First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.” He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack — treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle — and solar output — are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they’ve been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming.  One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain’s busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they’re made from banned toxins and they won’t work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says ‘green’ lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It’s bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

Source

Both Ms. Gillard and Mr Abbott have indicated they are prepared to lead a minority government. Such a government must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives; that is the essence of the Westminster system.

Recall that the Speaker cannot join in an expression of confidence; he or she only enjoys a casting vote when the House is equally divided. Andrew Bolt suggests Mr Abbott invite Kevin Rudd to be Speaker. If this occurred one Labor vote would be neutralised.

Under the Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is formally exercised by the Governor-General, and accordingly Her Excellency will play a significant role.

And in Hobart …

The vice-regal involvement in the formation of a minority government arose after the recent elections in Tasmania. His Excellency the Honourable Peter Underwood published his reasons for re-commissioning the outgoing Premier David Bartlett to form a government in controversial circumstances. The Governor-General will no doubt find this useful.

The Governor said it was his duty as The Queen’s representative to protect and maintain the Constitution and representative parliamentary democracy. He had to ensure that elections were conducted in accordance with the law and that there is an orderly transition of government. The duty obliged the Governor to find the person who can form a stable government which will have the confidence of the House of Assembly.

The Governor stressed that the commissioning of a person to form a government was entirely his prerogative.

Constitutional irrelevance

He dismissed two arguments, one of which is being raised now in the formation of the next Federal government. Ms. Gillard today relied on the size of the two party preferred vote as a reason for her to lead a minority government. The Tasmanian Governor dismissed similar arguments about the size of the Liberal vote as “constitutionally irrelevant to the issue of who should be commissioned to form a government.”

(Mr. Abbott has referred to the fact that 400,000 more people voted for the Coalition rather than Labor, but has not directly claimed this as justification for appointment. That too would be constitutionally irrelevant.)

Not in anyone’s gift

The other matter the Governor ruled irrelevant were the statements and promises made by the Premier. Before the election the Premier had said that if Labor did not gain an overall majority he would advise the Governor “that Mr Hodgman ( the Leader of the Opposition) should have the opportunity to form a Government in the first instance”. Mr. Bartlett so advised the Governor.

In addition Mr. Bartlett had made statements before the election that “his party would not vote against legislation appropriating supply, nor would they (sic) wantonly move or support a no-confidence motion in the government.”

But when asked by the Governor, he declined to undertake to support Mr. Hodgman in the House.

The Governor ruled that the Royal prerogative to commission the Premier “is not within the gift of any political leader to hand over, or cede to another political leader the right to form a government, whatever the result of the election.”

Constitutional obligation

The Tasmanian Governor found on the facts as presented to him that the Opposition Leader Mr. Hodgman was not in a position to form a stable government. Consequently, he was obliged to send for Mr Bartlett, who still held a commission to form a government. He reminded him that as Premier, he “had a constitutional obligation to form a government so that the Parliament could be called together and the strength of that government tested on the floor of the House of Assembly.”

Mr Bartlett accepted that he had this obligation and the process of forming a new government proceeded.

Source

Indeed, one must recall why adoption laws have been established in the first place. Because young children are so vulnerable, the aim of adoption has been to provide the child in question with a secure, permanent, legal family. The paramount concern in adoption has been the best interests of the child. Thus only the best families have been allowed to adopt, not just “good enough” families. The issue of homosexual fostering is really all about homosexual rights, not the interests and needs of children.

Can a homosexual couple love and nurture a child? Undoubtedly many can. But that is not the issue. As the former vice president of the National Council for Adoption in the US has put it, “providing a nurturing environment is not enough. A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide – it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”

The simple truth is, there exists a mountain of social science research which demonstrates that children do best when raised in a biological, two-parent household, cemented by marriage. The evidence is so overwhelming that the reader is advised to look at recent summaries of the data. However, several recent academic studies can be mentioned here, which demonstrate the importance of children growing up with their married biological mother and father.

One American study of 19,000 young people conducted by the Bowling Green State University (Ohio) found that teens fare best when living with two married biological parents: “Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents.”

Another large-scale American study found that there are “overall disadvantages” in not living with both biological parents. The author concludes, “My analyses have clearly demonstrated some overall disadvantages of living with neither parent. Among adolescents from all six family types, those in non-biological-parent appear to rank the lowest in academic performance, educational aspiration, and locus of control. Further, they appear to fare less well in the remaining outcome areas (self-esteem, behavior problems, and cigarette smoking).”

The evidence is quite plain. Children deserve a biological mother and father, preferably cemented by marriage. The emotional appeals of homosexuals and their own selfish adult demands must be balanced by the interests of the child, and the right of every child to be raised by a mother and a father.

Yet critics might argue that in many other situations children are already being raised without a mother or a father. True, by there is a big difference in dealing with an existing crisis and the creation of a new crisis. That is, when one parent dies or is deserted by his or her spouse, society does all it can to help the children get through such difficult periods. But it is another matter altogether to deliberately create those sorts of situations.

As two family experts and child psychologists put it: “While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than adults desire such families. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender – as loving as they might be – but rather that children need their mother and father.”

But too often the well-being of children is not at the forefront of homosexual concerns. For many homosexuals, the demand for adoption rights, like the demand for marriage rights, is really about seeking legitimacy and acceptance. That is, these are symbolic demands as much as anything. They are part of the attempt to seek the complete public acceptance and normalization of their lifestyle, something which many societies are rightly hesitant about. “For the homosexual rights movement the right to adopt is a symbol – a goal which must be achieved in order to achieve broader victory. . . . Clearly, adoption as a political statement does not take into account a child’s needs at all. And an individual parent, whether heterosexual or homosexual, who is seeking to adopt principally to meet narcissistic needs is also not concerned about the best interest of the child,”

And the desire for children may even spring from more sinister motives. Consider this revealing quote from someone who should know. Tammy Bruce is the former president of the LA chapter of the National Organisation of Woman. She is also a pro-abortion feminist and a lesbian. But she is greatly alarmed by homosexual activism. This is what she says about the issue of children and the homosexual agenda: “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.”

She continues, “The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you’re really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihilism that forbids morality and judgment.”

Now that enough time has passed to see some of the negative impacts of homosexual parenting, the results are starting to come in. Some book-length treatments of what it is like to be raised in a homosexual household are now appearing. These provide real life stories of what the studies are telling us: children suffer greatly in these alternative lifestyle families.

One very important new book in this regard is Out From Under by Dawn Stefanowicz. It is a shocking story of a child thrust into the world of male homosexuality. It is a story of abuse, betrayal, loneliness and suffering. The book tells it all: her dad’s multiple male lovers and sexual escapades; the abuse she suffered at the hands of her dad; the string of boyfriends her dad had at the house; the emotional, psychological and physical dangers she experienced growing up.

No one can read this moving story and not see how destructive homosexual parenting is to a child. It is an important book, but because it speaks the truth about homosexuality, do not expect it to be featured in the mainstream media, except as a dismissal of it.

Finally, it needs to be stressed that homosexuals themselves are quite divided on the issue of same-sex parenting. While it appears that lesbians want to have children more than homosexual men, it seems that in general most homosexuals do not even want to have children. As two homosexual “parents” admitted, “We have to be careful sometimes that we don’t give the appearance of crusaders trying to convert gay men into breeders. And we do totally understand that probably most gay men don’t aspire to parenthood.”

And a recent major article in the homosexual press admitted that there were deep divisions in the homosexual community over both marriage and parenting issues. As one long-time homosexual activist admitted: “There is little point in chasing access to IVF, ART and getting parenting reforms if the vast majority of us are never going to have children. These issues are important but they are not the whole game.”

But the media is quite happy to pick up the cause of a very small percentage of homosexuals, who make up a very small percentage of all adults, who do want children, and turn it into a major campaign. But for the sake of our children, we need to proceed with great caution here.

Source

Their support for global governance, manifested in the United Nations, includes a “stronger UN capable of dealing with threats to international peace and security.”

Given the Greens oppose every type of conflict except the ‘just wars’ mounted by radical eco-terrorists like the Sea Shepherd organisation, one must ask what benefit a stronger United Nations would be to their objectives? Unless the UN was entrusted to enforce some of their more interventionist treaties and agreements.

Actually, that’s exactly what the Green lobby wanted through the Copenhagen treaty. An unelected, unaccountable body was to be funded through the wealthy Western nations to act as the global policeman, judge and jury determining who could do what, where and when.

Such a process would have almost assuredly resulted in systemic corruption that would have dwarfed the frauds and falsehoods of the UN’s own climate change committee and limited the ability of nations to choose their own path to the benefit of their citizens.

Now the United Nations have many other treaties; including one that trumps parental responsibility with government bureaucrats under the guise of ‘children’s rights’.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty is part of an international plan to give children a long list of rights. It was implemented in 1989 and most nations, including Australia, are signatories to it.

Some of the clauses in this treaty give rise to some concern. This includes the rights that give ‘the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.’

Further, children would be able to seek a ‘governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.’

Teaching children Christianity in schools would be banned, as would raising your children in any particular faith. In fact, parents would limited to giving ‘advice’ to children about religion under this treaty.

According to the United Nations good parenting guide, children would have a right to abortions without parental consent and would have a legally enforceable right to leisure. Exactly what constitutes leisure is left open to interpretation but I feel confident that campaigning for Green causes would meet with UN approval!

Of course, the UN doesn’t stop there. Under their treaty it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defence than it does on children’s welfare. Who cares that strong nations protect children from tyranny and abuse, or that orderly societies provide a safer environment for children than lawless ones? Such trifling matters should never interfere with the United Nations’ ability to dictate how sovereign nations are allowed to spend their taxpayers’ money.

At present, although there are reporting obligations by nations that signed the treaty, there are no penalties for failure to comply and nations can opt out of the treaty with little notice. So it is basically another UN motherhood statement that achieves nothing except for providing the UN with the appearance of achievement.

However, under the Greens’ world view, that could change. They want to empower the UN to have an enforcement role for all existing and future treaties and conventions, which the Greens will unilaterally endorse. Don’t take my word for it, read their policy platform.

This includes the Rights of the Child treaty where an enforced UN treaty could actually direct how parents can raise their children.

It’s alarming enough that a party with a Marxist heart covered by an environmental skin can achieve electoral success and balance of power status without effective scrutiny of their policy positions.

However it is downright scary that they are prepared to effectively outsource aspects of Australian sovereignty to an external organisation and further want to empower that organisation to be the global policeman – directing, amongst other things, how we can raise our children.

Source

If nothing else, this year’s federal election has certainly been
exciting. While much of the attention has been on the photo-finish in
the house of representatives, of greater significance for Family First
is that the Senate result in Victoria is also going to come down to
the wire.

Contrary to reports in much of the media, Steve has not been swept
out of the Senate by the “greenslide” – at the very least it is
going to be a very close count. While the Greens have definitely won
the fifth Senate spot, the final spot is coming down to a photo finish
between ourselves, the DLP, and the Liberals.

From Pollbludger.com, a respected political analysis blog:

“It is widely being reported that Steve Fielding has lost his seat,
based on an assessment of Antony Green’s projection that went no
deeper than the predicted final result. The remarkable fact of this is
the win for the Democratic Labor Party, who would be advised not to
count their chickens. Four counts earlier, the DLP emerge ahead of
Steve Fielding by the narrowest of margins, resulting in the former
receiving the latter’s preferences and vice-versa. The DLP then
emerges ahead of the third Coalition candidate and wins the seat on
their third preferences, but it could just as easily be Fielding who
does this. Alternatively, neither could win – Fielding or the DLP
could fail to get ahead of the third Coalition candidate, who might
end up taking the seat instead. Or they could get ahead, but then fall
short of overtaking Labor in the final count, so that Labor wins the
seat.”

Family First has teams of scrutineers on the ground watching the
count this week; trends observed in counting so far have made us
confident that we are in with a real chance to keep Steve Fielding in
the Senate. It will likely still be a few weeks until the final result
is known.

Whatever happens, Family First is excited to have seen our vote
increase by over 30% across Australia this election. This puts us in a
strong position leading into the Victoria State Elections on November
27th. We will look forward to sharing more information soon on Family
First’s plans to bring accountability and commonsense to
Victoria’s Parliament by electing Family First members to State
Parliament for the first time.

In the meantime, keep watching the federal Senate count. Family First
is well and truly still in the race.

Cheers,

Daniel Emmerson

Family First Victoria

- Instead of delivering on its promises, Labor has given us new taxes, has wasted billions of your hard earned dollars and made life so much harder for many families.

-  Labor has given us 6 interest rate rises, a deficit of $40.8Billion in 2010 – 2011 and it will take years to pay off and put more upward pressure on interest rate.

- Scrapped its election promise to build 260 new child care centre’s and has cut the maximum childcare rebate by more then 250$ per Child.

- Labors bungled roof insulation scheme has resulted in 240,000 dangerous and dodgy insulation’s bringing great concern and worry to many families. It will cost another 1 BILLION $$ to fix.

-  Labor has done nothing to bring down the rising fuel and grocery prices and has abandoned promises to introduce Grocery Watch and Petrol Watch.

-Another 3 years of Labor and its reckless spending,rising interest rates and mounting debt will make life even harder for families.

Thats why at this federal election I’m voting #1 Family First Party and you should too !!

< Click on the image below for full page >

Bob Day the Federal Chairman have expressed his sentiments about the report:

“You may have seen or heard reports this morning (Wednesday 28th July) that Family First sought to enter into a preference arrangement with the Australian Sex Party. I want to reassure you that this is completely false. I am the Federal Chairman and no preference arrangement can occur without my approval,” he stated.

“Family First has not and would not ever contemplate a preference arrangement with a Party like the Australian Sex Party.”

“This is a blatant attempt by the Australian Sex Party to discredit Family First. You might recall some months ago this Party took out large advertisements in The Advertiser expressing one of their key aims was to ‘stop Family First’.”

The Queensland Senate Candidate for Family First, Wendy Francis further added: “We stand for the opposite of what the Australian Sex Party stand for…they stand for abortion, euthanasia and gay ‘marriage’.”

“Please do not be misled by sensationalist media reports and please advise your friends that this is simply media sensationalism.”

————————————————————————————————————————

Childcare: Having children is one of the great joys in life. However, Family First realizes it isn’t cheap to raise a family and that the cost of childcare places a massive burden on many families. There is no doubt the Federal Government plays a pivotal in when it comes to childcare. But more work needs to be done take the financial stress of parents and their kids. That’s why we are fighting for a fair go for parents to make childcare more affordable and accessible than ever before.

Safe Streets & Slashing the Alcohol Toll: Australia has become a nation held to ransom by binge drinking with one in two Australians too frightened to go out on the streets at night. This is because governments have been slack in addressing our nation’s culture of binge drinking. We’ve seen alcohol fuelled street violence and general anti-social behaviour run havoc in our cities without governments doing much about it. However, Family First remains committed to slashing the alcohol toll and taking back our streets from the thugs and mugs and putting it back in the hands of the community. Haven’t we all had enough of drunken yobbos taunting people walking by, of young women lying sprawled on the street with vomit down their party dresses and groups of grog-fuelled men wandering our streets looking for a fight?

Many Australians enjoy a drink responsibly, but for far too many having a drink means getting blind drunk. Our drinking to get drunk culture is destorying this country. We must send the message that boozing and brawling will not be tolerated. And we must demand real action by the federal government instead of a tax grab on one product. Binge drinking has devastating consequences on families, neighbours and kids and we must tackle it as a cultural change.

Health Care: Our hospital system is in disarray with the state and federal governments bickering over who should take responsibility. However, we believe this blame game needs to end because patients should be the focus of any change. That’s why Family First is in the Senate fighting for more beds, guaranteed waiting times and more GPs in regional areas. Australians shouldn’t settle for anything less than first class treatment which is why we need a strong public and a strong private health system.

Youth Allowance: Family First is standing up for rural and regional students who will be severely disadvantaged by the Rudd Government’s proposed changes to youth allowance. Family First is standing up for rural and regional students who will be severely disadvantaged by the Rudd Government’s proposed changes to youth allowance. Under the Government’s plan country students would be placed two years behind their city counterparts dashing their hopes of going to university. In mid 2009 Senator Fielding took a delegation of students to Canberra to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, where they voiced their concern about the Government’s changes.

The meeting resulted in the Rudd Government doing a back flip exempting current gap year students. But this was only a stop gap measure and did nothing for the longer term problem of disadvantaging rural and region students under the Government’s proposal.

Senator Fielding has called on the Rudd Government to come back to the negotiating table after the government blocked the senate’s changes in the lower house which would’ve seen the youth allowance changes and scholarships passed. According to Universities Australia, Aussie students receive amongst the lowest levels of income support across the OECD countries. Family First maintains a clever country would be making its easier for its kids to get to university not harder.

Housing Affordability: Everyone should have the opportunity to live the great Australian dream. However, for many Australians this dreaming is becoming harder and harder. Interest rates are on the rise and house prices are at record levels preventing people from entering the market. Family First believes the Federal Government can play a key role in helping families to buy a house. The release of land, planning laws and access to credit are all key areas which government can address to make housing more affordable.

Senator Fielding said it’s going to be a tough campaign but expects
Family First to build on its vote because of the discontent towards
the major parties.

“It’s never easy running against the major parties but given
their performance over the last three years I think people will be
looking to a party like Family First to keep an eye on things in
Parliament,” Senator Fielding said.

“Our campaign is about making sure families have a strong voice so
they aren’t taken for granted by Labor and Liberal.

“Family First has a three point action plan to give families a fair
go by addressing housing affordability, childcare and crime.

“We believe we can help ordinary Australians on real issues by
making this country better for everyone.”

Candidate highlights:

Casey – Daniel Harrison Beat Tony Abbott by a couple of hours in
his last triathlon. He will be looking to out poll the Liberals in
this election race.

Flinders – Reade Smith Former mayor and current councillor of the
Mornington Peninsula Council.

Lalor – Lori McLean Known for speaking her mind and campaigning for
more police and resources in the West of Melbourne

McEwen – Belinda Clarkson Current Nillumbik Shire Councillor. Cr
Clarkson is a controversial candidate who is being investigated by the
Municipal Association of Victoria because of her outspoken views about
a lack of fuel reduction burns in the lead up to Black Saturday

Murray – Serena Moore A true country candidate who is the local vet
in Kyabram

Candidates

Aston – Rachel Hanna

Ballarat – Jim Rainey

Batman – Andrew Conlon

Bendigo – Alan Howard

Bruce – Felicity Hemmersbach

Calwell – Jeff Truscott

Casey – Daniel Harrison

Chisholm – Phil Goodman

Corangamite – Ann Wojczuk

Corio – Scott Amberley

Deakin – Peter Lake

Dunkley – Yasmin De Zilwa

Flinders – Reade Smith

Gellibrand – Liz Mumby

Gippsland – Heath Jefferis

Goldstein – Anthony Forster

Gorton – Sean Major

Higgins – Ashley Trüter

Holt – Ian George

Hotham – Gary Ong

Indi – Robert Cavedon

Isaacs – Heather Wheatley

Jagajaga – Joseph (Joe) Sgarlata

Kooyong – John Laidler

La Trobe – David Barrow

Lalor – Lori McLean

Mallee – Carl Carter

Maribyrnong – Colin Moyle

McEwen – Belinda Clarkson

McMillan – Linden Stokes

Melb. Ports – Daniel Emmerson

Melbourne – Georgia Pearson

Menzies – Ken Smithies

Murray – Serena Moore

Scullin – Ivan Stratov

Wannon – Jahzeel Concepcion

Wills – Daniel Mumby

Media enquires for Senator Fielding phone Kane Silom on 0409 550 446

Media enquires for Family First email media@vic.familyfirst.org.au