Liberal MP Warren Entsch, left, a well known pro-abortion supporter of the GLBT, has launched an extraordinary tirade against his colleague, Senator Cory Bernardi's defence of marriage and morality.
Entsch has accused Senator Bernadi of a gay obsession because the Senator has correctly perceived what a significant threat the gay movement is to the foundations of our civilisation and is actively opposing it.
Entsch doesn't belong in a conservative political party. He's a plant. And he's not clever. His criticisms of Bernardi amount to this...... Senator Bernadi has an obsession with gays - gee whiz Senator Bernadi might be gay himself. Could he get any more childish?
Gay is not a class of human being. Like the term homosexual it is only a label applied to people who participate in same sex activity.
Someone might have an attraction for a member of the same sex? Does that make them gay or homosexual and doom them never to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex?
According to Entsch and the GLBT it does. But not in the real world. You have to engage in homosexual activity to be homosexual but not all same sex attracted people are turned on by that idea. Not everyone is convinced that homosexual activity is a natural, wholesome, even God given gift. Most of us know it is not.
There's no such thing as homosexual intercourse, for example. That requires two sets of functioning complementary sex organs. I don't want to overstate the obvious but it seems that Mr Enstch has lived for 64 years and still hasn't learned that the anal canal is not a sex organ.
Many same sex attracted people believe that homosexual activity is not only unnatural, but that it's also dangerous to health and often fatal. Many of them decide to live and love in chaste relationships. There's nothing wrong in that and such relationships are worthy of recognition and celebration. But they are not a form of marriage, simply because marriage, while it is founded upon love, goes beyond it and is defined by the complementary nature of males and females.
At his venerable age Mr Entcsch should understand these things. That he does not is sad for the Liberal party.
It is hypocrisy for Warren Entsch to accuse Cory Bernardi of a gay obsession. He's been sabre rattling for the homosexual cause since he entered Parliament in 1996.
In December 2005, he pledged support for a civil union scheme after the UK began granting civil partnerships. In February 2006 he was planning to sponsor a private member’s bill in Federal Parliament to eradicate discrimination and the "inequities" he falsely claimed were faced by Australia's gay and lesbian population under Federal law.
He never did it. He hasn't got the courage of his convictions. He rattles the sabre and heads back to his closet. In 2010 he claimed not to consider same sex marriage an important issue and in 2012 voted against it.
He's out of the closet again today expounding his pro-gay pro-abortion views. About time he did something that would make "gays" love him even more. A hair transplant might be a good start!
I'm hoping the problem with comments that resulted in Bundarrah Days migrating to Blogger temporarily has been solved. If so it will be good to be back home at Blog Spirit. The Cateypie Saga can be read in full at http://bundarrahdays.blogspot.com.au
A few weeks ago I had some words to say about Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his sensitive new age approach to an 'old mate who has morphed into a new lady friend."
Today I received correspondence from that new lady friend and I thought I may as well share it with you. The writer is Lt Col Malcolm AKA Cate McGregor or should we call him "cateypie" after his email addy.
Hey tough guy-see you had a few sneering comments to make about me after the Janet Albrechtsen column. You know nothing of me beyond your prejudice.Feel free to pass this on your six followers. Ever done day's military service or does culling rabbits represent the extent of your ticker? I'll run my record of service and decency against you any day. Call yourself a Christian? You make me puke. Hope you get to Canberra some time-unlike you I don't hide behind hash tags and mons de plume. Drop in a tell me how I should live my life. Good luck with the cattle-don't see you cutting it as a 'journalist." Cate McGregor"
Now that seems a macho brand of correspondence which only serves to reinforce my opinion that McGregor is not remotely female, but is actually autogynephilic meaning he is a man who is in love with the image of himself as a woman.
Needless to say he didn't evoke any kind of sympathetic reponse. Here is my reply.
You've got a problem, girly boy. It's called a paraphilia and you have never had either the personal strength of character or the guts to face up to it and get over it. You're a disgrace and an embarrassment to the Australian Armed Forces. What'd they do with your knackers? Stick 'em in a bottle for you to display on your mantelpiece? I don't hide behind hash tags and noms de plume. I say what needs to be said and I say it in my own name, unlike you who uses a name that belongs to the opposite sex. You love your mirror, girly boy, and that's essentially all you care about. You're like a moth to the light. It's tragic really - such unrequited love of self.
I'll add this as well. I don't give a flying fig who McGregor thinks he is or what he is. He can think of himself as Xena The Warrior Woman for all I care. He left the Army at one point, reportedly in a huff, and went and worked for the ALP ending up as Bob Carr's PR man.
He can rake up as many AO's as he likes and all it means to me is that his friends in the ALP are rewarding one of their loyal sycophants.
If he thinks he can scare me by donning a pair of prosthetic testicles and screaming abuse he'd better think again.
What makes me sick is that every digger who cares about this country and upholds its proud military traditions has to salute this lipstick wearing moron in a dress.
Care to know more about what motivates such men. Go here
Update. There have been several more emails from this transgendered blowhard but this excerpt is interesting because he claims to have been cleared of suffering from a psychiatric condition by the very psychiatrists who apparently confirmed his diagnosis.
He wrote: "Moreover, never having met me I suspect your diagnosis is less precise than the multitude of qualified professionals who have cleared me of any mental illness and confirmed the gender dysphoria diagnosis. They include three psychiatrists over a thirty year period."
It's hard to see how they can clear him of mental illness at the same time they confirm he is suffering from one. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is followed by Australian psychiatrists, Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness.
McGregor also falsely accused me of making threats which he stated he would pass on to Defence Security and The Australian Federal Police.
I have kept copies of our correspondence which I will gladly pass on to any authority which requests them. No threats were made by anyone other than himself.
Update. McGregor's email rants continue. The latest accuses me of being a failed journo and political staffer, a drunk and a hothead who needs to be the centre of attention. A shame I rarely drink and never to excess when I do. I'm also accused of failing to post the comments of his friends for which I am apparently a cur. I haven't had any comments to this blog from his friends, if in fact he has any. I've had one email purportedly from "Mimi And Tom" which was penned by McGregor himself. This fellow is truly a distressed and angry low life and should be retired from service on medical grounds.
If this is sport I'm taking up gardening.
Today AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou lashed certain AFL clubs he said were trying to attribute Essendon's unbeaten start to the season to last year's alleged doping regimen. Demetriou said he knew which clubs were spreading "scurrilous rumours about The Bombers.
Meanwhile an ASADA spokesman told Bundarrah Days the authority could not comment on whether Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration's had approved the substance AOD-9604, the drug at the centre of the Essendon crisis.
This is despite the fact that the World Anti-Doping Authority, WADA, last year advised former Essendon Sports Scientist Stephen Dank to contact ASADA to find out about it's legal status in Australia.
An ASADA spokesman refused to comment today other than to say that ASADA follows WADA rulings and that as the substance was banned by WADA it was banned by ASADA.
We find that strange because last year in her reply to an inquiry by former Essendon Sports scientist, Stephen Dank, WADA's research and prohibited listings manager Irene Mazzoni said: "Dear Steve, as I mentioned during our telephone conversation you should contact your national anti doping organisation, in this case ASADA, as certain drug preparations may differ between countries, such seems to be the case with AOD-9604."
Mazzoni was correct. That was the case with AOD-9604 but try and get ASADA to admit that fact or even comment on its TGA status. That's as hard as getting Julia Gillard to admit she's a failure.
ASADA also flatly refused to tell us if they liaised with the TGA over the status of substances like AOD-9604 and again offered WADA as a defence.
To our mind that is not good enough particularly as in 2012 the drug could only have been banned under WADA's catch-all SO category if was not not approved by any government or government agency.
While Andrew Demetriou referred to rumours spread by other clubs as scurillous the same term could be applied to the Herald Sun's Jon Ralph who today devoted an entire what-if story to Essendon's supplement peogram last season.
This time he quoted Cathy Freeman's former manager, Nic Bideau, who claims that if The Bombers did use illegal supplements in 2012 they would still be enjoying the benefits.
Former Olympic coach Nic Bideau says drug effects would linger if Essendon took them
If what Bideau states is correct the six Essendon players said to have taken AOD9604 last year would have to face life bans if opposing teams were not to be forever at a disadvantage because the gains from it would be permanent.
Essendon is accused of breaching the SO Category of the World Anti-Doping Authority's 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List which states that which states: Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the list and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all timeses."
If AOD9604 has been approved for human therapeutic use by an Australian Government Authority Bideau's opinion is irrelevant and Ralph's story just another beat-up.
It appears that the media is determined to end Essendon's unbeaten run by casting the players as cheats who took performance enhancing drugs even if unwittingly.
The Bombers couldn't be frightened into a loss of form by threats of bans so the attack now centres on their self esteem and pride, designed to make them feel that if they keep winning they will look more and more like cheats.
Psychological warfare like this may in the end prove more effective than any performance enhancing drug.
Hopefully the coaches will point out that the cheat's slur will be slung whether the team is winning or losing so they might as well keep winning.
Bideau's opinion is a minority view. Former St Kilda doctor Rohan White yesterday said many peptides and supplements were fast-acting and quickly flushed from the system.
"If any club or player used supplements last year it would be a pretty long bow to draw to say they were still helping. Many supplements would be excreted from the system quite quickly and the benefits would be very short-term," White said.
The AFL Medical Officers Association associate would not comment to the Herald Sun on Essendon, but said many supplements had only short-term benefits.
The Herald Sun's Susie O'Brien objects to abortion on the grounds of gender but not on the grounds of a baby's humanity.
Ms O'Brien says to abort a baby because it is of the non-preferred sex is abhorrent.
Neverthelesss, "just because most of us are against abortion on sex selection grounds it doesn't automatically follow that we should support a Federal bill to limit access to Medicare for it," she writes in reference to a private members bill presented to the Federal Parliament by DLP Senator, John Madigan.
"This particular piece of legislation violates the right of women to access publicly-funded abortions and thus should not be supported," she says.
We shouldn't expect consistency from Ms O'Brien which is evident from her conclusion that Mr Madigan's bill "must be seen for what it is: a way for anti-choice activists to claw back the hard-fought right for women to have abortions."
No one has sought to hide the fact that those of us who oppose abortion want to stop it. But why? Because in view of a baby's humanity abortion is, to use Ms O'Brien's term, abhorrent.
Susie O'Brien doesn't see it like that. Although, like all good feminists she considers gender (particularly female gender) as being more important than an individual's humanity she sees the right to abortion as being more important than either.
Read her column here.
Update. Former Victorian Health Services Commissioner, Dr Beth Wilson, is another woman unimpressed by the humanity of the foetus but obsessed with her sex. She wrote to thank Susie O'Brien for a "balanced and well researched article." In another place that would be called p*ssing in Susie's pocket. It was a shoddy piece of journalism like all Ms O'Brien's work.
"Thank you Susie for a balanced and well researched article on “the gender debate.” Thank you also for championing women’s human rights. I do not think I, or anyone else, has the right to tell any woman that she must carry a foetus to full term if she doesn’t want to no matter what her reasons. I fear the original article published on page one of Sunday’s Heraldsun was not well researched and somehow a cheap, highly political shot at women’s health rights slipped through as if this was a genuine “story”. I was horrified to read that some doctors are calling for women to be denied information about their foetuses’ gender. This is old fashioned medical paternalism at its worst. The law, as these doctors should know, requires that patients give informed consent. To do so they need accurate information, not lies or withholding information that affects their health and well being. The underlying nature of the relationship between doctors and their patients must be trust. These paternalistic posturing has the potential to undermine that trust.
Dr Beth Wilson AM
Recently retired Health Services Commissioner, Victoria
beth wilson AM of south Yarra Mobile 0417525149 (Reply)
Dr Beth was "horrified" to read that some "paternalistic" doctors were calling for women to be denied information about the gender of their foetus. She is concerned that such censorship could affect women's health and well being. Would it really?
I am concerned that Dr Beth's health and well being is a little suspect. Her sense of priorities is to use the vernacular, up the creek. Horrified about withholding information on the sex of the baby but no worries about killing it. And this woman was Victoria's Health Services Commissioner? Heaven help us!
She provided her phone number in her post to Susie O'Brien. Given the nature and content of that post I won't be be surprised if the number changes in a day or so.
As I predicted yesterday Melbourne GP Dr Mark Hobart could face serious sanctions and charges over his refusal to refer a couple for an abortion because their child was the 'wrong sex.'
And yet Dr Hobart's views are supported by obstetricians who have proposed that parents be banned from knowing the sex of unborn children until it is too late to terminate.
In today's Herald Sun Dr Hobart acknowledges he has broken the law and could face suspension, conditions on his practice or even deregistration.
But he believes most doctors would have refused to help a couple procure an abortion on the grounds of sex selection.
If Dr Hobart is correct it means that most doctors do not support abortion on demand.
It leads to some interesting thoughts. Suppose a gay gene was discovered which could be detected by amniocentesis.
How many gay marriage supporters would extend their support for homosexuality by allowing the pregnancy to run its course? Not many, I suspect. The hypocrisy of humankind knows no bounds.
Paradoxically, most of those opposed to gay marriage would refuse to kill the child.
If there is a groundswell of opinion among doctors that gender based abortion is immoral and unethical it could force a change in the law which would end abortion on demand.
Will we now see pro-abortion advocates recommending that women seek abortion on mental health grounds just as they did before the proclamation of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 with the sole purpose of protecting the "right" to abort their pregnancy for any reason at all, even on a whim.
It could make a mockery of the law which in practice would be right back where it was in 1969 immediately after the Menhennitt Judgment.
It will be interesting to see what some of the more radical feminists like Leslie Cannold, who in all seriousness bills herself as one of Australia's "leading intellectuals," make of it.