The great electoral fraud

This election really is one big fraud.

On one side, we have smiling Kevin Rudd. The hero of the Labor Party.

On the other, we have Tony Abbott and his speedos. The next Prime Minister.

And even though most people can’t stand either and would invite neither to a backyard barbeque, they will still vote for one or the other of them. True, more will vote for Abbott and there will be a change of government.

But not much will really change.

That’s because on the issues that matter, there’s not much difference.

Before we get into that, I’ll get all the required statements out of the way.

Yes, Rudd is a dud and only seems nice because we’re all comparing him to Gillard.

No, I don’t want to see Labor get back in.

Yes, Abbott and his team will probably do a better job at stopping the boats and managing the budget.

No, I’m not suggesting anyone even think about voting for Labor or The Greens.

But here’s the crux. Rudd and Abbott are going to spend the next four weeks boring us all to death talking about the economy. And the one thing that everyone knows is that whatever Labor advocates about the economy probably isn’t any good.

So the Liberals are seen as the answer to a massive problem. But they are not really the answer at all. Because while they have at least demonstrated an ability to count, they still fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of economic activity.

For the Liberals, the economy is the goal. It is this big, magical thing and the purpose of families is to help build it even bigger. And the evidence that all is well and good in the economy is when big business gets bigger and mega-profits are made and production is increased and GDP grows. Those are the conditions that the Liberals seek.

Now, I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing if big business does well and production increases. Because it’s not.

But it is a bad thing if those goals are prioritised over families.

Because families are the actual building blocks of society. And economic theory must be subservient to the needs of families. At the end of the day, what is the point of a strong economy and plasma televisions in every room if families don’t have the freedom or dignity of home ownership and control over their own economic activity and future?

What’s the point of living in the wealthiest times in history if mums can’t afford to be with their kids when they come home from school?

If you can understand the importance of families, then you will also understand this: if you have strong families, you will generally have a strong economy. But if a nation’s families are weakened, the economy will also probably deteriorate.

That is why it is so important to the politics of this nation that the social issues are prioritised. Anyone who believes that you can solve economic problems while having liberalised or “free-market” social values, is automatically facing an uphill battle against the forces of human nature. It is a battle that they are going to lose.

And that is why I am such an advocate against novelties like gay marriage and surrogacy. By their very nature, these activities attack economic progress because they destroy families.

A strong family is an investment in the future. It is an investment in the next generation.

A strong family will ensure the next generation is well educated – not just in basics like reading and writing – but in its ability to understand the truth about the human soul and thereby reach the full dignity of humanity.

But a weakened family is a drain on economic progress and it degrades the nobility of the person. All the things associated with weak families – divorce, contraception, prostitution, pornography, abortion – take away from the next generation and result in dysfunctional (or missing) children. Common-sense tells us this. And study after study after study after study also tell us that broken families result in crime, violence, drug use, and unemployment.

But if you need a study to tell you that then you have already lost the ability to think.

And this is where the big 2013 electoral fraud really comes in.

All the column inches written about Tony Abbott being an extreme Catholic are a lie. Because he’s marching along with Rudd on the social policies in direct contravention of Catholic Church teaching.

Both support legalised abortion.

Both support taxpayer-funded sex change operations in the military and the perversion of human nature that now sees women going into front-line combat roles.

Rudd is openly supportive of gay marriage – to his credit Abbott has not followed him down this path thus far – but the Liberal Party, generally, is rapidly moving in this direction too.

Neither want to address the issues associated with Islamic immigration and the stress this is placing on our culture.

And neither is prepared to acknowledge the most fundamental precept of all – that Christ is King of each person and all nations.

On September 7, enough people will vote Liberal to ensure Rudd is removed. But their vote won’t change anything. Make yours count – find a candidate in a minor party that will actually stand up for family values. Like Family First, Australian Christians or Rise Up Australia.

It will only be when enough Australians vote for family values that they will be prioritised in Canberra.

Until then, we will continue to get the governments we deserve.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

36 Comments

  1. Very interesting points of view from everyone. It’s true that no one can force some one else to do what is right,or wrong,for that matter,but has anyone yet mentioned the power that prayer has? Instead of making accusations however mild, lets pray for these ignorant souls who were never taught anything, let alone self control and true self love. Lets pray for parents educators and children,especially teenagers. They deserve at least that much.
    L.o.l.
    D.p.

    Post a Reply
  2. Well you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts. Here’s some actual research on the topic from the US, conveniantly divided into states that only teach abstinence in sex education and those that teach more comprehensive sex education. The data also includes effects on abortion rates. I don’t expect you’ll read it, or if you do you’ll ignore it because your reasons for advocating what you do are religious, not factual; which is a theocratic attitude, not a democratic one. If you keep using the statements you have above to support your views despite the evidence to the contrary, not only are you being disingenuous, your also being knowingly manipulative; not something Jesus would do I’m sure.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

    Post a Reply
  3. Wow, I am amazed by what is being discussed here by seemingly intelligent people, especially in the comments section where abortion and contraception is being discussed.
    You must be aware that you can’t make people do what you want them to do, especially when it comes to religious beliefs you might hold that they don’t. Legislating the banning of abortion won’t stop abortions. You know that don’t you? Abortions have been happening for centuries. Making abortion legal had more to do with the acknowledgement that women were killing themselves, disfiguring themselves, and rendering themselves infertile by using non-safe methods. Safe legal abortions ended that. If a law is oassed to make abortion illegal and contraception difficult to access prepare for a massive increase of women dying, becoming disfigured and infertile again. Abortion will continue whether you get religious based laws passed or not, because believe it or not, not everyone believes what you do.
    Also, not only is teen pregnancy highest in abstinence only education statess in the US, but abortions are highest in those states too. And the Dominionists think closing down abortion clinics will stop it from happening. It won’t. The richer women will travel to where it’s legal to get access to abortion services, and the poor will start mutilating themselves.
    Here’s an article by someone who used to belong to the “right to life” movement in e US. She left because she realised access to contraceptives, proper sex education and access to safe abortions actually led to less dead babies, not more. She was in the movement because her motivation was concern for the unborn, she left because she realised pro choice saved more of them and that religion, not facts, was driving pro life.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

    Post a Reply
    • um Roxee
      Can you tell me how abortion is safe? A baby is dismembered and torn apart, and the mental state of the Mother suffers, also known as post abortion syndrome, even if you choose to deny this. I read the link you posted and concluded that because the young person who wrote the article is a very confused evangelical who embraced contraception as a preventative measure to avoid abortion is very uneducated on the matter. With widespread use of contraception came an increase in abortion rates, because of the high failure rate contraception. Self control and responsibility is what needs to be taught, and if an unexpected pregnancy arises support services to ensure the health and safety of both Mother and Baby is needed. Then we will see a change in attitudes to the respect and dignity of human life which also leads to less crime inflicted upon children, and less crime in general. It is not a matter of making people do what you want, its a matter of doing what is right. And in this case ensuring the safety of those unborn the right to life, and the mental and physical well being of the mother.

      Post a Reply
  4. Bernard, excellent article. Note Family First Federal Chairman and SA Senate Candidate Bob Day has read ‘Vote for the Common Good’ and says,

    “As well as appearing in “shopping centres, high-vis vests and hard hats” all politicians claim to represent all that’s good in the world!

    This is very confusing. Are these the same people who just weeks ago were tearing each other apart?

    The scripture says, “By their fruit you will know them . . . a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matt 7:16 -18).

    The church’s ‘Vote for the Common Good’ is an admirable wish list and is eminently achievable if our political leaders set their minds to it.

    So how to know their minds? A good way is through parliamentary conscience votes.

    How would a candidate vote on key issues? How did the Member vote last time? “By their fruit you will know them.”

    http://2013election.net.au/election/

    Post a Reply
  5. “And neither is prepared to acknowledge the most fundamental precept of all – that Christ is King of each person and all nations.”

    While I agree with many of the points you raise, people like you are the single biggest source of fence-sitters choosing the Greens over LNP.

    I, like many others, want a government that represents the interests of its people, not the interests of their religion. If you are more interested in trying to push a heavily Catholic agenda you are better off in a ministry than in politics. Things like the homofacist push for ‘marriage equality’ are so successful largely because of the way opposition to their perversion is lumped as ‘religious intolerance’, and from there anyone who is not religious – when presented with a choice between a ‘religious’ or ‘equality’ stance – and otherwise on the fence will vote in favour of ‘equality’.

    I’m equally not Catholic and not gay and if it comes down to a choice between those two I’ll vote in the Catholic direction as the lesser of the two evils, but I’m part of an ever-dwindling minority in that respect.

    While I appreciate your target demographic may be the devout Catholics, I see no sense in alienating a large pool of otherwise supportive swinging voters by making your campaign about religion rather than policies.

    Post a Reply
    • I couldn’t have said it better myself. Many people who advocate for the traditional family values rarely fail to put a religious spin on their message, and that makes me balk at the idea of putting them in a position of power. You don’t have to be a religious person to have a sense of morality similar to that held by a religious person. There are obviously going to be differences based on different world views, but if religious people stopped and thought for a moment, they might realize that they could get more done if they leave religion at the door and make factually valid arguments using their own God-given reasoning ability.

      Post a Reply
      • Webboy42 can I ask what your sense of morality involves?
        can you in your own words define your family values and morals?

      • It’s hard to define, because my mind can be changed based on factually accurate reasoning. I don’t support surrogacy. I don’t support abortions except in medical emergency or rape cases (although my mind is changing on rape cases). I believe either mum or dad should be able to stay at home with the kids if they choose to. I don’t think marriage is a commitment that should be easily broken. I support the registration of gay couples who decide to commit to each other, but I don’t think a church should ever be required to go against their tradition to perform a gay commitment ceremony for them. I support the right of a private school to hire and fire according to their beliefs. I believe in sex ed including all the facts about all forms of birth control, and not just abstinence. I think teens who think they’re gay should feel able to talk about how they feel with their parents, without fear. There’s more obviously, but that’ll do for starters. I don’t feel strongly enough on many things to fight tooth and nail for them. Most of the things I mentioned aren’t likely to even affect me directly, so I rarely think about them. When someone wants to restrict someone else’s actions, I don’t just jump on the bandwagon, I ask, “Why is it harmful?” and “Why should it matter to bystanders?”

      • interesting.
        I am glad to hear you are changing your attitudes regarding abortion and rape.
        we do not sentence to death a victim of a crime, so why do so people think it is acceptable to sentence to death the baby for the crime of their Father?
        I could go into great detail regarding my opossition to sex ed and contraception. I think that teens need to be taught that abstinence is the only sure way of avoiding pregnancy before marriage, as the failier rate from contraceptives is higher than they would have you believe, this is why abortion rates are so high.
        most of your values and morals are based on Judeo Christianity, even though you choose to not play the religion card.
        I will leave you with this quote to ponder,

        “Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”

        ― G.K. Chesterton

      • Sure, teach them that abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy (it’s only logical), but give them the other information too. A study in the US showed that US states with abstinence only sex ed had a higher rate of teen pregnancy than those states with a more balanced curriculum. I wish I had the link for it. I’m pretty sure the higher than acknowledged failure rate you referred to could be improper or inconsistent use of a contraceptive rather than proper and consistent use. As for some of my views reflecting Judeo Christian beliefs, some of those beliefs have clear and logical reasoning behind them, even in the modern age. I choose to refer to myself as an agnostic rather than atheist or anti-theist. I’m not convinced that if a higher power exists it is the form presented by christianity. A loving God that wants you to have free will and punishes you if you use it to contradict its rules? A loving God that requires belief and worship to be rescued from the torment of hell? I don’t buy it. And when I see some people who think believing in the christian God gives them a license to judge others evil/wrong/unnatural, it’s really no wonder I’m not a believer.

      • Webboy42
        Can you then explain to me why those states that have promoted contraception have a a higher rate of abortion?
        I do believe that contraceptive failure is the cause, young women and teens find out that the contraceptive did not work and take themselves off to the abortion clinic. which then brings us to an increase in depression and mental health as a result of abortion. tell me did your parents have rules and dscipline when you were growing up?
        Do we have laws and rules for a reason?

      • Well of course. I was raised with rules and discipline. There’s a hell of a difference between being smacked or having a privilege taken away temporarily and being damned to hell for all eternity though. For starters, the punishment offered by loving parents isn’t endless. For another, parents punish once for an offense and close to when they discover it and you still have a chance to redeem yourself afterward, while God waits until you’re dead and have no more time to redeem yourself to punish you, unless of course you believe in God and beg for forgiveness. When I think of the christian God, the image that comes to mind is an egotistical tyrant who wants us to worship him without thinking and do everything he says without asking why. Now, as for higher abortion rates in US states with balanced sex ed, do you have the proof to back it up? I could probably find the study I’m referring to, but your claim has a pretty big logic floor in it. I don’t dispute the fact that not having sex is the perfect way to prevent pregnancy, but if they give into their urges and have sex without using a contraceptive, then the risk of pregnancy is a lot higher. How do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy if abstinence only education works so well? And just out of curiosity, what is your view on alcohol? I believe alcohol is part of the problem when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and other issues.

      • Webboy42
        I was raised with the abstinence only message and it worked fine for me. Self control was a factor.
        I have also helped women through unplanned pregnancy, and women who suffer from post abortion syndrome.
        most women presenting with surprise pregnancy was because of failed contraception. most women who have abortions is because of failed contraception. Also another reason for teen pregnancy is what is known as contact pregnancy, a pregnancy resulting from non penetrative sex, were sperm cells are present with hand to genital contact, and no, a man does not have to ejaculate to have these present. A man can secrete sperm cells with arousal.
        When it comes to Alcohol, it can be great and enjoyable in moderation, however young people these days are not taught the concept of self control. self control is the mastery of controlling urges that could have consequences.
        Your parents disciplines you out of love to abide by the rules of their house, God also does this, it is not He who puts you in hell, it is yourself if you do not abide by natural and Godgiven Law. It is not a father who wants his son to be put on the naugty chair, but the child who brings this consequence upon himself if he fails to follow the rules. You have a whole childhood to sort yourself out with your parents unconditional love, but when you are an adult you must chose your own way. We have a whole lifetime to better ourselves with Gods mercy and forgiveness, but when we are on our death bed, we can reflect on our life and repent of the wrongs we have done but if not, as in Charles Dickons Christmas Carol explains, scrooges grave is unkept and abandoned, and he only has himself to blame.
        Increase of abortion after increased use of contraception, study conducted in spain http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract

      • But what type of contraception are we talking about? While things like the pill can help avoid pregnancy, it obviously doesn’t stop you from contracting STIs. And when I said safe sex, I meant exclusively condoms. Which is pretty much what they teach you these days, they tell you about all the different types of contraceptive, but they hammer in the fact that condoms are the only way to stop STIs. And even then you need to be careful.

      • Kat, you are absolutely insane. Noone has ever become pregnant as a result of giving a handjob. Out of curiosity, I Googled “contact pregnancy” and didn’t get a single result. Are you trolling us, or did you just dream about this phenomenon and confuse it with reality?

      • Withdrawal method is also a factor in women falling pregnant unexpectantly, and no a man does not have to ejaculate for this to happen either, pre ejaculation fluid can and does result in pregnancy.
        Sperm can live up to five days inside a womans vagina, if the pre ovulatry mucus is sufficient enough to create a non hostile enviroment, and then result in pregnancy when the woman ovulates.
        so peter still think I am insane? or would you like me to inform you a little more about fertility?

      • Kat, how common is contact pregnancy? I was already aware that sperm cells are in pre-ejaculation fluids, but I’ve never even heard of contact pregnancy before where hand to genital contact resulted in pregnancy.

      • Webboy42
        I use a program of NFP called creighton Method for observing fertility, when using this to avoid pregnancy, you must abstain from any hand to genital or genital to genital contact during the fertile period of the cylce as well as intercourse, as this may result in pregnancy. Because this is explained the failure rate is actually lower than contraceptives, and unlike contraceptive can be used to acheive pregnancy.
        Contact pregnancy is actually more common than people realize although it is not well documented as well as people not even being aware that it can happen. It is quite common amoung teens who think that if they dont actually have intercourse they will not fall pregnant.

      • That’s an interesting viewpoint Kat, but it does have one major flaw. Teenagers view sex as a highly sought after thing. Teaching students that abstinence is the only method of contraception is highly dangerous. As a teenager myself, I am aware of this. Teenagers are always going to have sex, no matter what you tell them. The old myths that maturbating would cause blindness/hairy palms/hand fall off or whatever has never stopped many people from doing it. Fear will not stop teenagers from having sex. Education will. Teenagers need to learn as much as educationally possible about the reproductive system and how it works, what methods can be used to avoid pregnancy, and how to always have safe sex. This is a must

      • Adam
        I do believe teens have little to no self control these days, I was a teen not so long ago, and saw what hapened to my fellow teens in regard to emotional and psycological health of those who lived wild lives, some had abortions some treated for std’s and some depression and feelings of being used, and all of them used contraception. As a teen I never viewed sex as a highly sort after “thing” , what I did find is how much respect I earned from young men for not throwing away my virginity. Abstinence is not contraceptive as it is not a pill or device stopping the natural process of conception. you talk about education, yes i agree, but it needs to be the right sort of education, respect for yourself and knowledge of how your body works including fertility. “safe sex” what a joke, more like use this pill or device and you may not get pregnant, and if you do an abortion clinic is just around the corner. Why do we treat teens as if they are stupid and cannot use self control? why do we have high abortion rates? why do we have alcohol problems amoung teens and increase in crime? because they have not been taught the message of self control.

      • But what type of contraception are we talking about? While things like the pill can help avoid pregnancy, it obviously doesn’t stop you from contracting STIs. And when I said safe sex, I meant exclusively condoms. Which is pretty much what they teach you these days, they tell you about all the different types of contraceptive, but they hammer in the fact that condoms are the only way to stop STIs. And even then you need to be careful.

      • Condoms do not stop STI’s the companys that sell them even have a legal clause stating that they are not responsible for pregnancy or STI’s resulting in the use of their product. Condoms delay the inevitable, you play with fire, sooner or later you will get burned. I was not stupid as a teen, I understood self control and self worth and responsability.

      • Condom use has a 15% failure rate, and a 2% failure rate with perfect use.
        as oppsed to natural methods which has a 1.8% failure rate and .6% with perfect use.
        Abstinence has a 100% success rate with avoidence of pregnancy and STI’s.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

      • Natural methods are usually used by couples who are married excluding the risk of STI’s,
        promiscuous or casual sex has a lot to do with the contraction and spread of STI’s, as well as unfaithfulness in relationships.

      • Kat, 2-15% failure rate is still good compared to just having indiscriminate unprotected sex whenever the urge strikes without considering the consequences. But, that’s not the point I was going to make. STIs don’t just pop up out of no where because someone has a lot of promiscuous or casual sex. Doing that only increases the chance of an infection, it doesn’t cause one. A bigger factor in the transmission of an STI is people who don’t know they’re infected or know but don’t inform their partner. Having a lot of promiscuous and casual sex is obviously a game of russian roulette, but if the people involved know the risks, then what they do is none of my business.

      • Webboy42 15% failure rate is not a risk I would take, and many people should be aware of the possibility of STI’s that could cause future problems with reproductive health, and cause sterility as well as drug treatment resistance to STI’s. Abortion rates are high because of this15% failure as well as the 2% which is deplorable as it takes the life of a human being. If a person has an STI and fails to inform their partner, where did they contract it from if their partner does not have the STI? They did not get it from a toilet seat.

        The most effective means to avoid becoming infected with or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection is to abstain from sexual intercourse (i.e. oral, vaginal, or anal sex) or to have sexual intercourse only within a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. -WHO | sexually transmitted infections

      • Kat, someone who has an STI could have contracted it from a previous partner. As to the first person who got an STI, the infection could have been a mutation from a previously known disease, or a zoonosis like HIV. In addition, some STIs can be transmitted in ways other than sex. The point is, indiscriminate sex doesn’t create diseases, it only transmits them. It’s only natural that someone having more indiscriminate sex than another is more likely to get infected because they’re exposing themselves to potential disease more often than the person not having as much sex. Allow me to also point out that according to 1 study I’ve seen, 75% of women getting abortions cited financial reasons. You can debate that figure all you want, but it is a fact that the cost of living is high. It is also a fact that raising a child is quite expensive once you add everything up. Why that 75% didn’t choose adoption? The study didn’t say, and the researchers probably didn’t ask. It’s entirely possible those women were talked into it, because I could easily imagine an abortion being more profitable than a child being born. For the record, I prefer monogamy, and haven’t actually had a partner for about 10 years now (I’m 29), and don’t currently have plans for a relationship in the future.

      • Webboy42 the 75% of women having abortion for financial reasons would have probably also been using contraception that failed. Also to kill someone because they cannot afford them is absolutely disgusting. It is disgusting because of lack of support services for these women who unexpectedly find themselves pregnant, and yes they are often talked it abortion. abortion clinics make money on emotionally vulnerable women and then hand the some more contraceptives. Yes cost of living is high, but children were about before money, and to justify the murder of a baby because you are strapped for cash is deplorable. I have children myself, and they are not really that expensive, they don’t need everything that opens and shuts, you just need to manage money on a budget and give up unnecessary things,
        .The first recorded venereal disease was among French troops in the besiege of Naples in 1494 and swept through Europe killing around five million people, and I do believe promiscuity was to blame. Disease and STI’s have always been associated with sexual immorality, over time these diseases have mutated and new diseases have surfaced and some are becoming resistant to the drugs used to treat them. I was never questioning your personal life, I was presenting facts to back my position I am sorry if it came across as such, I have been married for 11 years and I am 30,

      • Kat, I didn’t think you were having a go at me personally, I just thought it might be of some interest to you to know that I myself don’t engage in the promiscuous behavior I was defending. As to STIs being associated with promiscuity and sexual immorality, the association is logical to make, but as I’ve said before, the sexual immorality doesn’t create the disease, it transmits it. A monogamous relationship clearly reduces the risks, but so could a polygamous relationship provided all involved were aware of their STI status and could be trusted not to stray outside the relationship.

      • Webboy42
        Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid contracting and transmitting STIs and avoiding pregnancy. Do you no think it better to promote this message instead of promoting a message that could lead to unexpected pregnancy and contracting an STI? But lets face it, those who cannot control themselves before marriage, who is to say hey cannot control themselves if they ever do get married.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares