Monday, November 20, 2017

Same Sex Marriage law a con just like the Australian Constitution?




The people in this machine called government, part of an elite "boys club", have been conning the 'good people' of Australia for quite some time.

A part of Australian history that the masses may not be aware of is that due to the rampant misbehaviour of people in government, a law was brought in to bring them into line. This law was the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865.

Fast forwarding a bit to the years leading up to federation where a document was born which we call the Australian Constitution for short, which has apparently made a bit of a stir 116 years after its inception with regards to dual citizenship which ministers of parliament claimed that they did not know about, i.e. they were not aware of a 116 year old founding document that they all should /must be aware of.

Wouldn't it be great if the plebs did not know about a speeding or some obscure parking law claiming ignorance in the process.

Since the advent of social media and the result being a rapid rate of document sharing, some people would be aware of some early words in this document called the Constitution that being;

"Whereas the people..."

The 'problem' there is that most would have no idea what those words really mean or what was going on behind the scenes.

Leading up to this campaign of federation there were (obviously) people involved in shaping this founding document called the Constitution.

People who had a say were not the serfs, that lay person, or the pleb worker, but rather, land 'owners', pastoralists, people from various levels of governance, e.g. lawyers, judges. Also referred to as "the bearded men", "spell-binders" or ventriloquists.

Summarising, the Commonwealth [Constitution] Bill was submitted and approved by just over 11 percent of the Australian population.

Hardly what someone would call a democratic process.

In essence the Australian constitution was drafted by a small (elite) group of people with the idea of "good government" that being for the benefit of those in government or their upper / higher class of society 'brethren', where in reality this constitution was neither representative nor inclusive of the general population of Australia.

One of the most important aspects of a criminal litigation is one's actions or rather intention, leading up to the event in question.

With regards to the formation of Australia's constitution, some of the most important documents regarding to what was going on in the day, are the constitutional debates.

The people who have set up the courts also have setup rules and regulations, where if a serf has an issue with the law it can be interpreted accordingly in a place called the High Court of Australia.

The 'problem' with that (for the serf) is that documents regarding constitutional debates are not admissible as evidence.

A police generated red light camera document is not admissible as evidence in the lower courts either.


It seems that disallowing evidence which could prove vital to your matter is not allowed into the courts, yet the people presiding over you are required to be addressed as 'honourable' or 'learned'.

Is an obstruction of justice really honourable?

A more recent example of a government con is what is marketed as Same Sex Marriage laws or rather an amendment to the Marriage Act of 1961 to allow homosexuals to marry.

One should be aware there was no mass demonstrations that the majority of the Australian population wanted a small section of the community to be able to be married legally within Australia's shores.

The ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) sent out a SURVEY to Australian households, where the ABS stated that 61.6% of 'eligible' Australians responded yes to the survey.

One should also note that people stated on social media that they would 'vote' YES as many times as the number of survey envelopes appeared in their place of residence.

The Australian Prime Minister stated that if a yes 'vote' was to go through then it would become law before Christmas 2017.

So why the hurry? Was this a burgeoning issue for the heterosexual community? Was the survey result truly indicative of the Australian population's view?

What the people in government figured out that it (the proposed law to allow homosexuals to marry legally in Australia) would boost the economy by approx. one billion dollars.

It's not about the people in government giving a stuff about you (the serf) but rather how much money can be extruded from the serfs.

No comments: