The Pickering Post
Wednesday, 14th November 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.


Can we really trust Indonesia or our Pacific neighbours? In 2017-18, the Australian Government will provide an estimated $70 million to Vanuatu and $357 million to Indonesia. Much more money is available for those who are tutored to say they fear global warming.

Those are just base amounts as regular cyclones attract far more dollars in aid and Vanuatu is equally administered by the French, therefore the Nivans refuse to say what the Franc contribution is!

Whatever it is, it is unaccounted for and is wasted on the tribe of white hating Nivans who offers the most public holidays at elections. Nivans are averse to work and the winning party gained government with a promise of an extra “Children’s Day” and a “No Smoking Day”. Then they get all of our holidays and all of the French holidays… no-one gets a chance to work and no-one cares as long as the aid largesse continues. It’s madness!    

Australian Foreign Minister, the Stick Insect, has personally apologised to her Indonesian counterpart, Dr Marty Natalegawa, for Australian ships having breached Indonesian territorial waters in asylum seeker operations. Hmmm, apologised. For bloody what? When will we stop apologising for defending our sovereign borders?

Joko was annoyed that his corrupt military wouldn't share the few lousy million in cash from Morrison to allow our Navy to return the illegal immigrant boats back to port. 

That was Abbott’s successful idea that saved us around another $15 billion a year.

PM Howard threw an extra $1 billion at their 2005 tsunami disaster. Yet the Indonesians boast the greatest number of billionaires in the world’s fourth most populous (and Islamic) country.

Coal is one commodity that has launched many of Indonesia’s rich blokes into billionaire status. It matters not that we compete with Indonesia for coal markets.

Since the year 2000 Indonesia’s corrupted economy has out performed all in south-east Asia and Oxfam reports that Indonesia's four richest men are now worth as much as its poorest 100 million who, on average, if they can get a job, earn less than $3 a day.

But on one humid morning in Indonesia, an Islamic Joko chimp swung down from its tree and decided in a light bulb moment, amidst wild applause from all the other monkeys, to execute everyone on death row.

Unfortunately executions have always involved mostly non-Joko monkeys from foreign jungles. You see, executing domestic chimps upsets local voting patterns, whereas foreign infidel monkeys aren’t able to vote and, according to the Islamic Jungle Book, have no right to be alive anyway.

Of course Indonesian Jihadist monkeys have special dispensation with some found guilty of making bombs that killed a hundred infidel monkeys walking free.

Joko chimps like to project an endearing herbivore image but their favourite pastime, when no one else is around, is to hunt down, kill and devour peace-loving, halal certified, infidel, Colobus monkeys from Australia. And Australia, whose pleas for leniency are always ignored, still never miss gifting them each and every dollar in foreign aid.

I don’t recall any assistance coming from Indonesia during Australia’s regular flood crises. Not even a “get better” card

The most envied Australian Government portfolio is Foreign Affairs. It must be lovely travelling the world in first class everything with a sack full of borrowed money to be chucked at everything that smiles at you.

                         "I wonder what the female equivalent of 'dickhead' is?"

Tanya Plibersek had the shadow portfolio until it was discovered she thought Africa was a country. Julia Gillard as PM really wanted Foreign Affairs but flew in Bob Carr as a reward for organising the numbers to oust Rudd, yet still she couldn’t help leaving a few million tip at every lunch she attended. And she would leave up to $500 million on the table if it was a women’s development function.

Oh well, now that Shorten and Turnbull have agreed not to carry on about our debt and deficit, it is never mentioned… these days there’s not a single question in QT… now gay marriage and gas is all the go. Bloody hell!

But fair dinkum, at the risk of spoiling the Stick Insect’s fun, our Foreign Aid levels need reform because it is now we who are the indigent nation, it is now we who can’t afford an RET crippled energy market, it is now we who must suffer the worst of damaging Green-GetUp ideology without a whimper.

It is we who look likely to have an “endearing” PM like Shorten who will spend us back to a union-administered stone age and it’s the gangrenous Greens who are flat out lying their way to a yes vote on gay marriage.

Inequality in Indonesia is reaching crisis levels yet no-one is suggesting marriage inequality should be addressed…. I wonder why.

We are now the poverty stricken nation that needs foreign aid from other far better-off nations, at least until we can get back on our feet,

… but with our leadership crisis, we’ll be flat on our arses for a long while yet.


I see 'puddin head' is mouthing off again. Does he really think he can sink Japan and reduce the USA to ashes without North Korea being wiped off the face of the earth? Seems to be a run of real dickheads in charge of a lot of countries these days.

I figured that this would attract zero attention -- speaks volumes about peoples priorities here.

The poofters rainbow has 6 colours. The natural rainbow has 7.
I reckon the info posted by Jim Jim yesterday about the yes or no vote being able to be seen by shining a torch on the envelope should be continually hammered.
This country is run by rorters who have made an art form out of using the system to further their agenda.

This is my anthem

In their perceived wisdom, the government have sought to comply with their international climate change agreements by making some common ousehold items more expensive.

Right now, they have targeted the leaf blower, weed-whacker, lawnmower and outboard motor with expensive new emissions standards.

It’s a kind of carbon tax that can be extended to any motorised device at the whim of a Minister.

That means a Minister can apply the new carbon tax onto your chainsaw, motorbike, generator, car or tractor at any time. I'd suggest the new rules are only just the beginning ... and there is next to nothing we can do about it.

Should that occur, it has been estimated that the cost of an average new car would rise by around $5,000. That's the real price of this stealth carbon tax imposed by green zealots, to worship at the altar of global warming.

Whilst we see foolish things all the time, given how much hot air and political capital that has been expended on the carbon tax over the years, it is amazing that this passed the parliament with virtually no objection.

Labor, Liberal, Greens, National and One Nation parties all stated they supported the bill.

The Day Demoracy died. RIP old friend. You were much loved by free thinkers !

I reckon Lyle Shelton kicked arse at the National Press Club:

New post up.

Even better sailor, then we leave their stinking carcasses out for the crows to clean.

No article better explains how politicians are willfully misleading voters when it comes to changing the Marriage Act.

With the Yes case positioned to win the postal plebiscite, it is more important than ever the misleading and false claims of its advocates — that there is no religious issue at stake — be confronted and the ramifications put on the table.
These claims are made by senior Coalition and Labor politicians. Indeed, it seems they think rejection of the religious argument is fundamental to the success of their campaign. This is alarming because it implies the Yes case depends on persuading the public of a false proposition.
The government and parliament, despite years of emotional debate, declined to address the wider religious freedom question. The political class engaged instead in a great pretence: that the only such issue concerned the wedding ceremony and protections in the Marriage Act for clergy and celebrants, an extremely narrow view of religious freedom.
Given legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and laws of most religions will be brought into direct conflict over society’s most essential institution, the one certainty is ongoing legal and political trench warfare over the balance between acceptance of the same-sex marriage norm and the scope for freedom of belief and religion.
There is a litany of examples from the overseas experience. Fatuous remarks that “the world hasn’t come to an end” in countries that have legislated same-sex marriage are just that — and designed to deceive.
Having refused to confront the issue the advocates of the Yes case now get agitated and self-righteous when it has become an issue in the plebiscite. This was inevitable. While some aspects of the No case are obnoxious, its warnings about religious freedoms risks are entirely valid. What matters is that the many highly intelligent political champions of the Yes case are trapped: they are selling a shoddy intellectual bill of goods and many of them know it.
The first point is that religious freedom guarantees in this country are inadequate. This was agreed and documented in February’s Senate select committee report. Unlike many Western nations, Australia has no statutory expression of a stand-alone right to religious freedom. There are far greater legal protections in relation to sexual orientation than in relation to religious belief.
This is an anomaly given that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights freedom of religion is an inviolable right. The risk now is our parliament undermining Australia’s commitment to the ICCPR.
Evidence presented to the Senate committee shows that statutory protection of religious belief is weak both in federal law and a number of states. It mainly exists as “exemptions” from anti-discrimination law. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney made the obvious point to the committee that this failed to treat freedom of belief and religion as a fundamental human right. Marriage Alliance said: “We submit that religious freedom is a fundamental human right (and) that framing a debate in terms of exemptions misunderstands this fact.”
There was strong support in submissions for parliament to leg­islate to enshrine religious guarantees as a protected attribute in federal anti-discrimination law. This is the pivotal point. The committee unanimously agreed there was a “need to enhance current protections for religious freedom”. The Human Rights Law Centre said: “Religious freedom should be protected in law. Indeed, we are on record in a number of inquiries supporting the addition of religious belief to protections under federal anti-discrimination law.”
Committee chairman Liberal David Fawcett warned that “if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal” then such action on religious freedom is essential. What was the reaction of the Turnbull government and Labor to the Senate report?
It varied between disregard and contempt. The reason is apparent — politics. Labor has abandoned any interest in addressing the inadequacy of religious protection laws with its embrace of the LGBTI cause. As for the Coalition, the story is the weakness of its conservative caucus. The deeper point is the churches are vulnerable and the politicians know it.
The lamentable situation was summarised by the University of Sydney’s Patrick Parkinson: “There have been numerous bills introduced into parliament to enact same-sex marriage over the last few years and what has been common to most of them has been a minimalist protection for freedom of conscience.”
The second core conclusion is that this battle over rights will continue after same-sex marriage is legislated. In Denmark the Lutheran Church has had its rights restricted. The Swedish PM has said priests should no more be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples than medical professionals should be exempt from abortion procedures. The Speaker of the British House of Commons says “proper equal marriage” won’t happen until the churches are compelled to obey by law. Australian Greens formally say they want the religious exemptions in anti-discrimination law to be wound back. Many in the ALP left have the same view.
We are being put on notice. You would have to be politically blind to deny the reality (an option many politicians have deliberately chosen). The post-same-sex marriage battle is already under way. This is because while many people genuinely see same-sex marriage as an issue of non-discrimination, this was never its essence. It is an ideological cause seeking fundamental changes in Western society, laws and norms. It will continue apace after the law is changed.
Marriage equality is an ideology and ideologies, by nature, do not settle for compromise victories. As Benjamin Law says in Quarterly Essay: Moral Panic 101: “It might be stating the obvious but same-sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia.” The struggle will continue — in schools and in institutions. Law says the two biggest LGBTI issues are Safe Schools and same-sex marriage.
He says Safe Schools is “supposed to discomfort people” by up-ending how we see gender and sexuality. He talks about exploding accepted norms with queer theory, inviting “people to reconsider why anyone should be obliged to identify as female or male at all”. The aim is to introduce Safe Schools across the country and make it compulsory.
The pretence by Yes case politicians that the plebiscite has no consequences for the Safe Schools program treats us like fools. Legislation of same-sex marriage will tilt the scales decisively in this struggle between sexual rights and religious freedom. This legal and cultural change will influence decision-makers everywhere — public servants, corporates, media and educational institutions.
The churches will remain a prime target and the fact their protections are weak makes them highly vulnerable once the assault gains momentum.
The Yes case bases its campaign on human rights but misses the exquisite irony that you cannot cherry-pick human rights and keep your integrity. As Parkinson said, consistency of principle means those who justify their campaign on human rights need to give proper consideration to how rights can be balanced.
That hasn’t happened in Australia, not even remotely. Every sign is Australia will legalise same-sex marriage devoid of any serious attention to religious freedom issues and, as a result, religious protections will be exposed and sacrificed.
The politicians are doing this because they think they can get away with it. They are entitled to that judgment. What they are not entitled to is a gross deception. The assurances they give on religious protection are worthless — their inaction proves that. People, regardless of how it affects their vote, need to know the reality.

Paul Kelly, The Australi

New post up!!
Don't make Pillow Biter come looking for you.

The LNP and Labor killed free speech today. Tony Abbott was right. We are loosing our freedoms one by one. We have already lost the right to assembly because it's too dagerous. Free speech now gone because we can't be trusted to have a civil debate. What's next?

OT - Norway’s ‘Populist’ Government Wins Historic Second Term

OT - Hillary Clinton: Breitbart, Headed By Steve Bannon, Giving Fox News A ‘Run For Its Money’

Yeah, good idea MarkM, only it didn't work out too well for Gaddafi

OT - Israeli Company Wins Bid to Build Prototype for Trump’s Mexico Wall

The deaths in Sydney over the weekend. Oh, she was a lovely "blonde". What was she doing in a vehicle with 3 men, all tending towards middle age, at 2am, mid-city, on a Saturday night? And the men were all married, muslim, so? What do you think was the plan? I'm sure all the men were "lovely boys", innocent as the day is long. Off round to their friends to play cards, butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. Yeah, right mate! Tell me I am wrong, this was a bunch of mates off their brains with drugs, setting up a threesome they were going to video to their sex starved mates, all off their faces on drugs, and Whoops, the driver was so off their face, now we are all dead. Tell that to their precious little wivies, as they cover their heads with rags and think they are superior to our culture.

Line our cities with their heads on sticks.

agree TDOTR cannot come soon enough

How will the message from Matthew Canavan go down with Turnbull, who is voting YES?

In a message from Matthew Canavan MP.."The Liberal National Party is proud to stand with the Coalition for Marriage, the organisation running the ‘no’ campaign. As our President Gary Spence has said “the LNP believes that there should be no change to the definition of the Marriage Act.”