Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Mary-Jane

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52
Bill to allow surrogacy for gay couples and single men progresses
9 Oct 2018

The Western Australian Legislative Assembly has passed a bill tonight that will make it possible for single men and gay couples to access altruistic surrogacy.

The bill, introduced by Health Minister Roger Cook will amend current surrogacy laws which only allows for single women, lesbian couples and heterosexual couples to seek surrogate arrangements.

The changes will bring Western Australia in line with Commonwealth law since exemptions which allowed for the discriminatory law to be in place expired in July last year.

The bill will also have WA law match surrogacy laws in every other state and territory besides the Northern Territory, which does not allow for surrogacy at all.

The legislation passed after a long parliamentary debate through Tuesday afternoon and late into night, which at times saw heated exchanges between Liberal and Labor MPs.

Opening the debate John Carey, the member for Perth, said that as one of only three openly gay members of parliament in the lower and upper house, this legislation was deeply personal to him.

“I came into politics to believe in the best of people, to appeal to the best our our humanity, to show greater kindness, to understand that despite our differences there is much that brings us together.”

“This is why I proudly stand here today as a member of parliament, and to support progressive change, to support that humanity in our community.

“I stand on behalf of the gay and lesbian community to support this important social change for Western Australia.” said Carey outlining that there has been a long journey is fighting for equality beginning with the decriminalisation of homosexuality through to the marriage debate and apology for historical homosexual convictions.

“This debate shares many similarities with the marriage equality debate and other debates about the rights of all people in Western Australia, and I want to be one the public record and very clear. There are many children in Western Australian that are being raised right now lovingly.”

“They are loved, They are respected. They are supported in their aspirations and their dreams. They go to school, they visit school, they to to playgroups and they mix with they peers, and they are all raised by same-sex parents, and many of them male couples.

Carey said he personally knew many of the same-sex couples raising children in Western Australia and many of them lived in his electorate.

Carey said the arguments against allowing male same-sex couples to access surrogacy were the same arguments against marriage equality and once again those opposed needed to realise that families came in a diverse range of configurations.

“They’re all aspiring for one same thing, and that is creating a loving and stable environment of their children.”

Carey said those opposed to the proposed changes were driven by fear.

“It is based on fear, we’ve seen that fear and I know it personally. It is a fear that stems and creates homophobia in our society, that creates discrimination and even hatred against gay and lesbian people.”

Carey said as an openly gay MP he had experienced homophobia and discrimination which included being called a “faggott” in the street, or reciveing texts that accused him of being a pedophile.

Carey said removing another form of discrimination from legislation would contribute to reducing homophobia across society.

“Every bit of reform which tackles discrimination, which removes those barriers is critically important. It’s not just for those same-sex couples who want to have a child, but also for all those young generations who will see another part of discrimination dismantled from our legislation.”

Carey said that substantial research had shown that the children raised by single parents and same-sex couples faired just as well as those raised by heterosexual couples, but often unreliable research was put forward from questionable sources.

The member for Perth implored his parliamentary colleagues to “strip away the barriers of discrimination”.

Labor’s Amber-Jade Sanderson said the legislation was fundamentally about removing discrimination and the ability to fulfill the role of being a parent had nothing to do with people’s relationship status or sexuality.

Sanderson said the fact that Western Australia had the highest ‘Yes’ result in the marriage postal survey had shown that our society strongly supported equality. Sanderson also noted that the changes to the bill did not allow same-sex couples to gain access to surrogacy but also single men – and single men included widowers.

Sanderson shared that a constituent in her electorate who was trying to start a family was unable to fulfill his late wife’s wishes for her eggs to be fertilised and brought to term by a surrogate.

Maylands MP Lisa Baker said she didn’t think it was the government’s place to deny one group of people access to a service that is available to others.

“I fundamentally believe that it is not up to us to be saying that for a lesbian couple – for people like myself, for others – it’s okay for us to choose to have children, to raise families, to access surrogacy, or to do those kind of things to bring children in to our lives… but that other members in this house who may be gay, males, would not be allowed to bring children into their relationships,” Baker said.

“Biological children, adopted, foster are all equal in the law at the moment in Western Australia. All this bill is asking is that children from surrogacy are also treated equally in the law.”

The Liberals’ John McGrath argued that there were many questions to be asked around the proposal to change the legislation arguing that there was a lack of research around surrogacy in Western Australia.

McGrath said there were concerns about what would happen if a surrogate decides they want to keep the child, or if the people engaging the surrogate reject a child because the child has a disability.

The member for South Perth also said he had concerns about people being coerced into surrogacy against their will by family members.

McGrath also called for people accessing surrogacy to undergo criminal record check before being approved for a surrogacy agreement.

The member for Hillarys Peter Katsambanis said he would not support the legislation because there he believes there are inadequate protections in checking applicant’s criminal history, and that there was a lack of evidence supporting the need for the change.

“Primarily and above all else – I am certainly not convinced that this legislation would in any way enhance the best interests of children in Western Australia,” Katsambanis said.

Nationals leader Mia Davies rose to support the bill, speaking on her own experience with two of her friends who are gay fathers raising a child together.

“I hear the arguments of those who have stood and said this is about our desires and not about the child’s, but I can promise you that in this experience this child is loved and will be raised and will be provided with an amazing experience and have a fantastic opportunity to be a success in our community,” Davies said.

The member for Central Wheatbelt said while Parliament was the right place to air concerns, she was certain the amendment would bring positive change to the community.

“When we’ve had debates like this in the past – so the same sex marriage debate and when this bill was introduced originally… when they came to pass the world carried on, and I think if you take a very human response to all of this, which is that if you are talking about people that genuinely love and want to raise and nurture happy families – no matter what they look like – then you can’t go too far wrong.”

Liberal MPs Zak Kirkup and Kyran O’Donnell spoke in favour of the bill with Kirkup citing conversations with his wife and the writings of Robert Menzies on the family for his decision to support the change.

“We believe in a just and humane society, where the importance of family and the rule of law and order is maintained,” the member for Dawesville said.

“I genuinely believe this legislation goes some way to ensuring that a family can exist however the modern definition today is. I think we need to recognise that the defined family is no longer the traditional nuclear family as it were, and there are circumstances that do change.” Kirkup said.

Kirkup shared that his brother-in-law was in a same sex relationship, and he thought they would make excellent parents if they chose to do so.

“The notion of family now is completely different, and I think we need support any measure which allow us to have a loving environment for the raising of children.” Kirkup said.

Kirkup said he was proud to stand for equal rights for all, and the previous surrogacy laws had clearly left out some member of society.

The member for Kalgoorlie, Kiran O’Donnell also voiced support for the bill. O’Donnell said his time as a police officer had taught him many things, one was that people who abused children often did not have criminal records.

The former police officer said he also had many former colleagues in the police force who were gay and he couldn’t imagine telling them that they would not make good parents.

Newly elected member for Darling Range Alyssa Hayden gave one of the more bizarre arguments against allowing male same-sex couples to access surrogacy.

Hayden said she’d done a “quick google” to prepare for the debate and had come across an interview with Millie Fontana who advocates against same-sex couples being allowed to raise children.

Hayden recounted that Fontana, who was raised by her lesbian mother and her same-sex partner, had shared her distress at not being allowed to meet her biological father.

“This is not an example of someone who is anti-same sex marriage” Hayden said of Fontana, despite Fontana having been one of the most high profile advocates against marriage equality.

Fontana has previously been supported by the Australian Christian Lobby to lobby federal politicians against marriage equality, and has made numerous public speaking engagements and media appearances arguing against allowing same-sex couples to marry or raise children.

Hayden went on to question if there was a genuine need to allow single men to access altruistic surrogacy because no single women had applied in the last decade.

The Liberal Bill Marmion voiced his opposition to the bill noting that he was the father of five children. Marmion shared correspondence from constituents that raised concern about the number of non-nuclear families in society and views that children were better off when raised by heterosexual parents.

Labor’s Janine Freeman noted that the Labor party has introduced legislation in the ’90s that outlawed surrogacy. Freeman said her feminist beliefs formed her views against surrogacy but she was also a realist.

“What happened, what did we do? We pushed a demand, we pushed a need into poor countries, we pushed it unregulated and we ended up in a situation where people went overseas to gain access to their beloved child.”

Freeman said she rather have regulated altruistic surrogacy in Australia than see people heading overseas. The member for Mirrabooka said if Liberal members were truly opposed to surrogacy they should ban it for everyone, rather than supporting the current laws that discriminate against some people.

“If you’re so opposed to surrogacy then you should move an amendment to this bill and ban it.” Freeman said. “If you’re so appalled with surrogacy then ban it, but do not say that one section of society can’t have it while everyone else does. That’s hypocritical, it’s discriminatory, it’s outrageous.”

“I will not stand in this place and have someone tell me that a man rears a child differently than a woman does, and it’s the maternal aspect and the parternal aspect. Let me tell you – I do not do the washing, I do not do the shopping, I do not do the cooking. I do not rear the child, it’s not a gendered thing, the only difference is we have a womb.”

This lead to a heated exchange with the Liberal’s John McGrath with Freeman telling McGrath to “have the guts” to move an amendment to ban the practice.

Freeman concluded by saying she did hold concerns for people who felt that they had to have their own children to have a sense of family, but it was important that there was no discrimination.

The bill will now be read and debated in the Legislative Council.

Leigh Andrew Hill, Graeme Watson

FrontPage News / Media Release: Make the AIDS Council Great Again #MAGA
« on: October 21, 2018, 10:03:58 AM »
Media Release:
“Make the AIDS Council Great Again” #MAGA

The Perth Sisters of the Order of Perpetual Indulgence are holding a Client and Members of Western Australia AIDS Council (WAAC) protest outside The AIDS Council building at 664 Murray Street West Perth at 4.30 pm - 7.30pm Monday 22 October 2018.

The Sisters will be carrying “Make the AIDS Council Great Again” placards and distributing copies of the HIV Institute of WA’s Discussion Paper on HIV Criminalisation in WA.

The protest is being held during the WAAC AGM to raising awareness about the lack of meaningful grassroots consultation with consumers on decisions that affect People Living with HIV and their families/loved ones.

The Sisters would also like to draw attention to the lack of public education and HIV awareness designed to reduce Stigma and Discrimination that is still entrenched in the Community as has been seen in the letter about Kerryn Phelps in the Wentworth By Election Campaign.

We are also supporting the “Stop HIV Stigma. Australian Needs a New National HIV Campaign.” which has been launched on as a response to the Wentworth Letter and The Sisters call for WAAC to reduce Stigma in our own backyard by implementing the U=U education campaign in the wider community plus strategies to reduce LGBT Domestic Violence & The Gay Meth Crisis.

WAAC has made several decisions which affect PLHIV's and has failed to consult with consumers and are failing to implement the principals of MIPA when planning strategies or reviewing policies which effect consumers in WA. The Meaningful Involvement of Positive People Principles is the International best practice industry standard endorsed by WAAC.

Medication and Consultation RE M clinic Co-payments
There was No consultation with the HIV community and/or clients when Charges for HIV Medication were imposed at Hospital Pharmacies. It was unacceptable for patients to find out about HIV charges when they went to collect their medications. There are many in the community experiencing financial hardship and this decision caused a great deal of stress and anxiety in the Community.

In the interest of transparency and Accountability to Consumers, WAAC needs to reveal whether or not they supported the decision to implement payments for HIV medications. Further, WAAC needs to reveal when the proposed fees to access Medical Care at the Gay Men’s Health Clinic will be implemented. The Sisters are calling for HIV to be included in a One Stop Shop Clinic modelled on the Melbourne Sexual Health Clinic. This will lead to reducing the stigma caused by HIV only services.

Decriminalisation of HIV in Western Australia
The Sisters support the enormous body of work which proves the Decriminalisation of HIV is an important step in the prevention of HIV transmissions. The Sisters believe HIV should be treated as just another STI and transmissions should not be dealt with by the Criminal Justice System but managed as a Mental Health Issue. In Western Australia it is unacceptable that Trans women are placed in men’s prisons.

The Sisters are concerned that WAAC’s utilisation of a student work experience program to write their long awaited discussion paper on HIV Criminalisation demonstrates a lack of commitment to the issues and their consumers. This is a complex issue and as the NGO funded to Support HIV people, WAAC needs to address this with professional legal advice.

WAAC charges Private and Public Nursing Homes Fees to access their HIV Accreditation Training Program. The Aged Care Royal Commission has identified that release of information to consumers is a a barrier for people to plan their futures. Sisters call for WAAC to stop refusing to release of data to positive people about which Nursing Homes have completed their Training Program and we’re calling for WAAC to make a submission to the Royal Commission on Behalf of Positive People.

Change of Name
“The Sisters applaud the long overdue proposal to de-stigmatise the Name and Brand of the AIDS Council and hope this ushers in a Change of Culture and a New Era of Consultation & collaborative engagement with the Community - Make the AIDS Council Great Again”, said Mother Gretta.

Finally, The Sisters, once again, are calling for WAAC, again, to reinstate the financial support for the only HIV Grassroots Organised event The International Candlelight Memorial.

For More Information contact The Sister's Official Spokesperson on HIV, Mother Gretta at

Colorado makes history as the 1st state issuing intersex birth certificates

By Sarah Toce Sunday, September 23, 2018

Colorado has become the first state to issue an intersex birth certificate to a person that is medically accurate. Previously, just New York City had done so. Anunnaki Ray Marquez is now the proud new owner of their own identity on record.

Marquez identifies as a gender non-conforming androgynous gay man. What this means, essentially, is that they have an assortment of hormones, chromosomes, and secondary sex characteristics that can’t be categorized by the two binary sexes once only available on birth certificates.

In order to obtain their corrected birth certificate, Marquez had to petition the state government and provide numerous medical documents for verification. Once confirmed by the Colorado state government, Marquez’s birth certificate was updated to reflect “intersex” instead of “male” or “female.”

Marquez currently works as an activist for the intersex organization Jax Youth Equality in Jacksonville, Florida.

They work as an activist for the intersex group Jax Youth Equality.

“Here’s the thing that confuses people: My biological sex is intersex,” Marquez said. “We live in a world that thinks that should be in alignment with my gender identity.”

But biological sex and gender identity don’t always match, Marquez told

“My gender identity doesn’t match: it’s non-conforming, androgynous male,” Marquez said. “My sexual orientation confuses people even more. If I have an intersex body, they get confused when I say I’m gay.”

To give some background, Sara Kelly Keenan became the first person in U.S. history to receive an intersex birth certificate in New York City in 2016. New York City has its own vital records department separate from New York State records.

The Intersex and Genderqueer Recognition Project tracks equality and advancements concerning non-binary rights. The group has seen a leap in intersex birth certificates since Keenan’s was approved in New York City.

Making it even sweeter, Marquez received their updated birth certificate on the same day a federal judge ruled that the State Department can’t deny passports to non-binary and intersex citizens.

General Discussions / TRUE Locations Of Israel AND Jerusalem
« on: October 15, 2018, 11:21:16 PM »
TRUE Locations Of Israel AND Jerusalem FOUND!! It’s Not Where You Think!!

Editor's Note:
This article contains troubling and complex ideas and our publishing of it is not an endorsement. Do not read it if you find these matters disturbing!



In this video, you will see the TRUE Restored Locations of Ancient Scriptural Places — Places such as Jerusalem, Mount Zion, Ophir, Gibeon, Beersheba, AND MORE!!! You will also see Ancient Maps from as early as the 15th century, and even Ancient Maps nearly 500 years old containing Scriptural Locations such as Babylon, Ammon, and Agag. From Galilee to Nazareth; From Mount Sinai to Susa — We Will Uncover It ALL!!!!

We will also explore different Ancient Maps Of Africa with even more potential Scriptural Locations. We will share the academic, archeological, geographical, historical, and Scriptural references when it comes to these True Locations — and also Expose The LIES that we have been spoon-fed for well over THOUSANDS OF YEARS!! AND AS ALWAYS, YOU DECIDE!

May this video Open your eyes to the Truth and cause you to Research MORE of what is being HIDDEN!; May this video be Edifying unto you and unto all of those watching; And may this video Assist you in your own personal studies and research!



ALSO SEE — The REAL Exodus Location PROOF!!


ALSO SEE — “Jesus?!” Did They Tamper With That TOO?!?!


ALSO SEE — Are They Hiding EVEN MORE?!


My Old Maps:
Old Maps Online (Search For Africa):
David Rumsey Map Collection (Search Africa, South Africa):
The Map House (Browse Africa, Southern Africa):
Maps Of Antiquity:
Rare Maps (Barry Lawrence Ruderman, Africa):
Wiki Maps:
Sanderus Catalogue:
Alabama Maps:
De Virga Map 1411:

JERUSALEM MAPS (In Order Of Video)
1. G.W. Colton, Southern Africa 1886:
2. A.J. Johnson, Africa 1870:
3. A.J. Johnson, Africa 1886:
4. Adolf Stieler, Das Capland 1875:
5. Adolf Stieler, Das Capland 1880:
6. George Bacon 1900:
7. George Bacon 1890:
8. Richard Andree, Deutsch Süd-Afrika 1905:
9. Richard Andree, The Times 1895:
10. Merensky, Gallica 1887:
11. Black, Adam, Charles 1854:
12. Richard Kiepert, Paul Sprigade, Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika 1893:
13. Bacon’s Large Print Map, Transvaal, Orange Free State 1900:
14. Paul Sprigade, Max Moisel, Deutsch-Südwest Afrika 1912:
15. F.A. Brockhaus Leipzig 1894:
16. Francesco C. Marmocchi 1858:

Lorenz Fries 1525:
Sebastian Münster 1545:
Johannes Honterus 1552:
Philip Lea 1692:
Andreas Cellarius, Published In 1706:
Henry William Toms 1730:

Matthias Quad, Johann Bussemacher 1600:
Pierre Du Val 1664:
Covens, Mortier 1730:
Guillaume Delisle 1745:
Map From 1747:

New York Times 1892:
Innocent Pikiyari 2001:
PBS NOVA 2000:
Richard Nicklin Hall, W.G. Neal 1904:
J. Theodore Bent 1891:
Alexander Wilmot 1894:
Carl Peters, Pages 174-183, 1904:
Augustus Henry Keane 1901:


Iceland male circumcision ban: MP behind plan 'didn’t think it was necessary to consult' Jewish and Muslim groups, amid growing anger

Judith Vonberg Monday 19 February 2018

'I don’t see it as a religious matter,' insists Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir
Religious leaders have reacted with outrage to a bill proposed by MPs in Iceland that would criminalise male circumcision.

The bill proposes a six-year prison term for anyone found guilty of “removing sexual organs in whole or in part”.

Salmann Tamimi, president of the Muslim Association of Iceland, described the proposal as an “attack on religion”.

Circumcising girls has been illegal in Iceland since 2005, but there are currently no laws to regulate the practice against boys.

Describing circumcision as a “violation” of young boys’ rights, the bill states the only time it should be considered is for “health reasons”.

Young men would be given the opportunity to decide for themselves once they reached the age of consent.

Male circumcision is one of the most common surgical procedures in the world, with one recent study estimating that around 38 per cent of men globally have undergone the procedure.

According to the same study, around half of circumcisions are carried out for religious or cultural reasons.

While the importance of male circumcision in Islam is disputed – some Muslim groups say it is obligatory, others only recommend it – it remains a major and celebrated rite wherever Islam is practised.

For Jews, circumcision carries profound religious significance and most baby boys born into Jewish families are circumcised within a week of birth.

The Bishop of Iceland, Agnes M Sigurðardóttir, has criticised the bill for criminalising the religious beliefs of Jews and Muslims, recommending instead a ban on unsafe circumcision.

In a statement to The Independent, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, said he was “extremely concerned” about the proposed legislation.

“Whilst the Jewish population in Iceland is small, we cannot ignore the dangerous precedent this sets within Europe and the implications it has on Jews’ ability to carry out our religion in an open and free manner.”

A spokesperson for Milah UK, which campaigns to protect the right of the Jewish community to carry out male circumcision, described the practice as "a non-negotiable element of Jewish identity". A ban would make "sustainable Jewish life in the country impossible," he said.

There are no official figures on the number of Jews living in Iceland but estimates in 2010 by the Pew Research Center suggest they make up less than 0.1 per cent of the population (fewer than 320 people).

Mr Tamimi said he was particularly concerned about the potential impact of the bill on the small Jewish community.

“Even if there is just one Jew, it is very bad to criminalise him,” he said. “It’s very bad for Iceland to get that name, that they don’t want Jews. This is one way of saying they are not welcome.”

He warned the legislation was an attack on religion more broadly – "they are interfering in religious freedom” – and said he was frustrated that religious groups were not consulted before the legislation was proposed. “There was not a single word,” he said. “We read about it in the newspaper.”

Progressive Party MP Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir is the driving force behind the legislation.

“I didn’t think it was necessary to consult,” she told The Independent. “I don’t see it as a religious matter.”

“Jews are welcome in Iceland. But this is about child protection and children’s rights. That comes first, and before the religious rights of the adult.

“Every individual, it doesn’t matter what sex or how old… should be able to give informed consent for a procedure that is unnecessary, irreversible and can be harmful. His body, his choice.”

She said she was surprised when she learned that male circumcision was still legal, despite the ban on circumcising girls.

“The body parts are different, the procedures are different, but in both cases they can be lethal and harmful to the child,” she said.

Guidance issued in 2013 by the Nordic Ombudsmen for Children and paediatric experts concluded that “there are no health-related grounds to circumcise young boys in the Nordic countries”.

According to the paper, the procedure “violates fundamental medical-ethical principles, not least because the procedure is irreversible, painful and may cause serious complications".

In the wake of that report, doctors working for Iceland’s national health system stopped carrying out the procedure.

Ms Gunnarsdóttir argued that if just one person has complications after circumcision, “that is one too many”.

But there is significant disagreement in the global medical community regarding the potential harms or benefits of male circumcision.

While some studies say non-therapeutic circumcision can cause pain and serious long-term consequences – including infections, haemorrhages, sexual problems and psychological trauma – others suggest the health benefits outweigh the risks.

Mr Tamimi is keen to support any legislation that would make male circumcision safer. But he rejects a complete ban.

This bill “is built just on feelings without any thinking about what it means to criminalise circumcision”, he said. “We don’t accept it.”

The legislation has been debated once in the Icelandic parliament and will go through several stages of discussion and consultation before it could become law.

“This is a complicated and difficult matter,” said Ms Gunnarsdóttir. “This is a healthy, democratic way to come to a conclusion.”

Without Glass-Steagall we’re on a debt ‘treadmill to Armageddon’

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release Monday, 8 October 2018

For a decade too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks and their ideological apologists have waged an all-out public relations offensive to con the public and politicians into believing that their structure had nothing to do with the 2008 banking crisis.

Specifically, they claim that the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, ending its separation of commercial deposit-taking banks used by the public, from investment banks that speculated in securities, did not lead to the chain-reaction meltdown of the global financial system triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

This lie was smashed at a 26 September event at the USA’s National Press Club in Washington, DC, when five genuine experts engaged in a public post-mortem of the crisis to mark its 10th anniversary. In their discussion, law professor Arthur Wilmarth proved conclusively that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall separation, which turned deposits into fuel for wild speculation, was the major factor in the crash.

This event is essential viewing by anyone in the world who is concerned about their financial future: not just in the United States, but in the UK, Australia, Europe, Japan—everywhere Glass-Steagall has been debated, but the banks have used their corrupt power over politics to block any efforts to break them up again.


 “Ten years after Lehman Brothers: 5 economic experts describe what hasn’t changed, what is worse … and how it could all happen again”.

Rewriting history

The banks have gone to greats lengths to rewrite history following the crash, to serve their agenda of keeping their claws in deposits. That’s not surprising—public relations is all about selling lies. What’s astounding is that they have been believed. In Michael Lewis’s book The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, contrarian investor Steve Eisman expressed his disgust that Wall Street got to control the policy response to the crash. “I can understand why Goldman Sachs would want to be included in the conversation about what to do about Wall Street”, he said. “What I can’t understand is why anyone would listen to them.” They did listen, and the big lie they fell for is that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it.

The financial media, chock full of bank apologists, was crucial to spreading this illusion. Despite its pre-crisis reporting having zero credibility, as it not only failed to see the crisis but cheered the behaviour that caused it, the US channel CNBC led the propaganda campaign to block the restoration of Glass-Steagall. Celebrity anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin, who wrote the glossed-over book and movie account of the crash which glorified the participants, Too Big To Fail, and is a co-creator of the Wall Street TV series “Billions”, has been especially strident in denying any connection between the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the crisis, but he has had to rely on patently false claims in doing so.

The banks’ version of events has influenced gullible politicians all over the world. In Australia, Liberal Party MPs have sent letters to constituents drafted by the Treasurer’s office which have claimed that “the implementation of Glass-Steagall laws would not have prevented the Global Financial Crisis and the collapse of major banks in the USA. The GFC was primarily caused by the risky lending practices and inadequate capital levels of banks in the United States.”

‘Glass-Steagall was right’

The five participants in the Washington event are genuine experts, not charlatans who are in fact complicit in the failed system, like most so-called financial experts today.

Bart Naylor and Robert Kuttner were Congressional staffers in the 1980s who witnessed the systematic deregulation of the financial system which led to the crash, and campaign for financial reform that puts “Wall Street back in its box”. Nomi Prins is a former Wall Street and City of London investment bank executive who quit in the early 2000s over her disgust at financial practices, predicting derivatives trading would cause a crash, and now campaigns for Glass-Steagall all over the world. Dr Marcus Stanley is an economist and policy director at Americans for Financial Reform who is fighting to reform the banking system before another crash. And financial law expert Arthur Wilmarth is a Professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Professor Wilmarth compared the crash of 2008 to that of 1929, and proved that Glass-Steagall was the major factor in the 2008 crash, because its repeal allowed the banks to dive into the same speculation, fuelled with customer deposits, that caused the 1929 crash before Glass-Steagall was enacted. “I think we need to look back at history, and say: Glass-Steagall was right, and we paid a big price when we got rid of it”, Professor Wilmarth concluded.

When challenged on the bankers’ argument that restoring Glass-Steagall would restrict credit—the same argument that the Morrison government is using against structural separation for Australia’s banks—Wilmarth answered: “I think over the long term Glass-Steagall would probably lead to less credit, which I think would be a good thing. Who thinks we have too little credit now, right? … Global credit [a.k.a. debt] went from US$84 trillion in 2000, to $173 trillion in 2008, to $250 trillion today, so we’re on a treadmill to Armageddon again.”

He emphasised that Glass-Steagall’s capacity for restraining credit is a virtue, not a vice. This is because Glass-Steagall restrains the reckless speculation that creates credit for the unproductive financial gambling that builds up unpayable debt, of the type that is swamping the world today; but it boosts the availability of credit for the real economy by keeping deposits separated from speculation.

For too long bankers and their political stooges have got away with pretending that TBTF “universal” banks, which are conglomerates of all kinds of financial services, are normal and necessary. They are not. They are a financial mutation that exposes deposits to the toxic chemical waste of financial speculation. Watch this video, share it widely, and join the fight to put the banks back in their box.


 “Ten years after Lehman Brothers: 5 economic experts describe what hasn’t changed, what is worse … and how it could all happen again”.

What you can do

    Share this video widely. Especially share Professor Wilmarth’s contribution, which you can do using this link, which is queued to when he starts speaking:

    Share it with your federal MP, especially if you have corresponded with them on Glass-Steagall, but even if you haven’t. Forward the link or this release to their office with the message that the government claims that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash, but this discussion proves that claim to be false.

    Demand your MP support the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018 that Bob Katter introduced into Parliament on 25 June, so that Australia can have a Glass-Steagall banking separation which protects deposits and makes banking normal again.

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432

‘Bail-in’: They plan to steal your personal bank deposits and pensions!

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release Tuesday, 22 March 2016

The world is now hurtling towards a far worse financial collapse than even the crash of 2008. Plunging markets in bonds, bank stocks, and commodities throughout the trans-Atlantic sector of the world economy (and those attached to it, including Australia and New Zealand), have brought countless authoritative warnings of the next, looming megacrash, while the actions of the transnational financial authorities demonstrate fast-growing desperation on their part. Foremost among those actions is “bail-in”, the asset-confiscation model that got its test run in Cyprus in 2013.

The confiscation of depositors’ funds through “bail-in”, for which the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and its Financial Stability Board (FSB) had sought legislative approval in all major nations,[1] is now being imposed come hell or high water, notably in Australia by dictatorial decree!

In 2008, the international financial oligarchy, centred on the British Crown, the City of London, and Wall Street, directed terrified governments to spend tens of trillions in public funds to “bail out” so-called Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks, whose quadrillions of dollars in speculation had caused the crisis in the first place. In the years since, those banks have not stopped their unbridled speculation, nor their drug money-laundering, terror-financing, tax evasion and other criminality; the tens of billions of dollars in fines incurred for such activity are simply written off as a cost of doing business.

And now, bailouts are not enough. While hiding behind sophistry like declarations of a desire to avoid 2008-style taxpayer bailouts, they plan, as the present crisis hits full-force, to simply seize the private bank deposits of ordinary citizens like yourself—“bail-in”, as opposed to “bail-out”.

The rationale for bail-in goes like this. When a bank fails because its assets (such as mortgage loans) are not enough to cover its liabilities, rather than its being declared bankrupt or bailed out with taxpayer money, the bank will be kept open for business by the intervention of a government-appointed bail-in authority, which takes over the bank and acts to reduce its liabilities. The authority will write down (cancel) some of the value of the bank’s debt. Creditors, such as holders of the bank’s bonds, may have those bonds converted into equity (shares) in the bank. Not only bondholders, but also depositors are classified as “unsecured creditors”. Thus, to reduce the bank’s liabilities the bail-in authority can vaporise the savings of its customers and assets of its bondholders, compensating them with worthless shares in the “resolved” institution.[2]

On 1 January 2016 new bail-in regulations with the force of law took effect throughout the European Union. The EU’s Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) allows TBTF banks to seize personal bank deposits. The UK, whose Bank of England (BoE) was the BRRD’s principal author, had put the new law fully into effect already on 1 January 2015.[3]

Attempts to pass bail-in legislation in Australia, during 2013-2015, were defeated by the Citizens Electoral Council’s mass mobilisation. But now, bail-in has been simply declared, fascist-style, to be in effect as of early this year.[4] Although none of the 30 megabanks classified by the BIS as Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (GSIFI) is Australian, each of Australia’s Big Four banks ranks among the top 50 banks worldwide. Therefore Australia’s financial system as a whole is ranked by the IMF as “systemically important”, meaning that a banking crash in Australia could bring down the entire Anglo-American system.

Bail-in devastated the nation of Cyprus in 2013, an experiment which the president of the Eurogroup of European finance ministers, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, proclaimed to be the “template” for the entire EU. Since then it has been applied to a lesser, but still disastrous, effect in Portugal, Spain and Italy.[5]

In reality, bail-in cannot save the TBTF banks: the amount of depositors’ funds available to be seized is so small by comparison to the amount of speculative debt held by the banks, that governments will be forced once again to cough up untold trillions in “bail-out”, on top of “bail-in”. In addition, the fact that bail-in is now on the books has so terrified investors about being “bailed in” in the future, that they have stopped buying bonds; the collapse of bond markets was a major factor in the drastic 10 March decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to pump money into the big banks through zero and negative interest rates and an increase of “quantitative easing” (QE)—the ECB’s own bond purchases—by one-third, to €80 billion per month, a rate of money-pumping greater than the US Federal Reserve System’s QE at the height of its post-2008 interventions.

But bail-in is not merely, or even mainly, a “financial” trick. Its design is political. The real agenda behind bail-in is the intention of the Crown/City of London/Wall Street cabal to enact fascist police-state regimes and reduce the population throughout the Western world, even as they gun for a military showdown with Russia and China, to loot and subdue the BRICS[6] nations before their own trans-Atlantic system collapses.

Decisive action to eliminate these genocidal policies of bail-out and bail-in is needed now, before the present crisis hits full-force. The documentation accessible via the links below will arm you with what you need to know, in order to force your government to rein in these murderous TBTF banks and launch full-scale national credit-creation for an agro-industrial recovery. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt accomplished that in the United States in the 1930s, using principles that are universally applicable.

Bail-in: derivatives come first

Champions of bail-in: Goldman Sachs, the Bank of England and the BIS

What about my deposit guarantee?

Behind bail-in: eugenics and genocide

The Royal policy of eugenics

Where does Queen Elizabeth stand on bail-in?

Glass-Steagall, national credit, and a new world economic order

To access all sections in one file, click here: for html; for pdf

Glass-Steagall, national credit, and a new world economic order

In the first 100 days of his Presidency, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 enacted a series of measures to turn the US economy around and end the Great Depression, foremost among which was the Glass-Steagall Act. It mandated a total separation of all commercial banking from the speculative investment banking that had caused the crash. This law put the Wall Street predators on a leash, enabling Roosevelt to mobilise enormous quantities of public credit, through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), for investment in the USA’s physical economic recovery.[7]

Near the end of World War II, the Allied nations met in the town of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to construct a stable international monetary system to facilitate economic recovery from the war and the rise of sovereign nation-states, freed from the shackles of what FDR had called the “economic royalists” of Wall Street, and from the system of British and other colonialisms built upon looting subject populations. A cornerstone of the “Bretton Woods system” was the establishment of fixed exchange rates, to allow for stable international trade in a setting of reliable economic growth, while the International Monetary Fund and World Bank would assist nations in achieving prosperity and national sovereignty. But from almost the day the Bretton Woods agreements were signed in 1944, London and Wall Street set out to subvert them, by taking over the World Bank and IMF and forcing “conditionalities” (looting) down the throats of subject nations and crusading to end fixed exchange rates, so as to open up all currencies to unlimited speculation. That did happen on 15 August 1971, when, under pressure from Wall Street and London, US President Richard Nixon allowed the US dollar—the main world currency—to float against others. Today, derivatives (gambling bets) based on interest rate changes and rates of foreign exchange are the cornerstones of the quadrillion or more dollars in speculation internationally.

At the direction of London and Wall Street, further deregulatory measures followed the end of Bretton Woods, ushering in a series of financial shocks and crises of which the present one is only the most recent. These included the US Savings and Loans collapses of the 1970s, the 1986 Big Bang in the City of London, the 1987 Wall Street crash, and the junk bond crises tied to the rash of leveraged buy-outs in the 1980s. But the dam really broke when US President Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, which is what allowed the explosive growth of derivatives speculation and the creation of the TBTF banks.

What must be done now is to 1) re-enact Glass-Steagall banking separation in all countries;[8] 2) cancel all derivatives, as worthless gambling debts; 3) enact enabling legislation for national credit-creation, because if trillions can be created by the BoE, the US Fed, et al. to bail out the TBTF banks, then clearly trillions can be created to revive the actual physical economy; and 4) join the BRICS nations to create a new, just world economic order.[9]

What you can do:

    Call your MP to demand that he or she act with full force to secure the passage of Glass-Steagall legislation to separate speculative investment banking from government-protected normal commercial banks serving the real economy, thus wiping out the TBTF banks and their plot for bail-in now, before the next crash.
    Under pressure from an aroused citizenry, that is entirely possible, given that more and more prominent figures—even leading bankers who championed the repeal of Glass-Steagall two decades ago—have realised what a disaster that has been and are calling for its reinstatement. A Glass-Steagall amendment to the UK’s Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill 2013 failed to pass the House of Commons that year by 49 votes, and missed passage in the House of Lords by only nine.
    Demand that your MP act to establish the power of sovereign national credit-creation for the common good, as in the original Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the CEC’s ready-to-enact draft legislation for an Australian National Bank, or UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s call for “People’s Quantitative Easing”—masses of new government credit to be directed into great infrastructure projects, manufacturing, agriculture, health care and other areas vital to the general welfare of the population.
    Contact Buckingham Palace and demand to know where the Queen stands on bail-in.
    Telephone: (+44) (0)20 7930 4832.

Let us know the responses!

Notes and references

    “‘Bail-In’—the British Crown’s Plot for Global Genocide”, The New Citizen, Aug./Sept./Oct./ 2013.

    “Bail-in” regulations, designed by the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements, define a wide range of confiscatory actions. In order to build buffers against losses from their huge speculative activities, banks are required to sell “bail-in bonds”, which carry the provision that they will be written down and/or converted to shares in a crisis, effectively becoming worthless. These are typically sold to large and presumably “knowledgeable” investors such as insurance and pension/superannuation funds, but sometimes, as in as Italy and Australia, they are sold directly to unsuspecting individual savers and investors as inherently safe. One way or the other, whether through simple stealing of individual bank accounts or large-scale looting of superannuation funds, the architects of bail-in emphasise that individuals will be forced to pay. At a 5 Nov. 2014 forum in Washington DC on the 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (“Dodd-Frank”) Act, which enshrined bail-in in the USA, former Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir Paul Tucker, one of the architects of bail-in, declared that for a permanent bail-in system to work, the burden of keeping the banks from failing must fall on households, through their superannuation and insurance funds which hold bail-in securities and liabilities. “You absolutely can’t allow banks and shadow banks to hold it”, Tucker insisted. “So that leaves you with insurance companies, pension [superannuation] funds, mutual funds, etc. And when I’ve said that in other groups, people have said, ‘My goodness, it’s households!’ … Well, there are only households … Do you want all the risk to fall back on Wall Street firms?” (Emphasis added.)

    EU member countries were allowed to delay implementation of the full bail-in provisions of the BRRD from 1 Jan. 2015 to 1 Jan. 2016. But a UK Treasury notice of 12 Dec. 2014, reflecting awareness that the global financial crash could resume sooner rather than later, emphasised, “The BRRD will strengthen the EU financial system and make it less vulnerable to shocks and contagion. As such, the government strongly supports it and is committed to fully transposing the Directive by 1 Jan. 2015. The government does not intend to take advantage of the option of delaying the application of the bail-in provisions until 2016.”

    Christopher Joye, “Ensuring the major banks are not too big to fail”, Australian Financial Review, 20 Dec. 2015, summarises the Australian bank regulator APRA’s assertion that even without special bail-in legislation it already has bail-in powers under existing Australian law. Following the Cyprus bank bail-in of March 2013, a little-noticed Financial Stability Board report stated that bail-in legislation was “in train in Australia”. The Citizens Electoral Council launched a nation-wide mobilisation to expose and stop this legislation, culminating in a December 2013 full-page advertisement in the national daily newspaper The Australian, and including publication of the CEC pamphlet Glass-Steagall Now! Thousands of Australians wrote to politicians, demanding that any plans to legislate bail-in be dumped. By exposing this hitherto secret intention, the CEC made it politically impossible for the Australian parliament to legislate bail-in, and derailed plans to finalise a global bail-in regime at the Brisbane G20 in Nov. 2014. Having failed to achieve the necessary legislation by democratic means, APRA is acting as the local arm of the supranational, dictatorial BIS that it is, by asserting that it has bail-in powers already.

    “Only Glass-Steagall bank separation can stop deadly bail-in”, Australian Alert Service, 13 Jan. 2016, p. 3.

    “British push for end of ‘BRICS fantasy’” and “US war faction pushes Asia into chaos”, Australian Alert Service, 16 Mar. 2016, report the latest attacks on BRICS. Cooperation among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the BRICS group, is the seed crystal of a new world monetary and economic system. The trans-Atlantic financial powers centred in the City of London and Wall Street view the rise of BRICS and its promotion of national sovereignty and industrial progress as a threat to their global dominance, and are determined to break up the alliance.

    Richard Freeman, “How Roosevelt’s RFC Revived Economic Growth, 1933-45”, EIR, 17 Mar. 2006.

Glass-Steagall Now!, CEC pamphlet, 2014, compiles calls for Glass-Steagall legislation from around the world, as well as the status of such legislation in many countries as of January 2014. Support has grown since then. The magazine excerpts the original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which opens: “An Act to provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes…” It includes the full text of The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act now pending before the US Congress, as well as a summary of the CEC’s national banking legislation, “The Commonwealth National Credit Bank Bill”, of which the full text is here.

    The proceedings of the March 2015 CEC International Conference “The World Land-Bridge: Peace on Earth, Good Will towards All Men”, set forth the BRICS process and the potential for other nations to cooperate with it.

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432

Event Reviews / Glass-Steagall Bill introduced
« on: October 12, 2018, 12:51:49 PM »
29 June 2018 - The CEC Report - Glass-Steagall Bill introduced! / Foreign interference laws


CEC Australia
Published on 29 Jun 2018
1. People-1, Banks-0: Glass-Steagall solution introduced in Australian Parliament!
2. Foreign interference laws are a fascist fraud
Presented by Elisa Barwick and Robert Barwick

Tell Commissioner Hayne: break up the banks!

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release Tuesday, 2 October 2018

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432

    Commissioner Kenneth Hayne’s interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission cites the precedent of the Glass-Steagall Act, and seeks submissions on questions of the structure of regulation and the structure of the banks.

    The vested banking interests and their political minions oppose structural separation, so it is imperative that as many people as possible make submissions to Commissioner Hayne delivering the clear message that the banks must be broken up.

The deadline for submissions is 26 October. Click here for the online submission form.

On 28 September Commissioner Kenneth Hayne released his eagerly anticipated interim report of the first four rounds of hearings of the Financial Services Royal Commission. The interim report does not make recommendations, but poses questions based on its findings on consumer lending, financial advice, small business lending, agricultural lending, remote communities, and regulation and the regulators. The Commissioner seeks submissions on those questions.

While most of the questions relate to specific details of the banking practices examined in the hearings, Commissioner Hayne has also taken a step back to look at the banking system as a whole. In his executive summary, Hayne poses the question:

“What can be done to prevent the conduct happening again?”

The number one answer to that question is break up the banks! Virtually all of the misconduct examined by the royal commission stems from the banks being too-big-to-fail conglomerates of multiple financial services businesses.

If commercial banks were separated from investment banking, they wouldn’t be able to do the trading in securities and derivatives on mortgages which made them lower their lending standards and even commit fraud so they could increase their mortgage lending.

Without the incentives to concentrate most of their lending into speculating on the housing bubble, they would have more interest in lending to, and looking after, their small business and farm customers.

If commercial banks were not “vertically integrated” with wealth management, stock broking, insurance and superannuation, they wouldn’t be able to fleece customers with financial advice that lures them into buying products and investments from the other businesses that the banks own.

If the banks were broken up, and commercial banks were only allowed to take deposits and make loans, and kept separated from other financial services and speculation, the financial system would be much simpler, and therefore the regulators would be better able to do their job. The banks would not be too big to fail, so APRA would not be able to use “financial stability” as the excuse for allowing the banks to get away with financial murder.

Commissioner Hayne is aware of the precedents for structural separation. In Chapter 9, Section 6.7 “Business structures” on page 323 of Volume 1 of his interim report, he wrote:

“In considering these issues it is important to recognise that legislative regulation of the structure of the banking industry is not unknown. From time to time, overseas jurisdictions have limited not only the kinds of transaction, but also the affiliations with other firms, that banks may have. The United States Banking Act of 1933 (usually called the ‘Glass-Steagall Act’) sought to separate commercial and investment banking. In 2013, the UK enacted the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 requiring banks to ‘ring fence’ certain ‘core activities’ by 2019. These references are not to be misunderstood. They are not to be read as my suggesting that either of these laws could be, or should be, directly imported and applied here. But the point of immediate relevance is that structural regulation of banking activities is not novel.” (Emphasis added.) Despite his caveat, these words would be making the banks very nervous.

Commissioner Hayne’s questions

Following are questions that Commissioner Hayne poses at the end of his interim report, on which he is seeking submissions, and the CEC’s answers to those questions:

Commissioner Hayne: As indicated in Chapter 8, I begin from the premise that no new layer of law or regulation should be added unless there is clearly identified advantage to be gained by doing that. And I begin from the further premise that very simple ideas must inform the conduct of financial services entities.

Hence, the first question to be asked and answered is:

    Is the law governing financial services entities and their conduct too complicated?
        Does it impede effective conduct risk management?
        Does it impede effective regulatory enforcement?
    Is the regulatory regime too complex? Should there be radical simplification of the regulatory regime?

CEC: Yes to all of the above. As former APRA Principal Researcher and Glass-Steagall bank separation advocate Dr Wilson Sy said in an interview for the 29 June episode of the CEC Report, “I think the financial system is too complex for the regulators … I think we need a much simpler system.”

Commissioner Hayne:

    Are APRA’s regulatory practices satisfactory? If not, how should they be changed?
    Are APRA’s enforcement practices satisfactory? If not, how should they be changed?
    Does the conduct identified and criticised in this report call for reconsideration of APRA’s prudential standards on governance?

CEC: No, APRA’s behaviour is not satisfactory. Using the excuse of financial stability it has allowed the banks to engage in practices that maximise their profits, but at the expense of their customers. Ultimately this has become a threat to financial stability, because in seeking to increase their profits from mortgages the banks have inflated a massive housing bubble and incurred a $40 trillion exposure to dangerous derivatives, all of which is a threat to the financial system.

Commissioner Hayne:

7.5 Business structures

    Do the events that have happened raise any issue about business structures?
    Do the events that have happened invite consideration of whether structural changes should now be made?
    Do the events that have happened suggest that manufacturers of financial products should not be permitted to provide, whether by employee or authorised representative, personal financial advice in relation to products of a kind it manufactures?

CEC: Yes, the banks’ structure, a.k.a. vertical integration, created the conflicts of interest between serving their customers, and exploiting their customers to maximise profits for shareholders. The banks cannot be trusted to “manage” these conflicts of interest, and relying on more rigorous law enforcement is unrealistic. The conflicts of interest must be removed, by separating commercial banks from all other businesses.

Commissioner Hayne: What responses should be made to the conduct identified and criticised in this report?

    Are changes in law necessary?
        Should the financial services law be simplified?
    Should the regulatory architecture change?
    Is structural change in the industry necessary?

CEC: Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The solution is in legislation that is already before Parliament, the Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018, introduced by the Member for Kennedy Bob Katter on 25 June. It will enact a Glass-Steagall separation of commercial banks from investment banking and all other financial business, and bring APRA under much tighter Parliamentary control.

Make a submission

It is very important that everyone who supports Glass-Steagall and the Separation of Banks Bill make a submission on the interim report by 26 October. The banks will be frantically telling Hayne that structural change is unnecessary, and the government and APRA will be looking for ways to protect the banks. Commissioner Hayne needs to know that the public demands structural change.

Making a submission is simple. Click on this link to go to the online submission form, fill out your details, click “Next”, write your submission in the box and then click “Submit”. In your submission answer any or all of the questions Hayne asked above.

(For those who can’t make a submission online, mail a written submission to: FSRC, PO Box 5446, Kingston ACT 2604. Make sure you include your name and contact phone number, and indicate whether you want your submission to be published or kept private.)

Click here to order a free copy of the CEC’s new banking handbook, The Next Financial Crash is Certain! End the BoE-BIS-APRA Bankers’ Dictatorship: Time for Glass-Steagall Banking Separation and a National Bank.

Click here to join the CEC as a member.
Click here to refer others to receive regular email updates from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia.

What would happen if no men showed up for work today?

September 17, 2013 By Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch)

Yesterday’s post got me thinking about what would happen if no men showed up to work today.  For certain, the trains would stop running.  But before we get into that, I want to tell you a bit about how I came to be – how I came to think the way I do.

I credit my father, first and foremost.  My father failed in so many ways, but one thing he did perfectly was provide. He could coax food out of the barest patch of earth; he could collect a swarm of wild bees and turn them into gallons and gallons of honey; he could take a bush and make it flower; he could take a cow or a goat or a chicken and make the foolish creature love him.  My childhood was blighted by religious-based violence centered on the concept of breaking a child’s will so they might better accept the will of God, but that is not the reason I am atheist.  If God had been presented to me in a better light, someone who wasn’t keen on beating children unconscious, I still don’t believe I would be one of the faithful.  God makes no rational sense to me.

And if I am one thing, it is rational.

What my father did was instill indelibly in my mind that his role was to provide.  I never thought of that in terms of love.  Only in terms of material goods, which amounted to food and shelter and clothing in our sparse, dirt farm existence, and my Dad was a genius at providing those things.  My mother and I turned the goods of his labor into “value-added” products, to be certain, but we would have had no flour to mill, no butter to churn, no eggs to collect, no firewood to burn, no cookies and cakes and breads and loaves to sell without him.

My most basic understanding of men is that they keep you from starving or freezing to death.

My three brothers played a key role in that they made me appreciate my chores were so much easier.  At no point would I have ever traded churning butter or kneading bread with pitching out stalls or baling hay.

From my brothers I learned that men do the hard, shitty work, and tedious is nothing compared to physically brutal.

My husband’s grandmother played a curiously central role in who I am, too.  The Queen was the sort of woman who showed up for Sunday dinner dressed in elegant suits with her hair perfectly coiffed and pantyhose and heels and lipstick exquisitely applied, and I really, honestly, expected her to hate me with my worn denims and flannel shirts and practical flat shoes and penchant for the saltier forms of the English language.

But she didn’t.

While Mr. JB and I were still dating, she gave me two pieces of advice that are with me to this day.

Friends of the family were expecting and everyone was all excitement and anticipation, which is utterly lovely.  A discussion about the mother and working and how to get the baby sleeping through the corporate night ensued, and the Queen blessed me with two morsels of wisdom.

On the subject of maternal guilt, she said, “People hardly ever feel guilty about doing the right thing, now do they?  Let guilt be your compass, letting know you are headed in the wrong direction”.

And gazing upon a sturdy tome of Popular Childcare Manual, she said, “Honey, the baby IS the book.  If 50 000 years of evolution isn’t good enough for you, then I don’t know what is.  You do what the baby tells you to do and you can’t go wrong. It’s important to have an open mind about scientific advances, but not so open your brains fall out onto the sidewalk.”

The Queen passed away before our first child was born, and I will never forget the look on her face when we left her in the hospital, after a devastating stroke left her immobile and incommunicative. She was tied to a bed with her hair dishevelled, wearing one of those awful gaping hospital robes, and the look in her eyes was so very clear:

No.  Please no.  Please kill me.  I do not want to live like this.

And I knew then I loved her.  The Queen was gone, although her body was present.  I would have killed her, had the law permitted it.

Obviously, I didn’t.

It made me realize that even though the Dowager, the Queen’s Daughter and Mr.JB’s mother has been no peach to deal with, I will never let her spend her last years in a home with messy hair and crinkled clothes.  I won’t kill her, obviously, but she will spend her last moments looking like herself, surrounded by the people she loves and no “career” in the world will make her comfort and care irrelevant to me.

And obviously, the same goes for Mr. JB’s father, and my own.  They will end their days in the company of those they nurtured into love, no matter how clumsily they effected the emotion.

Mr. JB’s mother and grandmother made me realize that the single most important thing I can contribute to the world is love.  If every family made loving one another a priority, then the bonds of family would become the single most important “wealth” we can pursue.  It used to be that way.  It can be that way again. But families aren’t families without men.

And that is where we have gone off the rails.

The birth of my own son is what brought that home to me forcefully.  Our first child was a fearful, cautious child by nature.  She was born clinging to me and it took more than a year before she stopped freaking out every time the phone rang. Her baby brain took any sudden sound to mean the world was surely coming to an end, and she responded appropriately:  by screaming her head off.

LittleDude is so totally different.  He was born calm and curious and totally open to anything the world had to throw at him.  It took a long time before Pinky would let Grandma hold her for any length of time, but LittleDude was happy as long as there were warm arms around him.

As a toddler, he would go up to any man in the park, and ask to be picked up when he got tired.

“Daddy, pick me up”.  He called them all “Daddy”.

I used to joke with my husband that I was the “single mom whose kid got no male attention” at the park, because LittleDude just loved men and he showed no fear of them whatsoever. He would happily snuggle up with the homeless guy with the puppy, which forced me to confront some uncomfortable truths.

I would try to coax LittleDude away from these men, who never behaved in any manner that alarmed me, other than simply being men.  Who were they?  I don’t know.  War vets.  Chronic alcoholics. Men whom society had discarded, and the confusion I could see in my son’s face when I would try to pull him away made me examine where I was getting my ideas from.

I’ve never been the hysterical “someone is gonna kidnap my child” sort of person.  That happens so rarely, it’s not a rational belief.  It would make more sense to worry that he might be struck by lightning or swept away by a tornado.  I was afraid of those men because they were men.

And I didn’t want my son to grow up thinking that men are something bad.  I lived through parental alienation and had the poison of feminist inspired man-hate poured into my soul every day, thanks to my mother, and I refused to let her anger and bitterness and venom affect my own life.

So that is how I began.

Commenters have often mentioned that if men didn’t show up for work one day, the entire world would screech to a halt, and today, using data from the US Department of Labor, I want to take a look at just how true that is.  Hearing about “male privilege” is so common in the media, but what is hardly ever mentioned is just how many of our own privileges are a direct result of the work that men do.

Perhaps the reason men have historically had the privileges they do is because they EARN THEM BY MAKING OUR LIFE POSSIBLE?

Just a thought.

And in the same breath, women have historically had the privileges they have because they CREATE LIFE.

Modern, feminist inspired liberal democracy has destroyed women’s role, by and large, with plunging birth rates across the developed world, but they CANNOT destroy men’s traditional work, or we all perish.  What they want is for men to do the work silently.  With no acknowledgement.  For no reward.

There’s a word for that:  slavery.

Let’s see what happens when the slaves revolt, shall we?

All information taken from Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, 2013, except where noted.

First up, the entire power grid is down. 100% of power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers are men. Now, it’s possible that there are a few women working in these occupations, but however many there are, they do not make up even 1% of the total workforce, so statistically, 100% of the workforce is male.

91% of the nation’s electrical engineers are men, and if they don’t show up for work, there is no one to monitor and manage the nation’s electrical supplies.  Assuming some automation (designed by men, naturally) kicks in for the day, we had all better pray there are no problems.  97.6% of electrical power line installers and maintenance workers are men.

Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.

Don’t bother turning on your taps, either. Or flushing your toilets.  95.5% of water and liquid waste treatment plant and system operators are men.

Think you might be able to get out of town for the one day the men don’t show up?

Think again.

Planes are out.

95.9% of aircraft pilots and flight engineers are men.  If you happen to find a plane with a female pilot, don’t get too excited.  98.4% of aircraft mechanics and service technicians are men.  You can, however, be assured of your comfort as you sit on a pilotless aircraft that has no mechanic for pre-flight clearance, because 77.6% of flight attendants are female.

Should you be lucky enough to find a female pilot and a female technician to clear you for take-off, you still have some praying to do.  Statistically, 0% of airtraffic controllers and airfield operations specialists are women.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there are ZERO ladies working in air traffic control.  There just aren’t enough to constitute even 1% of the workforce.

Trains, of course, are also out.

100% of locomotive engineers and operators are men, as are 100% of the workers who operate railroad brake, signals and switches.  94.4% of railway yardmasters are men, but if you chance upon a female yardmaster, it won’t help you much.  She can’t operate the trains.

You might have better luck with bus drivers, almost half of whom are women.

But the streets are likely to be chaos. And there won’t be anyone on hand to help you navigate that.

87.4% of police and sheriff’s patrol officers are men.  96.6% of firefighters are men. 68.8% of Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics are men, so if it all goes tits up and you get hurt, there’s a small chance you might make it to a hospital.

I hope you don’t get too badly hurt, though.  65.7% of all surgeons are men.

Maybe you should just work from home? In the dark, mind you.  With no running water.

Uh-oh.  Looks like that might be a problem, too.

For all computer and mathematical occupations combined, 74.4% of the workforce is male.  Computer network architects, who design and implement all our computer based communications systems are 91.9% men.  And 94.2% of radio and telecommunications equipment installers and repair technicians are men.

Looks like that plan is fucked.

Hope it doesn’t get too hot, or too cold the day men don’t show up for work.  Even if you had power, which you don’t, you would be hard-pressed to get anyone in to take a look at your wonky air-conditioner or furnace.

98.4% of heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics and installers are men.

Oh well.  Guess you’ll have to mosey on down to the local café, which has no power either, but what’s logic and consequence anyways?  Be careful when you step over all that accumulating garbage!  Remember that most EMTs are men, and they’ve taken the day off.  Don’t want to get hurt now.

Most garbage collectors are men, too.  93.4%, to be exact.

You’ll need to stop at the bank first, for a little cash injection.

Oops. Don’t bother.

The machine hasn’t been filled with money today. 81.5% of security guards and gaming surveillance officers are men.  It’s unlikely the banks would be functioning anyways, with no men at work.  72.1% of all securities, commodities and financial services sales agents are men.  72.6% of the nation’s CEOs would be taking the day off, along with 70.9% of all the general and operations managers.

Don’t count on getting a weather report today.  Statistically, 0% of the nation’s atmospheric and space scientists are women.

Actually, don’t plan on acquiring pretty much anything today. The workers in the entire production, transportation and material moving occupations are 78.2% men. Not only will no goods be moving on the day men go on strike, they won’t be made, period.  82.4% of all the industrial production managers are men.

Nothing will be built or extracted from the earth in terms of raw materials.  97.5% of that workforce is male.

Nothing will be installed, maintained or repaired.  96.8% of that workforce is male.

If men took a collective day off, we would instantly be without power, without the means to communicate, without protection, without water, without trucks bringing us the food and products we take for granted, because men are the ones who provide all those things.

Where in our culture do we EVER see that acknowledged?  If women took the day off, with the sole exception of NURSES, nothing would happen.  No one would die.  The world would continue to function. The hair salons and primary schools and retail clothing stores would close, and the male management structure would have to find some way to answer their own phones for a day, but essentially, nothing would happen.

You will often hear feminists barking on about male privilege, usually in a well-lit room, comfortably warm, with her iPhone close at hand, buzzing with updates from her latest #mensuck Twitter feed, with zero awareness that every single one of those luxuries is provided by men.

Male privilege is the idea that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women.



The Department of Labor says otherwise, bitch. It is women who have failed to earn their privileges.  We live in a world powered and created and maintained by men, and yet feminists have created a whole philosophy and ideology that insists women and men are equal.

We are not equal.

We do not need to be equal.

We can’t be equal.

What we can be is grateful.

And we can pray men never, ever take a day off.

Lots of love,


Bill’s story : trying to get help as a male victim of violence
By Suomy Nona - April 19, 2016

I’m sitting here with “Bill”, who wants to tell his story, a story of violent attacks from “Jane” that took place over a 5+ year period before any real action was taken to protect him. Obviously names have been changed for legal reasons, but events described here are as accurate and as factual as memory will allow.

He’s not “well off” as most of us would consider it, certainly not rich. He does okay for himself all things considered, however Bill is a pensioner, unable to do most types of work available to him. He lives on an allowance that barely covers his rent and food, only having a small amount left for him to spend on entertainments that dont leave him stuck in front of a TV all day every day. He does “odd jobs” for a bit of extra pocket money, so he can afford a couple of hours at the pub getting some of that much needed social interaction that prevents us all from going insane.

Bill, like most Aussies, likes a drink. So does Jane. This is how they met.
They were first introduced to each other in passing, a chance meeting at Janes cousins house.

A little later they ran into each other at a pub, got along fine and one thing lead to another.

A casual relationship evolved. Jane would come around to Bills house for some company and a drink, they slept together and had a great time, they would live their own lives the rest of the time.

Eventually she asked to bring some personal things over, clothing and the like. Jane had been sharing a house with her relatives and didn’t own much property, Bill realised later that this was all of her possessions, and he had been quietly “moved in with”.

She never offered to contribute anything to the household expenses. She was happy to drink Bills drinks and eat Bills food, but this extra cost eventually started to become too much and Bill asked Jane to contribute financially. She agreed to pay an amount for board. She started treating Bill as a retreat point too, calling him to be picked up, or having money for her taxi ready as she retreated from problems within her own family, arguments there and the like.

These seemingly small issues lead to tension, mainly coming from her close family, who appeared to be jealous, harassing her with questions like “why are you paying him money” not understanding the costs she imposed on Bill just as a matter of arrangement. The tension between her and her family sometimes leads to tension between Bill and Jane which built up into arguments, and sometimes it was her jealousy of other women that Bill talked to in passing in the course of daily life.

The violence began with a visit from Jane and her friend coming over to Bills for a drink. They all talked and socialised long into the night.

The next morning Jane was visibly angry, jealous of the dynamics that had transpired the night before, considering that Bill had given too much attention to Janes friend and not Jane herself. After a short verbal confrontation Jane walked out of the house, she came straight back, armed with a broken brick. She thrust it into his face, luckily doing minimal damage. Bill had seen it coming and stepped back, the jagged edge of the brick only scratching his nose and not hitting with full force, Bill pushed her back pout the door, putting his weight on the door so he could get it closed and lock it. She continued striking the door with the brick, with such force that she broke the handle off from the outside. The brick then came flying in through the window. Glass and brick narrowly missing Bill as he called the police.

She was still outside screaming abuse when the police arrived. The police recognised Jane from other encounters, and they did take her away that day (Bill suspects they issued a “24 hour move-on notice” to her) and they asked Bill if he wanted to press charges. Given that the scratch was only slight, he declined to press assault charges, knowing she would already be facing property damage charges. Anyway, It wasn’t that big of a deal, right? Just a scratch. He would get his window fixed and get a restraining order against her returning.

She was charged via summons, she went to court, a $400 fine for property damage was issued.

There’s a major problem with the fines enforcement system in Australia.. and that is, if you don’t have a drivers license, and you choose not to pay your fine, then you have experienced zero penalty. The only thing the Fines Enforcement Registry will do to recover fines, is suspend your drivers license until you pay.

Jane didn’t have a drivers license, nor car, so there was zero incentive for her to pay the fine. She effectively experienced no consequences for her actions other than a lift home from the police.

The window was fixed. The restraining order was issued. The threats continued.

During this period of the first restraining order, phone calls from Jane were regular, usually consisting of something along the lines of “can i come over and we’ll talk? no? ILL GET MY FAMILY TO BASH YOU!” and it wasn’t just phone calls. Visits to the door happened also, with the conversation going along the same lines. Then there were the run-ins in public places. Just walking to the train station was an ordeal, Jane was obviously staying somewhere close-by and Bill regularly encountered her as he went about his life.

Then there was the property damage.

3 times during this period was Bills house attacked. She was caught 3 times (by this point she was well known to the local police for various disturbances in the neighbourhood) by the police with each case resulting in her going to court. Each case of property damage was also a case of breaching the restraining order. Each time she went to court, the penalty was a $400 fine for property damage. Bill didn’t have the money for a civil court case, so he had to sort out the window and door repairs between him and his landlord.

Twice Bill was awoken in the middle of the night, typically around 3am, by a brick through the window.

Sleeping well would be difficult for anyone in these circumstances.

The third time, Jane had called Bill and threatened to come around and do it again, so Bill called the cops before she got there.

A single police officer arrived this time, and he invited Bill to sit in the cop car with him and watch over the property and to point out Jane to him as she arrived.

A short time later Bill got a call from his neighbour who told him Jane was already on the property, screaming at the house and making smashing noises.

Bill asked the cop to come with him to check around the back of the property, the cop refused and just said “she wont do anything, we can’t act until we see her do something”. He ignored the neighbours call because the neighbour had called Bill, not the police directly.

Eventually the neighbour called back to tell Bill that Jane had left the property.

The cop decided he had enough waiting, and that it was safe for Bill to return home if he wished, the cop let Bill out and drove off.

Bill went back to his home to discover the rear windows had been smashed. Obviously he had to call the cops back out again to report the property damage.

The restraining order was due for renewal. there had been many more incidences, smaller confrontations at the door, sometimes Bill would tell her to get lost, resulting in a restless nights sleep or a torrent of abuse, sometimes it was all too much hassle, sometimes he would rather give her some money for a cab and send her on her way. Some money in her hand always made her happier, happy enough to leave anyway.

During the period of the second restraining order (a restraining order expires after 2 years by default) nothing much changed, if anything, it got worse.

One evening Jane arrived on Bills doorstep with the usual “let me in and we can talk” line, with a bloodied and bandaged hand. It looked like she had been punching someone or something, probably a drunken scuffle. Bill turned her away, not being in the mood for it that night.

Two weeks later the officers from the CIB (Criminal Investigation Bureau) came to his door to question him in relation to assault charges. Jane had told an ambulance paramedic that “Bill had done it to her”, and the paramedic had passed on that information to police.

Bill got statements from his neighbours who knew about the ongoing history of violent attacks on her part, he called his lawyer and prepared for court.
On the day of the case, the court prosecutor informed Bill that the charges were being dropped as it was obviously a fabrication. Charges were just dropped like that, no follow up done in regards to wasting police time etc.

More incidences of property damage happened, more breaches of the restraining order ensued.

Whenever the restraining order was broken, a simple “move on notice” was issued to her, meaning she would be arrested if she returned to the property within 24 hours.

Whenever she damaged property, another $400 fine was issued, which of course she has no incentive to pay. Who needs a license when you have no car and no job to get to.

Of course Bill attended her court cases as the plaintiff each time. He was getting fed up with fines being issued that were not only never going to be paid, but also left her with no real consequences for her actions. He was hoping for a custodial sentence, or more realistically a suspended sentence (which is kind of like a good behaviour bond, if you breach again there will be imprisonment) but this was not forthcoming. no one was considering him as a victim on the situation, only the financial aspect of property damage was being considered. When he mentioned this he was directed by both a police officer and the magistrate that the best course of action would be to prepare a Victim Impact Statement.

The doors to the office of the Victim Support Service are like a vault. You can’t just walk up to reception, you have to be buzzed in. He pressed the buzzer and the door was opened for Bill but he wasn’t let in directly, and was ushered away from the waiting area where other victims of violence were waiting (predictably, these were all women in the waiting area) to a disparate room in the back, he was questioned briefly, he remembers this brief conversation very clearly. it went like this “what do you want”
“im here to make an impact statement”
“oh, who told you to come here”
“the police and the magistrate”
“oh, well, there’s nothing we can do for you, we can’t help you”

Bill left feeling dejected and alone, he didn’t get to make a witness impact statement that day. He went home and did what most men will do when facing defeat, he had a beer.

Time passed, he ran into her on the street, they argued over events that had happened and Bill moved along.

Same thing again, a week or so later the CIB interview Bill about him allegedly “bashing” Jane at his house. Bill informed them of the situation, the restraining order, and that she had not been at his house that day and the event had happened on the street and had been Jane who initiated it and did the harassment.

Once again, no charges laid, luckily there was a history in the police computers to help verify Bills story.

It was time to stop this. 4 years had passed since this began. No one else wanted to help, but Bill wanted to help himself. Bill moved house. He knew quiet for a short time.. a very short time. Someone else who knew both Jane and Bill found out where he had moved to and informed her of the address.

She came around once or twice, both times Bill firmly told her she wasn’t welcome and unless she wanted the police around again, she should “fuck off”.The third time harassing him at this property she chose not to listen, the abuse started in earnest. All the neighbours could hear her screaming out the front of his place, Bill phoned the police, she started smashing windows. by the time the police arrived, 40 minutes later, two front windows and the bathroom window had been smashed and the front screen door had been completely mangled.

The police arrived and restrained her. One female officer took Bill aside and mentioned said, “you know, she’s only going to get a fine for this”. The question was put to him in a way that suggested to Bill that it really meant “stop wasting our time” or “can’t you deal with this yourself?” and that he should just stop reporting it. He told her about the history, and the restraining order. The policewoman told him that there was no restraining order, this was simply a property damage case. The restraining order had expired again without Bill noticing.

Bill went again to the courthouse to get the restraining order renewed, and while he was there waiting he saw an office titled “Family Violence Unit”. Even though this was not a family issue as such, Bill clutched at the straw. and, surprisingly, he was rewarded. It just so happened that the lady behind the counter that day was understanding of Bill case. She read through the court and police histories, looked up at Bill and told him those words he had hoped to hear from someone for a very long time, “You know, this is very serious Bill”. A weight was lifted from his chest, someone acknowledged him as a victim of crime, not just someone who had a broken window.

He was added onto the local councils Stay Safe program, his address added to the ranger patrols, to check at risk properties on their rounds for any signs of danger, damage, loiterers etc.

The lady was able to prepare the documentation to get Bill into the Victims Support Service which had rejected him so callously the first time. She was astounded that Jane was getting away again and again with only fines.
Later that very day a very apologetic lady from the Victim Support Service called him and invited him to make a Victim Impact Statement the very next day as another of Janes court cases were coming up.

Even with a Victim Impact Statement in the judges lap, and 6 prior convictions of property damage and several non-charged restraining order breaches, she was issued a $400 fine.

Bill was notified when the 3rd Restraining Order was served on Jane, at the time Bill was booked in to see the local Family Violence Unit office. Things looked to be improving, but the violence continued

Within 7 days of the restraining order being served, she breached it again, phoning Bill at 2:30am and threatening to have him bashed. Bill called the police who asked him to make a telephone statement, which they would drop off for signing first thing in the morning to present at her latest court case that day. Again, she was issued a $400 fine and released.

7 days later, she turned up at his door again and proceeded to smashed every last window on the house. When the police arrived and approached her, she had a sharpened wooden stake which she was trying to stab Bill with through the screen door as he tried to keep her from reaching in and unlocking it. The police caught her in the act of violence against Bill. Along with the property damages, the nigh-impossible to obtain Victim Impact Statement, the support of the Family Violence Unit, and first hand witness reports from the police officers, and the prosecutor who was this time pushing for a custodial sentence, the judge had very little option other than to lock her up.

For her 6 odd years of terrorising Bill, she finally got 4-7 months imprisonment. 8 months for breaching the restraining order, minus one month for a guilty plea, plus access to parole because it’s a sentence of more than 6 months.

She never got parole. That requires good behaviour on the inside. Jane doesn’t tend to behave good. Jane is a woman who always attacked with a weapon, whether that be the beer in her hand, a rock or brick form the ground, or a stick (even a deliberately sharpened one). There are numerous places she is banned from because of violent behaviour, pubs, shops, centrelink, etc.

Even since her release she has tried contacting Bill again, a friend of a friend sending messages via Facebook, he notified the police who “gave her a very stern warning” although there was nothing they could do about a 3rd party contact attempt.

All in all the situation seems to have been resolved.

But why did it have to take 6 years of terror and fear?

Calender / Bussleton Pride 2019
« on: October 07, 2018, 07:21:21 PM »

We can now reveal that Busselton Pride will return on Saturday 16th March 2019!

Save the date for this BIG WEEKEND you won’t want to miss!

Keep up to date on our page as we will be making announcements on the lead up to pride including our fundraisers and lead up events.

Thank you all for your support in 2018, we’ve listened to your feedback and we promise to make the weekend bigger and better.

Event Promos / Busselton Pride Saturday 16th March 2019
« on: October 07, 2018, 07:20:12 PM »

We can now reveal that Busselton Pride will return on Saturday 16th March 2019!

Save the date for this BIG WEEKEND you won’t want to miss!

Keep up to date on our page as we will be making announcements on the lead up to pride including our fundraisers and lead up events.

Thank you all for your support in 2018, we’ve listened to your feedback and we promise to make the weekend bigger and better.

General Discussions / Dissident Catholic Clergy Break from Church of Rome
« on: October 07, 2018, 05:50:59 PM »
Dissident Catholic Clergy Break from Church of Rome with Global Declaration, as New Exposures of Ninth Circle Cult Emerge
Posted on September 23, 2018 by Kevin   

The following Declaration was received by our Office on Friday from a network of disaffected clergy within the Church of Rome. It was accompanied by a second, confidential message containing a massive file of documents and evidence from a previously-unknown Vatican archive. Its contents are shocking, and are being analyzed by the ITCCS and its technical staff. They indicate extensive child sacrificial networks operating within the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and warn of an upcoming coven of the Ninth Circle cult at the CCCB conference at the NAV Center in Cornwall, Ontario between September 24-28, 2018.  A more complete report on this material will be forthcoming and will be reported on Here We Stand,, on Sunday September 23 and 30 at 3 pm pacific, 6 pm eastern, 11 pm GMT. (See the attached Cease and Desist Order issued on 21 September to the CCCB officers, following)
Cease and Desist order to church


A Legal and Moral Declaration and Pledge of Non-Cooperation issued by Concerned Roman Catholic Clergy

Issued on Sunday, September 23, 2018

We are a group of clergy within the Roman Catholic Church who in good conscience are unable to associate any longer with the criminal, anti-Christian actions of the Vatican and the Papacy. We refer to the massive cover up of violent crimes against children now being perpetrated as a matter of policy by the church hierarchy: crimes in which every Catholic is expected to collude.

The growing exposure in the world media of a massive network in our church of child trafficking, rape, torture and murder, and the direct implication of the Pope and senior Cardinals and Bishops in this network, compels every one of us to make a choice. For by our daily association with the Church of Rome we are accomplices in its crimes, under both the laws of God and Man. No Papal statute or command can justify or absolve such a criminal and sinful association. Whether Pope or Priest, we must all face and answer to God for our actions, or our inaction. And we must also answer to the Law.
Under the law, anyone – including ordained clergymen – can be tried and convicted for harming a child or enabling or concealing those who do. As Catholics, we are all therefore guilty and subject to prosecution according to our own church policy known as Crimen Sollicitationas (1929), which requires that we suppress evidence of child abuse in the church, not tell the police of such abuse, and silence the victims. This policy refers to the rape of children as “a pontifical secret” which, if disclosed, will result in the excommunication of any honest Catholic who reports the crime! Such a bizarre and inhuman statute constitutes a massive criminal conspiracy for which we are all liable for arrest and prosecution. (1)

For this reason, as moral beings and followers of Jesus Christ, we cannot any longer adhere to the collusion and silence imposed on us by a criminal church regime that places its own money and power ahead of the lives and safety of children. For did not our Lord tell us, “Whatever you do to the least of these my people, you do to me?”; and “Whoever would cause one of these little ones to fall, it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea”?

Christ’s judgement on those who harm children is the same as ours.
Accordingly, as of this day, we publicly disassociate ourselves from any allegiance to the leaders of the Church of Rome and from our vows of obedience to our Bishops and to the Pope. We will not be subject any longer to Crimen Sollicitationas and its requirement of collusion with the rape and murder of children. Under the law of God and Man, we are obligated to always protect children and prosecute their tormentors, not simply when it is expedient.

As a consequence, we pledge ourselves to the following faithful course of action:

1. We will actively uncover and report to our congregations, the police and the media any violence or other crimes done against children within our parishes, dioceses and communities, regardless of Church policy.
2. We will also uncover and report to our congregations, the police and the media the names of anyone within the Church who harms a child or who aids and abets such harm, and who conceals it, regardless of their rank or position within the Church.

3. As ordained clergymen, we will refuse to give Holy Communion or any other sacrament of the Church to anyone associated with such crimes. We will also refuse to accept financial donations or tithings of such persons.

4. If ordered by our nominal superiors to collude with such crimes, or if we face discipline or punishments for acting according to our consciences and the Law, we will separate ourselves from those officials and continue to conduct our pastoral and sacramental offices apart from the church hierarchy, within separate congregations under the authority of Christ Alone.

5. We will actively reach out to all our brethren clergy and to all Roman Catholics in our communities, and urge them to join us and take this same pledge of Non-Cooperation and Witness against the anti-Christ regime that governs our Church.

Our faith is in God and not in Man. As God wills it, so it is done.

Signed and Published on this 23rd Day of September in the year 2018  by Ordained Clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church in America, Canada, Ireland, England, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Italy

Please share this Declaration. It has been released to the global media. We invite all clergy and adherents of our church to reflect on and endorse this statement. You can contact us at

Footnote from text:

(1) The Crimen Sollicitationas policy was first adopted in Rome in 1929 and later broadened to apply to all Catholics at the Second Vatican Council in 1962. A copy of the Crimen Sollicitationas policy can be found at and in the Appendices of

A Whistleblower Just Exposed How the Government Spies on Your Cell Phone

December 22, 2015 By Derrick Broze

The release of a secret U.S. government catalog of cell phone surveillance devices has revealed the names and abilities of dozens of surveillance tools previously unknown to the public. The catalog shines a light on well-known devices like the Stingray and DRT box, as well as new names like Cellbrite, Yellowstone, Blackfin, Maximus, Stargrazer, and Cyberhawk.

The Intercept reports:

Within the catalogue, the NSA is listed as the vendor of one device, while another was developed for use by the CIA, and another was developed for a special forces requirement. Nearly a third of the entries focus on equipment that seems to have never been described in public before.

Anti Media has reported extensively on the Stingray, the brand name of a popular cell-site simulator manufactured by the Harris Corporation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes Stingrays as “a brand name of an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) Catcher targeted and sold to law enforcement. A Stingray works by masquerading as a cell phone tower – to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not – and tricks your phone into connecting to it.”

As a result, whoever is in possession of the Stingray can figure out who, when, and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.

Both the Harris Corp. and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) require police to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) related to the use of the devices. Through these NDAs local police departments have become subordinate to Harris, and even in court cases in front of a judge, are not allowed to speak on the details of their arrangements. Due to this secrecy, very little has been known about how exactly the Stingrays work.

The bit of publicly available information was disclosed through open records requests and lawsuits filed by journalists and researchers. This new catalog provides even more detail about how the devices operate.

We already knew that Stingrays drain the battery of a targeted device, as well as raise signal strength. We also knew that as long as your phone is on, it could be targeted. Some newer details include the fact that the Stingray I and II will not work if the user is “engaged in a call.” Also, the device can gather data from phones within a 200 meter radius. And the next generation Hailstorm device is even capable of cracking encryption on the newer 4G LTE networks.

A number of the devices in the catalog are Digital Receiver Technology (DRT) boxes, also known as dirt boxes, which can be installed in planes for aerial surveillance. DRT was recently purchased by Boeing. We first learned of dirt boxes in late 2014, when the Wall Street Journal revealed a cell phone monitoring program operated by the U.S. Marshals Service, using Cessna planes mounted with Stingrays. AntiMedia has also reported on surveillance planes equipped with thermal imaging technology.

Other devices include:

    Cellbrite: “a portable, handheld, field proven forensic system for the quick extraction and analysis of 95% cell phones, smart phones and PDA devices,” capable of extracting “information such as phone book, pictures, video, text messages, and call logs.”
    Kingfish: a Stingray-like device that is “portable enough to be carried around in a backpack.”
    Stargrazer: “an Army system developed to deny, degrade and/or disrupt a targeted adversary’s command and control (C2) system,” which “can jam a handset and capture its metadata at the same time it pinpoints your target’s location. But watch out — the Stargazer may jam all the other phones in the area too — including your own.”
    Cyberhawk: which is capable of gathering “phonebook, names, SMS, media files, text, deleted SMS, calendar items and notes” from 79 cell phones.

Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Intercept that the use of these tools is part of the militarization of the police in the U.S.: “We’ve seen a trend in the years since 9/11 to bring sophisticated surveillance technologies that were originally designed for military use — like Stingrays or drones or biometrics — back home to the United States.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, NSA, and U.S. military declined to leave a comment with the Intercept regarding the catalog. Marc Raimondi, a Justice Department spokesperson, told the Intercept that the Department “uses technology in a manner that is consistent with the requirements and protections of the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, and applicable statutory authorities.”

The Intercept notes that Raimondi worked for Harris Corp. for six years prior to working for the DOJ.

Secrecy surrounding the use of these devices has been a contentious topic of debate for several years. Truth In Media recently reported that four members of the House Oversight Committee sent letters to 24 federal agencies including the Department of State and the Securities and Exchange Commission, demanding answers regarding policies for using the controversial surveillance technology.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaf­fetz, ranking member Elijah Cummings, and Reps. Will Hurd (R-Texas) and Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), as members of the committee’s IT subcommittee, issued requests for information related to the potential use of stingrays.

Chaf­fetz also recently introduced the Stingray Privacy Act, which would expand newly established warrant requirements for the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to all federal, state, and local agencies that use the cell-site simulators.

In September, the DHS joined the DOJ by announcing warrant requirements for the use of Stingray equipment, but those rule changes have come under fire for possible loopholes which may allow the continued use of surveillance equipment without a warrant.

“Because cell-site simulators can collect so much information from innocent people, a simple warrant for their use is not enough,” Jennifer Lynch told the Intercept. “Police officers should be required to limit their use of the device to a short and defined period of time. Officers also need to be clear in the probable cause affidavit supporting the warrant about the device’s capabilities.”

At this point, it’s painfully obvious that America is the home of the Police-Surveillance State. Awakened hearts and minds everywhere should continue to educate themselves and their communities about the dangers of these tools. We should also support initiatives to create technology that can defend against the prying eyes and ears of Big Brother. Privacy is a dying notion in a nation of fools determined to be safe rather than liberated. If you give a damn, now is the time to stand up and be heard.

This article (A Whistleblower Just Exposed How the Government Spies on Your Cell Phone) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52