduction of same-sex marriage being used, as it has been in other countries, to step up filling our schools with campaigns to encourage so-called gender fluidity and enforce the access by both sexes to lavatories, showers and change rooms. There is nothing to stop some schools and other charitable institutions being forced to close down and teachers and people generally being gagged.

All of this would have been ­avoided if the details and consequences of the proposed change were on the table before the people vote, as the Constitution clearly requires.

There was no reason why a proper referendum could not have been called to coincide with the next federal election. Instead we are being asked to vote Yes and give a blank heque to, of all people, the politicians.

David Flint, an emeritus professor of law, campaigned for the No case in 1999

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017 September 12. | Time-stamped: 10:00 pm | Author: The Daily Telegraph | Article Title: DAVID FLINT: A YES VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL GIVE POLITICIANS A BLANK CHEQUE | Article Link: dailytelegraph.com.au
Share

Australia: Subway a “Political” OUTLET (Pro Yes Vote Sales Dockets) Marriage Equity “NO” Voters time VOTE “NO” A SECOND TIME

A Disgraceful Response, franchisee do what they are told to do, Subway is misleading the public.

Subway should not ever be a political voice it is a food outlet.

An Outlet whose clientele will have extensive numbers of voters voting:

“NO” and 

 


Over in Australia, the marriage equality debate is hitting fever pitch.

With the country set to vote on equal marriage rights in the coming weeks, messages encouraging people to vote ‘yes’ to marriage equality are popping up all over the place. In one area in Melbourne, even your Meatball Marinara comes with a message.

A Subway franchise in the city’s Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre has been printing pro-equality messages on its receipts, encouraging all its customers to vote ‘yes’ in the upcoming postal vote.

‘We believe in EQUALITY for ALL Australians,’ the message reads. ‘What about you? Vote “YES” in the Postal Survey. Do it because it’s the right thing to do.’

One sandwich lover posted her receipt on Twitter with glee, writing: ‘Found on @subwayaustralia receipt by Steve King, Melbourne. Thank you, Subway!’


The real credit for this project is goes to the franchisee, Steve King.

Steve’s team have been really ramping up the pro-equality message in their store in recent weeks, handing out pamphlets and badges to customers to encourage both voter registration and a ‘yes’ vote.

In addition, the in-store screens have been used to promote a number of posters from Australian Marriage Equality’s ‘Yes’ campaign, replacing the usual messages of new sandwiches or combo deals. Definitely a better use of electricity.

In a statement, Subway Australia says:

‘Each franchisee is a small business owner in their local community with their own personal views and beliefs. At Subway respect for every individual is a core value. We are committed to treating every person with honour, dignity and respect — regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.’


Date-stamped: 8 Sep 2017 | Time-stamped: 12:16 pm | Author: Tom Connick for metro.co.uk | Article Title: Subway store prints pro-marriage equality message on its receipts | Article Link: metro.co.uk 

A suggestion for (Marriage Equity “NO” Voters):

VOTE “NO” A SECOND TIME

Take your feet to another Food outlet one that has had the sense to stay out of the political arena of a massive social issue within Australia connected to morality and Right and Wrong!

Share

Fathers are Male, Men are Male, Boys are Male and Fathers Day is Fathers Day! is Woolworth’s promoting a political agenda on Father’s Day.

SHOPPERS are outraged over a Woolworths mud cake that hit shelves on Father’s Day with icing that read “Special Person’s Day”.

The photograph of the cake was uploaded to the Woolworths Facebook page by a Queensland father on Sunday. It was quickly reshared by dozens of others who called the supermarket giant out on failing to recognise Aussie dads.

One man commented: “This is a disgrace and total disrespect to all fathers in Australia today …

How dare you Woolworths?”

Another wrote: “Please keep Father’s Day to celebrate Dads, and don’t disappoint Australia with your political “special person” cakes.”

One woman said the cake was a “slap in the face to all the wonderful dads”.

“If you want to support a “Special Persons Day”, do it on any other day! So disappointed that you would make this divisive political statement,” she added.
However, others said they disagreed with the backlash against “Special Person’s Day”, saying not all Australians had fathers in their lives.

“There may be other people in their life that may have to take that role on. I truly celebrate that you have created a cake saying “Special person’s Day” because for every family that does not have a mother or father around and someone else to fill that massive role, they are 100% a very special person. Well done Woolies!” A woman wrote.

Another congratulated Woolworths on “taking into consideration other people’s circumstances”.

“My son doesn’t have his father around a very sad day for him in fact but you turned it into a positive by providing a cake acknowledging a special person so he gave that to his uncle to say thank you for being a special part of his life, all round a happy day instead of a sad one,” the woman said.
A Woolworths spokesman responded to customers over Facebook, saying the contentious photograph had been cropped out not to show other cakes that contained “Happy Father’s Day” messages.

“We’re currently looking into this display with our store teams. We want to reassure you that we’re helping all customers across Australia celebrate Father’s Day as seen from our store displays, products and recipe ideas. Cropped out of this image are a range of decorative cakes that have different messages on them, including ‘Dad’ and ‘Happy Father’s Day’. Thanks again for sharing.” Link: news.com.au

Share

Fact check: Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?

Facts feature (04)

Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?

Find out the answer Read below.

From mid-September, Australians will begin receiving survey forms for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, which the Government has commissioned in place of a plebiscite.

A common claim made about same-sex marriage is that Australia lags behind the countries we like to compare ourselves to.

Back in 2015, after the successful referendum to bring in same-sex marriage in Ireland, then Australian Marriage Equality director Rodney Croome asserted that Australia was “the last developed English-speaking country not to allow same-sex couples to marry”.

And in September 2016, Greens MP Adam Bandt told Parliament that “we are now the only developed, English-speaking country to not have equal marriage laws”.

One of the latest to make the claim is Opposition frontbencher Andrew Leigh.

“We’re the last advanced English-speaking country not to allow same-sex marriage,” Mr Leigh told Sky News.

Mr Leigh is not the first or last to make a similar claim. But what are the facts? RMIT ABC Fact Check finds out.

The verdict

Mr Leigh’s claim is overstated.

Most of the countries that Australia shares political, economic and social links with have legalised same-sex marriage.

However, we are not the only “advanced English-speaking country” that has failed to do so.

Singapore, an advanced English-speaking country with a population of almost 6 million people, has not even decriminalised sexual acts between two men, let alone legalised same-sex marriage.

And not all parts of the United Kingdom have same-sex marriage — it is still not legal in Northern Ireland.

Basis for comparison

Mr Leigh refers to a set of countries that are “advanced” and “English-speaking”.

Fact Check has assessed “English-speaking” countries as those with English as an official language.

This will necessarily include countries that have multiple official languages — such as Singapore, South Africa and Canada — and those where English is the language of government and the law but not the most widely spoken in everyday life.

There are at least 70 countries or self-governing/semi-autonomous entities (such as Hong Kong) where English is an official language.

These range from small places such as the Falkland Islands (population of around 2,900 people) to India (more than 1 billion people, where English remains an official language “for official purposes of the Union and for use in Parliament”).

And what is an advanced country? Mr Leigh’s office told Fact Check that he used “advanced” as another word for “developed”.

Unfortunately, there is no settled definition of what a “developed” country is.

Fact Check has considered several metrics:

• The International Monetary Fund’s list of 39 “advanced” economies.The list includes a number of economies that are not sovereign nations including Hong Kong, Macau and Puerto Rico. Only ten of these economies are English-speaking.

• The 35 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD. Six of these countries are English-speaking.

• The 51 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index said to have “very high human development”. Nine of these countries are English-speaking.

In short, Fact Check has found there to be 10 countries or territories that are advanced (on at least one of the metrics) and have English as an official language.

The results

Out of the ten “advanced” countries or territories with English as an official language, six have legalised same-sex marriage throughout the country. One — the United Kingdom — has legalised same-sex marriage in most of the country.

English-speaking

economy/country

IMF

Advanced economies

OECD Members

HDI – Very High

Human Development

Same-sex marriage
Australia Yes Yes Yes No
Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hong Kong SAR Yes No Yes No
Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes
Malta Yes No Yes Yes
New Zealand Yes Yes Yes Yes
Puerto Rico Yes No No Yes
Singapore Yes No Yes No
United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Partially
United States Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sources: International Monetary Fund; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; United Nations Human Development Index; Official documents

Same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in Singapore or Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, so on its own cannot be considered a “country”, though same-sex marriage is not legal in mainland China either.

Singapore has not legalised same-sex marriage, and in fact homosexual acts are still illegal in that country.

The situation in the United Kingdom is more difficult to characterise.

The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the different countries/regions can make their own laws in some areas.

Same-sex marriage is legal in England, Scotland and Wales, but is not legal in Northern Ireland.

This means that same-sex marriages cannot take place in Northern Ireland and are recognised as civil partnerships rather than marriages in that territory.

A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Department of Finance told Fact Check:

“The law of Northern Ireland does not allow for same-sex marriage, but it does allow for same-sex civil partnerships, which confer similar rights and responsibilities; same-sex marriages that are conducted in England, Wales or Scotland are recognised as civil partnerships under the law of Northern Ireland.

Same-sex relationships from other jurisdictions may be recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland…

On 17 August 2017 the High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that there is no obligation to introduce same-sex marriage.”

British citizens are able marry their same-sex partner in many British diplomatic posts overseas, including in Australia.

The marriages are valid as if they had taken place in the relevant part of the United Kingdom (as elected by the applicant).

Consular marriages cannot be conducted if “Northern Ireland” is elected, but there is nothing stopping a person from nominating England, Scotland or Wales even if they come from Northern Ireland.

Some of the British islands near the United Kingdom — such as the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney and Herm) and the Isle of Man — are not part of the UK and in fact are “crown dependencies” with their own legal systems.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the Isle of Man and most of the territory governed by Guernsey, but not the most populous island Jersey.

Australia is clearly towards the back of the (English-speaking, advanced country) pack when it comes to legalising same-sex marriage, but it is not alone.

Last English-speaking democracy?

Others have made claims around Australia being the last English-speaking democracy without same-sex marriage.

Again, this is an exaggeration.

Fact Check considered at the The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which lists countries on a spectrum from full democracy to authoritarian.

Fact Check also took into account the annual Freedom in the World report, published by the US based Freedom House, which rates countries not free, partially free and free.

Out of the English-speaking countries listed as “full” or “flawed” democracies or “free” or “partially free”, only seven have legalised same-sex marriage.

A narrower claim was made in an August 14 tweet from the Sydney Mardi Gras, which stated there is same-sex marriage in “Every major English-speaking democracy EXCEPT Australia”.

x

The accuracy of that statement depends on the definition of “major”.

But given the list of democratic English-speaking countries without same-sex marriage includes Singapore (with a population greater than New Zealand or Ireland) and India (with a population of over a billion people), it again goes too far.

All of these comparisons demonstrate that while Australia may be behind those countries that are culturally and economically similar to Australia, there are many English-speaking countries that have not legalised same-sex marriage, many of which can be fairly called “democracies”.

Broader claim, same result

Some politicians and campaigners have gone beyond Mr Leigh’s formulation to claim that Australia is the only English-speaking country that has not legalised same-sex marriage.

Andrew Hastie, Liberal MP from Western Australia and a known opponent of same-sex marriage, told the Parliament on October 13, 2016:

“It is true that Australia is the last English-speaking country in the world to redefine marriage.

We can learn from international experience, and I dare say that we need to appreciate the consequences.”

A few days later, Matt Keogh, a Labor MP also from Western Australia, similarly told the Parliament “we are the last English-speaking nation to make this change”.

When the Senate considered same-sex marriage in early 2017, the organisation Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) stated in a submission:

“It is time to recognise that we are the last English-speaking country that still discriminates against same-sex-attracted couples.”

More recently Professor Kerryn Phelps, Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney, told a forum on August 3, 2017:

“So many Australians are saying, ‘hang on, this is really an issue, we’re the only remaining English-speaking country without marriage equality.”

These claims are inaccurate.

Fact Check has found that out of 70 countries and self-governing areas that have English as an official language, only fourteen have legalised same-sex marriage.

These are Bermuda, Canada, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Malta, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, parts of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Africa, the United States and most of the United Kingdom.

Sources

Date-stamped: 2017, Aug 25. | Time-stamped: Posted Friday at 04:52 | Article Link:  abc.net.au | Article Title: Fact check: Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?
Share

U.A.E, Islam, Rape & “Australian Government” SHAME ON THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Facts feature (01a)
Alicia’s Story:

A Woman’s Horrific Trip to Dubai: Drugged, Gang-Raped and Thrown into UAE jail … After spending eight months in prison in UAE1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Gali

Alicia Gali was the 27 year old Australian woman who spent eight months in prison in the UAE on charges of having sex outside of marriage after she was gang-raped and subsequently pardoned in March 2009. Alicia shared her ‘abandoned’ painful story with Australia’s

(SN) Sunday Night on 7 Clip 1

(SN) Sunday Night on 7 Clip 2

RELATED:

ALICIA GALI: SUE’S UAE LUXURY HOTEL

2011 Article Title: Brisbane rape victim sues UAE luxury hotel

• Article Link: abc.net.au
• By: AAP
• Date-stamped: 2011, 
• Time-stamped: 

ALICIA GALI: SUE’S THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OVER ORDEAL.

2011 Article Title: Jailed rape victim Alicia Gali to sue the Commonwealth of Australia over ordeal

• Article Link: adelaidenow.com.au
• By: NewsComAu
• Date-stamped: 2011, June 6.
• Time-stamped: 6:57am

2011 Article Title: Australian woman wins bid to sue her government over UAE jailing

• Article Link: thenational.ae
• By: Martin Croucher
• Date-stamped: 2011, June, 7. 2011 (Updated)
• Time-stamped: 04:00 AM

2011 Article Title: Woman to sue for UAE adultery jailing

• Article Link: news.com.au
• Date-stamped: 2011, June 7.
• Time-stamped: 5:02PM

ALICIA GALI’S ONGOING REPORTED STORY:

2012 Article Title: Rape victim Alicia Gali still traumatised three years after she was raped and jailed for adultery in United Arab Emirates

• Article Link: couriermail.com.au
• By: Kay Dibben, The Sunday Mail (Qld)
• Date-stamped: 2012, August, 25.
• Time-stamped: 10:00pm

2013 Article Title: Abandoned

• Article Link: au.news.yahoo.com
• By:  Ross Coulthart 
• Date-stamped: 
• Time-stamped:

2013 Article Title: Ordeal in the UAE

• Article Link: au.news.yahoo.com
• By: Yahoo7
• Date-stamped: 2013, July, 28.
• Time-stamped: 6:30 pm

2013 Article Title: Horrifying: Australian Woman Gang Raped in Dubai – Then Jailed 8 Months for Sex Outside Marriage

• Article Link: theblaze.com
• By: Erica Ritz
• Date-stamped: 2013, May, 13.
• Time-stamped: 3:33 pm

2015 Article Title: A Woman’s Horrific Trip to Dubai: Drugged, Gang-Raped and Thrown in Jail – “Fact”

• Article Link: hoaxorfact.com 
• By:
• Date-stamped: 2015, July, (26)

2016 Article Title: Tourists urged not to report rapes in Dubai

• Article Link: baysidestarnews.com.au 
• Date-stamped: 2016, Nov, 18.
• Time-stamped: 6:53 AM

2016 Article Title: If you’re shocked by a woman being arrested after reporting gang-rape in Dubai, you should know how common these cases are

• Article Link: independent.co.uk
• By: Radha Stirling
• Date-stamped: 2016, November,17
• Time-stamped: Thursday 10:32 GMT

 

 

Share

References   [ + ]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Gali
2. First posted 29 Mar 2011, 12:43pm