WHAT ARE MY AIMS? My primary aim is to bring about significant change in Australian Governance and Bureaucracy. Ultimately I’d like the below ideas implemented. These are just my opinion and I am willing to compromise or have my mind changed by rational discussion and debate. ⁃Our laws need a complete overhaul because they are overly restrictive and not enforced equitably. ⁃Our police need to be redirected as they have become fundraisers and enforcers for our corrupt government and its narcissistic politicians. ⁃We should also withdraw from international globalist organisations that do not have the interests of Australia and its citizens as their primary focus. ⁃We must also stop giving away our money to help fund organisations that spread hatred towards us and our values. We are currently in debt of about $1 trillion. ⁃Immigration should be severely restricted until ALL Australian citizens have been taken care of to the best of our ability. And then only the brightest and most capable people should have the privilege of joining us, and they must TRULY join us by integrating with our society and pledging allegiance. ⁃We should deport those who refuse to adopt our values or integrate with society, and refuse entry to refugees from countries that are ideologically opposed to our values. ⁃Our Christian heritage should be embraced and reintroduced into our educational system, whilst maintaining separation of church and state. ⁃We must introduce a Bill of Rights that reinstates the personal freedoms that have been systematically stripped away from us. (Free speech and expression, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy etc etc) ⁃Our restrictive gun laws should be abolished and new regulations introduced that allow people without violent criminal records to purchase firearms after being taught safe practices PROPERLY. Assault type weapons should remain banned, there is no need for the general public to possess them. ⁃The interests of the Australian People come first and foremost in all considerations both foreign and domestic. ⁃We acknowledge there are only two genders. ⁃We support the LGB community, but believe it has been hijacked by entities that do not have our best interests in mind. ⁃We acknowledge and accept that there MAY be some individuals that are genuinely transgender, but utterly oppose any sort of irreversible medical treatment for minors. Minors who claim they are transgender should not be immediately affirmed, they should be treated with the utmost care but also have these beliefs challenged. Biological truth must be explained to them as well the long term consequences of “transitioning”. ⁃We do not discriminate against any race, sex or religion. We do discriminate against ideologies that are not in line with our values. ⁃We should invest in Nuclear Power Plants, and until they are online we must continue to use fossil fuels. ⁃Solar Power works, they should be installed on existing residential, commercial and industrial buildings along with battery storage and return to grid functionality, plus reliable safety features in the event of battery failure. - We are One Nation and we have One Flag that represents all of us equally. ⁃ALL citizens must pledge allegiance to Australia and forsake all other national allegiances. The Pledge should be one of the first things taught in our schools. ⁃The Pledge below should be legally binding and those that act against it should be prosecuted. THE PLEDGE: “From this time forward, (under God), I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.” These ideas would be a good place to START AGAIN.

We need a major change in how our government is operated, with mechanisms in place that can trigger dissolution of parliament if the government is deemed to be acting against the will of the people, or against the best interests of Australia. Our rights need to be enshrined in a Bill of Rights, with any breaches treated severely. We also need to include amendments to the Constitution similar to Americas 1st and 2nd amendments.

This is the real world manifestation of 1984. The entire Australian government, bureaucracy, judiciary and police have been ideologically compromised.

Labor has abandoned & neglected Aussies & now Aussies are living in tents in the streets. Now Labor is forcing them to move on but where do they go. Can’t set up a tent, not allowed to sleep in their car. WHERE DO THEY GO? Labor just gave $60 MILLION to the Corrupt Ukraine Government. Labor brings in & houses foreign migrants. Labor abandons & neglects Australians. Many of these people work, pay taxes which then go to foreign people & foreign nations. All while they struggle & suffer. When will Aussies stop tolerating this? 🤨

The NSW Libertarian Party supports the right for law abiding people to own firearms.

This is upsetting…. I liked Keanu Reeves.

The ABC, the Australian Brainwashing Corporation, is funded by Australian taxpayers. It has repeatedly shown contempt for this country, its people, and especially the veterans who carried out missions planned by their officers under rules of engagement that same government approved. That government, amplified by its own broadcaster, now seeks to imprison those men. Taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll the smear. #SaveAustralia #DefundTheABC #LestWeForget

Charlie Kirk at his best on the topic of men claiming to be women. This is not a difficult question, yet highly qualified people in powerful positions across the west bulk when this question is put to them.

Labor is not funding a free press, it’s buying the newsroom. This year the Labor government is putting $1.287 billion into the ABC and $367.3 million into SBS. $1.65 billion in one year for two state broadcasters. Labor restored earlier cuts, rolled extra programs into the base, and locked both onto five-year funding terms so a later government cannot easily cut them. Extra money went to ABC regional newsgathering, SBS language services aimed at Chinese and Arabic audiences, and the Indo-Pacific broadcasting push. At that rate ABC and SBS cost more than $6 billion across a term. But it doesn’t end there. Labor then started paying commercial journalists directly. - The News Media Relief Program handed out about $12–15 million. - The Journalism Assistance Fund put $67.6 million (about $74 million including GST) into wage subsidies: $39,000 per eligible full-time journalist over three years. 185 publishers. More than 2,000 journalists. The pot emptied in weeks. - Another $31.5 million sits in the News Innovation Fund. - AAP, the wire that feeds copy into half the country, gets $33 million over three years plus a $15 million top-up, $26 million in 2026–27 alone. - Community broadcasting got another $27 million. - Regional newspapers were guaranteed $3 million a year in Commonwealth advertising for two years. - Nine took about $16.1 million from the Journalism Assistance Fund. - Seven West Media took more than $11 million. The Conversation, Crikey, The Saturday Paper, The Daily Aus and Mamamia were in the queue. News Corp and The Guardian were ineligible because they are foreign-owned. ABC and SBS were excluded because they already live on appropriations. Readers are not told the reporter’s wage is being topped up by the government the outlet is covering. Then there’s the tax breaks. The Commercial Broadcasting Tax on commercial TV and radio was rebated at 100 percent. One year from June 2025 saved the networks about $50.3 million. Labor extended it two more years to June 2028. That is another $111.3 million not collected. More than $160 million in revenue given back. National broadcasters were already exempt. Pacific broadcasting is on top of that. About $68 million over five years from 2022 for the Indo-Pacific strategy, plus another $14.1 million. PacificAus TV, commercial Australian content given free to Pacific stations, is $28.4 million over five years from 2022–23. The defence writes itself. Google and Meta wrecked the ad market. Local papers are dying. Democracy needs journalists. Public broadcasting is a public good. Wage subsidies keep reporters employed. The broadcasting tax is an old spectrum levy. Their argument fails the moment you follow the money. If this was about dying local news, the largest cheque would not have gone to Nine while it was cutting staff. If this was about independence, the department answering to the Communications Minister would not be deciding what counts as “core news” and who gets $39,000 a journalist. If this was about diversity, foreign-owned outlets that criticise the government would not be locked out while Nine, Seven, Crikey and The Conversation cash the grant. If five-year ABC funding was about stopping political interference, it also stops voters changing the size of the state broadcaster after an election. A newsroom on a Commonwealth wage subsidy is not a watchdog. It is a contractor. Labor will cap allied health for injured veterans at $5,000 a year from 2027. Housing is a crisis. Power prices are a crisis. The same government can find $1.65 billion a year for ABC and SBS, tens of millions to top up commercial newsrooms, and more than $160 million in tax it chooses not to collect. The people who explain the government to the public are increasingly paid by the government. That is not media diversity. It’s a subsidised chorus. Defund the ABC. End the wage subsidies. Put the receipt on the article. #SaveAustralia #auspol

Rest in Peace Angry Anderson. 🙏🇦🇺

Never forget who's greasy hands are up which puppets arse!

This POS definitely deserves a terminal sentence. Maybe in a way that matches what he did to Iryna.

Labor is not governing Australia. It is managing the public like a problem to be controlled. Minns and his party treat warrants, due process and the presumption of innocence as paperwork that gets in the way of the state. That is contempt for the people they are meant to serve. A government that keeps lowering the legal bar so police can act first and justify later is not protecting citizens. It is training them to accept that their homes, phones and liberty exist at the convenience of the party in power. This is the direction Labor has chosen: more state, weaker citizens, and a lecture if you notice.

BREAKING: With Labor governments policy on immigration, hundreds of thousands of immigrants being expedited into citizenship prior to the 2028 election. Capital cities will be give many more seats and those seats redistributed away from more conservative regional voters. Labor are stacking the deck to own election outcomes, through migration from countries that would keep socialist governments in power. This MUST END. This is TREASON.

THE UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO THE LABOR GOVERNMENTS 'DIGITAL DUTY OF CAREE' - Link to the official Embassy site below. The United States welcomes the opportunity to provide input to Australia’s public consultation on the “Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 – Exposure Draft.”  Preserving a free, open internet and protecting freedom of expression online are top priorities for the Trump Administration.  We offer the following views on the proposed Digital Duty of Care framework.  Our objective is to ensure that any resulting measures respect freedom of expression and fair competition, by avoiding restrictions on speech that should be protected, and preventing prescriptive product design mandates or expanded litigation risks that unduly burden American companies. Speech & Platform Design Concerns – The United States has serious concerns about the Australian government’s stated goal of mandating broad duty of care requirements that dictate how platforms manage content and users’ feeds.  Concerns include:  1) how the Australian government, or the Communications Minister, would designate what constitutes “foreseeable harm”; and 2) any resulting requirement that platforms alter their algorithmic systems to suppress expression that should be protected in order to avoid liability, or, if not an explicit requirement, any approach that would likely result in platforms defaulting to pre-emptive censorship to avoid the risk of liability. - We are particularly concerned by potential mandates that would allow regulators to impose rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements – such as forced chronological feeds or opt-in recommendation systems. - A framework that empowers governments to enforce vague definitions of “harm” risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship, as platforms will be incentivized to over-moderate speech that should be protected to avoid regulatory penalties. - Such a framework also risks reducing the reach of independent journalists or other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics that platforms may preemptively demote to comply with overbroad safety mandates. - We ask that Australia clarify how exactly “harm” and “risks” shall be determined, if there are any standard definitions that will be utilized, and by whom in the context of the proposed plans, ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech. - If Australia compels platforms to aggressively filter content in algorithmic feeds to satisfy a government mandate, and such filtering draws in protected speech, the effect on a disfavored speaker or media source’s reach would not be meaningfully different than outright removal.  The U.S. government would likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship. Extraterritorial Reach and Effects on U.S. Persons and Companies – a digital duty of care regime may have significant effects beyond Australian borders: - The large majority of social media and video-sharing platforms that would be affected are U.S.-headquartered companies, operating substantially on U.S. soil and serving American users alongside Australian ones. - We ask that Australia withdraw any plans to mandate that platforms algorithmically suppress content based on ambiguous government-defined safety criteria. - Mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally.  Platforms generally build and deploy product features at a global scale rather than market-by-market; forced platform design changes to mitigate Australia-specific risks could result in systemic changes that affect how users everywhere, including Americans, experience these platforms and reach audiences. - If other jurisdictions adopt their own, potentially conflicting duty-of-care mandates, platforms could face incompatible design requirements that are not technically or commercially scalable to implement in parallel.  Thus, creating pressure toward a lowest-common-denominator or most-restrictive-jurisdiction outcome. - The U.S. government has made clear its opposition to foreign measures that result in extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online. Economic Concerns – the proposed digital duty of care regime, depending on how it is implemented, potentially raises significant concerns regarding fair competition, market access, and trade treatment for American companies, independent media, and content creators: - Australia is regarded as a global leader and has pioneered regulatory approaches that have helped further innovation. - We encourage Australia to consider how prescriptive design mandates that dictate platform architectures could affect Australia’s reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation – rather than one that unduly constrains the development and use of technology. - The Australian Online Safety Act 2021 already affords robust protections against unprotected, illegal content and grants the eSafety Commissioner significant takedown powers.  Layering mandated algorithmic and duty of care requirements for platforms on top of these existing mechanisms risks heightening concerns about regulatory overlap and unpredictability. - Regulations that impose disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies relative to competitors, or that apply unevenly across similar services, will invariably raise concerns. - We urge Australia to provide sufficient, additional time for industry consultations with impacted companies as well as individual content creators. U.S. Questions for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts for consideration as part of the consultation record: - How will the government ensure that duty-of-care risk assessments and feature requirements accommodate platform-specific architectures, rather than imposing blanket mandates (such as forced chronological feeds)? - What specific criteria will be used to determine whether a piece of content or a platform feature constitutes a “foreseeable harm” under the duty of care? Who will make such determinations, and will there be a process for users or platforms to appeal? - Industry has warned that such measures could result in downgraded visibility and stifle organic growth for creators and speech of independent journalists due to overly aggressive “safety” filters. We would welcome the Australian government’s response to these industry concerns as part of the consultation record. - How will platforms be determined to be in scope and subject to the most stringent duty of care obligations? - What role will third-party organizations or the eSafety Commissioner play in the enforcement of the duty of care regime? - What safeguards will ensure that any biases and preferences of Australian government officials and regulators do not influence platform design in ways that disadvantage independent or minority-viewpoint speech? - How will commercially sensitive data and data privacy be protected through the enforcement of DDOC, including in granting researcher access? - au.usembassy.gov/u-s-governm…

This sign is Libertarians hitting back against the neo-Marxist agenda being pushed through our institutions and onto our kids. It hangs proudly on John Ruddick’s door at NSW Parliament. Greens MLC and staff have to walk down a long corridor with it staring straight at them the whole way to their offices. Dr Amanda Cohn MLC was so triggered she copied the design, flipped the message, printed it, and put it on her own door. 🙌 When they do that, you know we’re a threat. Vote #1 Libertarian Party (Liberal Democrats) above the line at the March state election. Send Gemma Noiosi into the upper house so we can keep challenging Cohn and her agenda!

NOPE

FRAUD..

Clown PM Albo has been called a FRAUD at the UN Press Conference after he bids for a seat on the UN Security Council. Albo: “Australia’s focus on the UN Security Council will be conflict prevention, the protection of civilians & defending the rules that protect us all.” Journalist at the UN Press conference: "Prime Minister, you will receive an award for being a global citizen. Don't you feel like a bit of a fraud accepting this award when, at home, you screwed up the response to the worst massacre since Port Arthur?” Albo: “No” Journalist: “In the polls, you are taking Labor to one point shy of Julia Gillard when you rolled her, and your net negative is worse than Scott Morrison's” Labor’s primary vote has collapsed to 27% which is its lowest since 2012. Anthony Albanese's personal ratings now match those of Malcolm Turnbull. 73% of Australians reject Albo & Labor. Somehow currently, the people rejected by the large majority of Australians are making critical decisions for & on behalf of Australians. We need an early election.

Hollywood destroys another Classic Timeless Story with WOKE. Aslan the King of All Beasts is to be played by a WOMAN in New Netflix Film. Aslan is the male Lion in C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia book series, where he is depicted as a majestic, male, talking lion who serves as a direct allegorical & suppositional representation of Jesus Christ. Aslan is described as the King of Beasts, the son of the Emperor-Over-the-Sea, and the King above all High Kings in Narnia. Aslan will now be played by Meryl Streep in Netflix’s New Narnia Film which has sparked major backlash from furious Christian’s & normal people that are sick & tired of our beautiful Western stories being destroyed by WOKE & DEI. Irish author of the series C. S. Lewis (Clive Staples Lewis) did not intend for Aslan, the great lion in ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ based primarily on Jesus Christ to be a Woman.

Keith has lost the use of his left arm due to the attack and is not likely to regain use of it. Di was stabbed in the chest and had a collapsed lung They were attacked and managed to get him outside the house when he broke back in - Keith and Di had every right to defend themselves with deadly force they had 100% undeniable reason to believe their lives were at imminent risk