Statist Sugar Hits

What a wonderful response to last week’s missive. The messages of congratulations were just amazing, as were the stories many readers shared about married life.

It’s clear that I am not the only one to feel blessed by their life partner. I also acknowledge that there were a few who used the opportunity to make the case for allowing same-sex couples into the marriage fold.

It might disappoint some of you but I am not for changing when it comes to redefining marriage. The consequences are far greater than many would have us believe and that’s why I will be voting No and encouraging others to do the same.

And amidst the current debate, one could be forgiven for thinking that nothing else important is happening in the world. I regret that’s not the case.

Not too far from our own borders, a most unusual man has armed himself with nuclear bombs and the rockets necessary to deliver them almost anywhere in the world. He is engaged in a battle of brinkmanship with the United States - which has implications for us all.

For those of us who grew up in the shadow of a Cold War nuclear showdown between the USA and USSR, it is like deja-vu : worrying but well-aware that nuclear armageddon is unlikely.

However there is an entire generation of Australians for whom the Cold War is merely an academic study. What President Reagan coined as ‘the evil empire’ is history and the atrocities of cold war communism have been mostly airbrushed from the text books.

Perhaps that explains the sugary appeal of statism (in various flavours such as ‘socialism’ and ‘marxism’) for our young people. Rather than seeking more freedom from the coercion of the state, many now want greater control invested in government.

640px-Hans-en-Grietje.jpgThe likes of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the USA have met with youthful acclaim and Bill Shorten is trying it on here too.

His class warfare rhetoric, attacks on ‘millionaires’ and patina of false promises are designed to tap into a deep concern that things aren’t going so well for too many of us.

That his public pronouncements are at odds with his history seems to be no cause for concern…but they should be.

How can we rely on leaders who will say and do anything to get into power? Will they really do what needs to be done to make Australia stronger and more prosperous, or will they do whatever works to their own advantage?

I think the answer is pretty clear but regret too few voters are prepared to reflect on past experience and ask themselves those important questions. And who can blame them?

The past decade has seen the failure of government to act in the national interest. They have chosen politics over principle and expediency over experience.

At some point in the next few years that will change. The paper thin hope that the political class will get it right will eventually dissolve like sugar in hot water.

Then, the people of Australia will recognise that they deserve better and will be seeking a better way.

Australian Conservatives will be there for them.

Reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-09-29 19:42:18 +0930
    I understand that emotions on same sex marriage go so high that the logic is a secondary instrument in making correct and legal decision. Logic is the backbone of law even though for some people is not obvious.

    I understand the desire of homosexual couples to be recognised, in particular when they need to represent each other in situations like hospitals where only a family members have some rights.
    But the needed protected civil union cannot be called marriage because of some legal instrument forced by widespread propaganda.

    MORE IMPORTANTLY, RE-DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS AGAINST THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF LAW.

    Firstly, changing the meaning of traditional terms by law is always risky, like changing the meaning of Sunday to Tuesday. It is still Sunday.

    The re-definition of marriage cannot be done legally because it effectively changes the meaning of the constitution which should stay immutable until changed by a proper process.

    The constitution says:
    “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

    xxi) marriage;


    1. Marriage IS NOT defined in the constitution, therefore the legislator referred to its common meaning when it was approved in a series of referendums held over 1898–1900

    CHANGING THE MEANING OF TERMS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION IS AN IMPLICIT CHANGE OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF WITHOUT THE PRESCRIBED LEGAL PROCESS.
    example:

    a) One could redefine marriage as something ridiculous like the union of any three people born on the 29th of February in the Marriage Act, so would that be constitutional even though approved by Parliament ?

    b) The term “general election” is not defined in the constitution.
    Imagine some Parliament re-defines it as a “free gathering of army generals with the intention to elect the parliament” because generals wanted so.

    2.The Marriage Act follows the constitution by stating what was meant by marriage under the heading: 5 INTERPRETATIONS

    marriage (which is invoked in the constitution) means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

    This statement INTERPRETS what was meant by the constitution allowing to make laws about marriage on the day when it has been passed.
    General rule: YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE PAST BY LAW because it is physical impossibility legally null and void.

    Where legal acts of the Commonwealth Define something, it appears under the clear heading “Definitions”
    Take look at Migration Act 1958 where sections “Interpretation” and “Definitions” intermittently appear which is not accidental but has a reason behind it.
  • commented 2017-09-27 19:04:27 +0930
    Regarding your comments re the current surge in popularity of the far left amongst the youth of today: that is indeed at the centre of the problem of changing social attitudes. It’s hardly surprising though when you consider that the majority of political and media opinion (worldview) has been nurtured in our universities which are full of left leaning academics and teachers, and has been for a very long time. It is exactly the reason that books such as ‘The Gulag Archipelego’ remain unknown amongst our younger generations; a book that should be compulsory reading in everyone’s education. If that were done of course, the left leanings agenda would be difficult to perpetuate. I wonder if Bill Shorten has read it. If he has, then we have cause to be extremely worried. Bill Shortens ‘win at all costs’ approach is typical of the strategy that permeates left wing politics, where ‘the end justifies the means’. We see it every day in media reports. A worry indeed, especially when it becomes unfettered.

    Regarding North Korea: while I am no fan of Russia or China, I think their approach with North Korea is considerably smarter than Donald Trumps regardless of their agenda. Kim Jong Un has Trump exactly where he wants him, in a corner, and Mr Trump has fallen for his bait hook, line and sinker. Neither is likely to fire a shot, especially KJU. He may be an evil monster but he’s no fool. As far as I can see he is playing the Stalin game of retaining his power through a campaign of fear and power, and obviously part of that strategy is to promote North Korea (read himself) as a ‘world power’ who needs to be taken seriously. He’s achieving that is spades… thanks mainly to Mr Trump.
  • commented 2017-09-27 17:28:51 +0930
    Garry Grahams post echoes my fears. The rise of marxism/fascism in recent years is truly frightening. I don’t think Australians have a few years left to act. Shorten is already promising to ignore the peoples wishes when he is in power. Too many people are ignorant of the danger and children are being indoctrinated en masse. It will be a long, painful battle to recover if we let ourselves become another Venezuala.
  • commented 2017-09-27 16:31:34 +0930
    I have voted no, but I fear that even if a majority of Australians also vote no, nothing will stop the changes to our law. Our politicians have no spine and are simply devoid of conscience. They will do anything to seem popular, except what is right.

    The left will continue its long march through our institutions, infiltrating, dismantling them and moving on to the next target. There is not much left. Today their goal is one of the fundamental pillars of society, marriage. tomorrow it will be religious freedom. They will not stop unless they are stopped. From where our society stands now, the only thing to stop them will be Islam, but the time being, they share similar goals, so they will let the left do its thing until the last of our defences are gone. I know it sounds a bit negative, but I am struggling to see many positives. The Australian Conservatives will need to become very strong very quickly if we are to defend our civilisation.

    Keep up the fight Cory.