President Donald Trump’s dramatic decision to exclude so-called “transgender” people from the military is a direct rejection of the progressives’ revolutionary demand that Americans’ society should be remade to eliminate all civic recognition of the two different-and-complementary-sexes.
The Wednesday decision was greeted with anger from the left, which had hoped that the military’s 2016 endorsement of the transgender ideology would push the Supreme Court and legislators nationwide to impose and establish the unpopular claim that a person’s changeable choice of “gender” is more legally important than their biological sex. If endorsed by the courts, that claim would force K-12 girls to share their shower rooms and sports leagues with males who say they are females, force all single-sex civic groups to accept people from both sexes, and eventually force taxpayers to fund sex-change and sterilization procedures for pre-teens and teenagers.
Trump’s assertively mainstream decision will now help a wide range of civic groups — including conservative and lesbian groups — persuade judges and legislators to preserve the normal distinctions between the two equal, different and complementary sexes which are fiercely denied by gay, feminist, and business groups. For example, IBM and many other companies are now using their economic power to try to block a bill in Texas which would preserve single-sex bathrooms in K-12 schools.
In 2106 and early this year, a similar coalition of business and gay groups pressured the GOP-led state legislature in North Carolina to permit cities and countries set rules for who can declare themselves to be male or female. That pro-transgender move was defeated by the GOP and the voters, and it means the state legislature still decides who is male or female. Under the long-standing law in North Carolina, a person can change their legal sex, but only after undergoing surgery.
Polls show that roughly one-quarter of Americans support the progressive claim that biological sex is less important that chosen “gender identity,” despite intense media pressure in favor of the pro-transgender, anti-sexes campaign.
There are very few “transgender” people. For example, advocates say from 250 to several thousand people in the military are trying to live like members of the other sex in a military population of 1.3 million full-time soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel. Fewer than o.3 percent of Americans wish to live as members of the opposite sex.
Trump’s decision may push the Democrats to make their unpopular transgender ideology an issue in the 2018 elections even though former President Barack Obama has said twice that the ideology helped contribute to Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016.
Trump’s pro-sexes message was a huge defeat for the left, and prompted a huge outburst of anger by political activists;
VISIT BRIETBART WEBPAGE FOR AN ASTONISHING ARRAY OF RESPONSES
The fight over the Pentagon’s policy is important because a Pentagon approval of the pro-transgender ideology would help transgender activists pressure judges and swing-voting legislators to impose the transgender rules on Americans’ civic groups, such as schools, universities, and workplaces.
I have never seen a media scrum like the mob that absorbed Cardinal Pell this morning - thanks to Bill Thompson for this extraordinary footage.
Cardinal Pell is an innocent man currently in the same evidentiary position as Bill Shorten.
Each man has been accused of sexual assault. Both Shorten and Pell deny the allegations.
While Shorten's word was accepted over the word of his accuser, Cardinal Pell's explanations weren't.
While both Pell and Shorten's briefs of evidence were returned to Victoria Police by the state's OPP with no recommendation that either face charges, Victoria Police chose to let Shorten walk but to put Cardinal Pell before the court.
Cardinal Pell is one of The Vatican's most senior people.
We recognise and have diplomatic relations with The Vatican. Our authorities normally go out of their way to ensure a dignified and safe passage through public places for people like the Pope and his direct reports .
The Daniels/CFMEU Government apparently doesn't give a rats about that.
Today Andrews et al got what they wanted - Cardinal Pell doing the walk of shame.
Even Peter Slipper was given the back door key pass to the court in Sydney.
What chance a fair trial for the Cardinal if today's spectacle is anything to go by.
Julia Gillard presented with the insignia of her appointment as a Companion in the Order of Australia
Former prime minister Julia Gillard has been officially awarded Australia’s highest honour at a ceremony in Sydney.
Ms Gillard was presented with the insignia of her appointment as a Companion in the Order of Australia by the Governor-General Peter Cosgrove at Admiralty House on Tuesday.
The award, announced on Australia Day, was given for her “exemplary and distinguished” service and leadership to parliament, as well as her advocacy on issues such as education, people with disabilities and social equity.
Earlier this month Gillard stepped in to lead mental health advocacy group Beyond Blue, focusing on “the difficult task of reducing suicide in Australia”. Gillard took over the role from former founder chair and Liberal politician Jeff Kennett who had held the position for seventeen years.
Here's the official infamy announcement.
Investiture Ceremony of the Honourable Julia Gillard AC
Today at Admiralty House, Sydney, the Governor-General, as Chancellor of the Order of Australia, presided over a ceremony to invest the Honourable Julia Gillard AC with the insignia of her appointment as a Companion in the Order of Australia.
The Honourable Julia Gillard AC
For eminent service to the Parliament of Australia, particularly as Prime Minister, through seminal contributions to economic and social development, particularly policy reform in the areas of education, disability care, workplace relations, health, foreign affairs and the environment, and as a role model to young women.
Ms Gillard is a distinguished Australian whose contribution to the fabric of our political and social environment has been most significant.
Her exemplary and distinguished service to, and leadership of, the Parliament of Australia was characterised by her strength of conviction and commitment to achieve important outcomes for the benefit of the Australian community across a broad range of areas.
She has been a strong and passionate voice in advocating for quality, universal education, better care for people with disabilities, and improved social equity.
She continues to serve the nation, particularly in the area of mental health support services.
Ms Gillard is demonstrably one of our finest role models, particularly for young Australian women. Her service and enduring contribution to the nation are a source of great inspiration for us all.
In 2006, my mother lodged documents with the Italian consulate in Brisbane to become an Italian citizen. In doing so, it would appear that she made an application for me to become an Italian citizen as well. I was 25 years old at the time.
While I knew that my mother had become an Italian citizen I had no knowledge that I myself had become an Italian citizen. Until last week I had no suspicion that I could be an Italian citizen. I was not born in Italy and have never been to Italy.
Following the reporting of Senator Ludlum and Senator Waters, my mother raised with me the possibility that I was an Italian citizen last week.
The Italian authorities have confirmed that the application for Italian citizenship was not signed by me. To my knowledge I have not received any correspondence from Italian authorities about my citizenship status, and they have not been able to provide any such records.
In the short time available I have not been able to obtain definitive legal advice as to whether my registration as an Italian citizen, without my knowledge or consent, was valid under Italian law. I am seeking to obtain that advice presently.
On the basis of the advice the Government has obtained it is not my intention to resign from the Senate.
However, given the uncertainty raised by this matter, I will stand aside until the matter is finally resolved, and resign as the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia.
I want to thank everybody for their support and assistance in the past three years and I will fight on.
And you'd have to say "fair enough" to Scott Ludlam - it's a nice line.
Our Julie is very proud of her keynote address to open the Goldman Sachs Global Conference.
The Foreign Minister spoke to the firm formerly led by the Prime Minister about globalisation, redistributing wealth, the importance of global lawmaking bodies, the worry of Brexit and the 'challenges' posed by the election of President Trump.
But she's conservative, a plain speaker and loyal (to Goldmans, the UN, Malcolm, the Clintons et al) as the day is long!
A bit spooky that we too knocked off a Wolf of Wall Street free promo photo to illustrate our story 5 months ago - Julie fits in there very nicely lecturing other people on how she plans to give their money away.
Not only does The Australian almost outshine the Daily Telegraph's legendary "Bill Shorten's knowledge of money comes from marrying it" - it mops up with Turnbull and his TJDS (Turnbull Judgement Deficiency Syndrome).
Four years in office won’t make Shorten a reformer
We did a double-take on Sunday when Bill Shorten was quoted as an advocate of daring, long-term policymaking in government. Was this the same Opposition Leader who had mastered the art of class envy politics, pushed the limits of spin, and frustrated attempts to spare the next generation a crippling burden of debt? Apparently so. On the ABC Insiders show Mr Shorten endorsed fixed four-year terms of office as necessary for better government. “The federal political system seems out of whack in that everything is so short-term,” he said.
There is no evidence that a shift to four-year terms would revive policymaking in the public interest. Consider the woeful energy policies of state governments with four-year terms. Under the supposed handicap of the existing federal system, the Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello administrations carried through landmark economic reforms. And if Mr Shorten were elected with a fixed four-year term he still would need political courage to govern for the nation, not just for trade union clients, and to confront the culture of entitlement underwritten by foreign debt. In Sunday’s interview there was no sign of that resolve, only his overblown rhetoric about inequality and swipes at “rich parents” and “millionaires”.
Mr Shorten urged the Coalition to co-operate with Labor on his reform of electoral terms. Where is his willingness to work with the government to boost competitiveness, productivity, growth, jobs and living standards? As for the Turnbull administration, would it really become more bold in economic reform simply because it was granted a slightly more remote date of reckoning with the electorate? Pressed on the imperative of fiscal repair, the best the government can say is that it has not allowed spending to grow as rapidly as it did under previous administrations. In his defence, Mr Turnbull will point to the obstacle of an irresponsible Senate.
If anything, that problem could be magnified by four-year terms. Now elected for six years, senators would stay on for eight. Crossbench senators already have an idea of their own importance at odds with their often minuscule levels of voter support. Rather than encourage such delusion, the task for mainstream politicians is to make the case for necessary economic reform with skill and candour, enlist wide public support and persuade, even shame, crossbench senators into giving their assent.
This is what should be preoccupying Malcolm Turnbull; parliament resumes in two weeks. His willingness to chase Mr Shorten’s diversion on Sunday showed a lack of judgment on several levels. Why should the Prime Minister appear to take seriously Mr Shorten’s pretence of electoral statesmanship?
More fundamentally, it makes no sense for Mr Turnbull to associate himself with a proposition unlikely to go anywhere. People are disenchanted with the major parties because they have not delivered sound government at a time of economic challenges. In the present climate, voters are hardly going to support a measure that looks like making politicians less accountable to the verdict of the electorate.
If the unincorporated association did not exist, then why did Ray Neale grant incorporation status to a non-existent entity? And keep in mind that when he did query Blewitt's application, he was concerned only with likeness to a trade union.
Neale did not (apparently) question eligibility to seek incorporation in the first place. And yet, Neale had a statutory obligation to ensure at least the basic eligibility criteria were met.
Does this then mean you also regard Neale as a party to the AWU fraud?
No doubt you are likely to now say Gillard misled Neale. But misled him about what precisely? About the fundamental eligibility criteria? Or did she mislead him about something quite different?
Should not Neale have picked up the ineligibility BEFORE Gillard became involved in her advocacy role?
Here's a little from me to kick off proceedings.
I say Gillard went into Dyson Heydon's royal commission with a forged letter purporting to be from Ray Neal, the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner.
She knew it was a forgery. And she used it as if it was real. She gave false evidence about the way the AWU WRA was incorporated. She knew it was false evidence. She was covering up the truth - which isn't that hard to discover!
Yvonne Henderson, the Minister in Carmen Lawrence's government directed that the AWU WRA Inc be incorporated.
Gillard knows that because she prepared the submission asking for a ministerial review of the commissioner's decision to refuse incorporation. And her submission included a filing fee of $22 - made out on an AWU WRA Inc cheque!
But instead of "remembering" the truth, she "remembered" receiving a letter which turns out to be a forgery. It was never sent to her.
She tried to be vague in the Royal Commission
Once again, my view about this is informed by documents. If I hadn't seen the documents I'm not sure I would have recalled these matters, but it is evident on the documents that some inquiry was made, I presume of Mr Blewitt, about the nature of the Association and whether or not it was a trade union and that was then referred to me.
She then goes on to give a dubious account of having no memory of "the documents" but treating them (ie the Ray Neal forgery and the memo to Blewitt) as the real deal, which triggered memories of what she "must have done" at the time.
It was over 20 years ago you see. She's looking for wriggle room so as to avoid the perjury charge she knows she's risking.
Trouble for Ms Gillard is that line is nicely snookered by her own evidence to the Royal Commission:
Q. You have been answering questions about these issues for many years; correct?
A. I most certainly have, Mr Stoljar.
On 29 November 2012 Ms Gillard held a public press conference and said this:
PM: I dealt with this extensively at the marathon press conference that I did in August and before I answer your question let me just go to some of the issues here about the amount that I've dealt with this on the public record.
There has been an emerging kind of consensus amongst the media, perhaps egged on by the Opposition, that I need to give a full and frank account of these matters. Let me just remind, I first answered these matters on the public record in 1995, when they were raised by a Liberal Party minister.
I then dealt with these matters on the public record again in 2001 when they were raised by a Liberal Party backbencher.
I dealt with these matters on the public record in 2006 when I filmed an Australian Story.
I dealt with these matters on the public record in 2007 after the shopping around of a dirt file by persons employed then in the ministerial office of the Liberal Party.
I dealt with these matters on the public record in a marathon press conference in August, one of the longest prime ministerial press conferences ever held.
I have dealt with these matters at press conferences in Melbourne, in Brisbane.
She dealt with the WA Corporate Affairs matter in the parliament for a week.
As she says, over the years she's regularly gone on the record to explain what went on.
And she's never once "remembered" the forged letter from Ray Neal - until the Royal Commission.
In November 2012 she had McTernan produce this after the reports that said she'd done a lot more than just give advice as a lawyer:
And when Fairfax broke the story that Gillard's initial claim that she only provided advice on the incorporation was false - that she'd argued the case with the WA office of state corporate affairs - she wrote this little number to Greg Hywood.
And to quote Kevin Rudd, "You know something?"; not once did she ever mention anywhere that she'd written back to a letter from Ray Neal offering to incorporate if the association promised to make a rule change. Nor did she mention the memo she now says she sent to Ralph all those years ago. Nor did she mention anywhere until the Royal Commission Ralph's purported role as the head honcho in getting the rule change up etc etc etc.
In fact, she didn't mention Ralph Blewitt at all in her explanations to Peter Gordon.
Just her and Bruce. And a note from the regulator that said the entity was ineligible for incorporation. In answer to which she made a submission arguing the case for incorporation. And sent a $22 cheque made out to the corporate affairs people. And 2 men from the WA office of state corporate affairs who say the decision to incorporate was made by the minister. And that the letter Gillard used in her false evidence is a forgery.
So get ready for lots more detail. Share it with your friends. Let's get Ray Neal and his offsider Ralph Mineif cleared of the implicit defamatory imputations in Gillard's forgery.
The nett effect of Media Watch's analysis on this first story:
It’s just a shame that a misleading headline tarnished an otherwise compelling and worthwhile investigation.
ABC’s Media watch criticises ABC for misleading headlines on domestic abuse in the church
Host Paul Barry said the ABC “misrepresented” the core research behind a series of reports about irregular Protestant churchgoers being the most likely to subject their partners to violence. Picture: ABC
The ABC’s Media Watch program has criticised the headlines used by the ABC to sell a story about domestic violence in the church, but denied the public broadcaster is conducting a “war on Christians”.
In an episode on Monday night, host and journalist Paul Barry said the broadcaster “misrepresented” the core research behind a series of reports about irregular Protestant churchgoers being the most likely to subject their partners to violence.
Journalists Julia Baird and Paige MacKenzie’s stories, aired on 7.30 and published online, quoted a paper by Dr Steve Tracy, a professor of theology and ethics at Phoenix Seminary, who wrote in 2007 that: “conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives”.
Barry noted the ABC’s online headlines did not make clear, as Baird repeatedly said in interviews, the subsequent finding from Dr Tracy that: “Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence.”
Dr Tracy spoke to Media Watch, saying the ABC’s reports “cherry pick(ed)” information.
“It is all too easy to cherry pick sound bites and in the process fail to do justice to the data …” he told the program.
“If you are going to highlight the failures you should be even-handed and note major successes.”
Barry noted in his analysis of the ABC’s reporting, which was criticised as “selective”, “inaccurate” and “anti-Christian” by church leaders, that there is “little or no Australian data” on domestic violence figures. He said the report, however, was “compelling viewing, featuring heartbreaking interviews with victims of domestic violence, who claim that church teachings were used to justify their continued abuse.”
“So, what does the ABC say in its defence? In short, not guilty,” he said.
“Well, that may be so. But we reckon the headlines the ABC used to sell the story misrepresented Professor Tracy’s research.
Barry denied the ABC, which has been running a series on different religions, was targeting Christians.
“But, as to the claim that the ABC is waging war on Christianity we are not convinced,” he said. “It’s just a shame that it tarnished an otherwise compelling and worthwhile investigation.”
I think this effort which we critiqued in April this year is much more egregious - no lesser an authority that Susan Carland is recruited to give Islam a clean bill of health in the domestic violence stakes.
On Monday, in response to publicity about Islam's endorsement of domestic violence, the ABC announced:
In an ongoing ABC News investigation, we look at the ways Islam, Christianity and other religions are being forced to confront the darkness in their own midst, the fact that some of their followers at times condone or tolerate domestic violence, and to grapple with how best to combat it.
This week, Islam.
What a white wash. It's summed up in these opening sentences, with the theme recurring throughout the "investigation".
ABC News has interviewed dozens of scholars, imams, social workers and women's advocates over the past several weeks......there is a strong consensus that Islam abhors all violence, including domestic abuse.
The report noted that Islamists among us responded to recent criticism of their violent teachings with this statement:
"We firmly believe that we, as a community, must not shy away from the clarification of Islamic injunctions, however controversial, let alone succumb to reinterpretations of Islam forced by liberal hounding," they said.
"In fact, the greater the pressure, the greater our adherence to Islam must be."
That position paraphrases the Grand Mufti in his strong support of Sheik Shady last year - after the Sheik was criticised for advocating Islamic teaching on homosexuals.
The statement is no surprise, it's policy, it's what Islamists do. Islam is Islam, it can't be changed.
The ABC, however, had a greater authority up its sleeve.
That's Waleed Aly's wife Susan Carland with Turnbull and another celebrity Muslim Yassmin Abdel Magied.
This is a direct quote from the ABC investigation:
But Susan Carland, who teaches gender studies, politics, and sociology at Monash University, said that (the statement above) was a "minority opinion within Islam" in Australia.
"In this kind of situation, we only want to be hearing from people who actually know what they're talking about, we want to be hearing from imams and those sort of people," Dr Carland said
OK let's do that. Here's their Wikipedia page.
Australian National Imams Council
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) was formed in 2006 during a meeting of more than 80 Sunni imams which had gathered to discuss the crisis created by comments made by Taj El-Din Hilaly.
The ANIC elects the Grand Mufti of Australia. The current Grand Mufti is Dr. Ibrahim Abu Mohamed. On a 2012 visit to the Gaza Strip, where he met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, he told local news agencies, "I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons".
The ANIC has called for the offence of "advocating terrorism" to be removed from the "Foreign Fighters Bill", saying a cleric could fall foul of the law if he simply "advocated the duty of a Muslim to defend his land" or referred to stories in the Quran, Bible and Torah in his sermons.
In February 2015 the Grand Mufti said the Australian Government should not ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, saying the group is "actually pro-freedom of speech". The Prime Minister responded by saying the comments were "unhelpful".
In 2016, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, who has criticised homosexuals, supported the mujahideen, been cited as supporting the stoning of adulterers, was elected president of ANIC. Australia's Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed has defended Alsuleiman, saying Islam has a, "longstanding" position on homosexuality" which "no person can ever change". He said that any attempt to call out its teachings could lead to radicalisation.
But none of that for the ABC report.
The gender studies, politics and sociology teacher trumped the Islamic scholars.
Islam doesn't abhor violence. It is built on it. Muhammad beheaded prisoners of war. He took sex slaves as booty. His teachings endorse those practices to today.
Sheik Shady is the most senior Imam in Australia. His teachings aren't hard to find. took me about 10 minutes to find freaky weirdo boy's rantings. Shame we have an incompetent liar for Prime Minister and an ABC hell-bent on covering up for a violent cult.
Here's one from Sheik Shady for starters, "Never become like them".
Turnbull's decision to invite this dangerous psychopath to his official residence for dinner casts further doubt on his judgement and fitness to lead our government.
And here's the Sheikh of Hate asking that question on everyone's lips - can we kill civilians who aren't Muslim yet?
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull dines with hate preacher
Rob HarrisHerald Sun
AN Islamic preacher — who once called AIDS a divine punishment for gays and for God to “prepare us for jihad”- dined with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at Kirribilli House tonight.
Sheik Shady Al-Suleiman, the national president of the Australian National Imams Council, has said in online videos that females will be “hung by the breasts in hell” and that women should not even look at men
He was among a group of religious leaders and prominent Islamic Australians hosted by the PM at an Iftar dinner to mark the holy month of Ramadan at Kirribilli House.
The Australian-born Sheik Shady has previously called on God to help “destroy the enemies of Islam” and for adulterers to be stoned to death.
Among the guests at the dinner included Gold Logie winner Waleed Aly and wife Susan Carland, head of the Australian Multicultural Foundation Hass Dellal, Archbishop of Sydney, Reverend Glenn Davies and Richmond footballer Bachar Houli.
In online videos Shiek Shady has called for the killing of women who engage in premarital sex: “Remember that if there is an Islamic state the punishment of zina [sex outside marriage], the punishment of those who commit zina, if they have never been married before, they will be lashed 100 lashes,” he says.
Here's the follower of Muhammad on women (uncovered meat to TomCat Muslim good ole boys) - women will burn in the fires of hell
Here's freaky-weirdo on women who get raped out of wedlock.
PS - here's a last word from the Sheikh "can we kill civilians yet" of Hate, dinner guest of Malcolm no-judgement, unfit for office Turnbull.Dear Mr Turnbull,Thank you for directing that the Australian taxpayer feeds me at a full-on taxpayer funded Iftar tonight held at the official residence of the Prime Minister of an illegitimate man-made government whose laws we reject.Here's what I think of Kuffirs like you. Enjoy life while you can, the day of the "can we kill civilians yet" green light cometh as a thief in the night. The ABC should butt out of the business of "fact-checking' and endorsing the violent Mohammedan cult.People might read what the ABC reports and believe it - with tragic consequences.