It seems that Barnaby is a New Zealander, and that a whole host of other MPs may not have done enough to denounce their foreign citizenship, in accordance with section 44 of the constitution. The Australian of August 15, 2017, p.1, mentions that “South Australian senator Nick Xenophon yesterday conceded he never heard back from Greek and Cypriot authorities when he attempted to renounce any possible foreign citizenship, raising fresh questions about his election.” Well, he should have done more, as this was his duty. This is one MP who needs to go, given his blockage of reforms to section 18 C.  And what an irony if an old Australia clause takes out modern multiculturalism and political correctness.
     There are a host of Labor MPs that could be hit as well. But, in reality, with a few exceptions such as Pauline Hanson, what is called “our” politicians are nothing of the sort, but are the puppets of the globalists, and they dance to the cosmopolitan tunes they play. All are happy to see Australia as an Asian Republic with same sex marriage, run by an Aboriginal review council, with no freedom of speech.
     In my opinion, they are all have alliances to a foreign power, and thus are from our point of view, traitors.

     Have I got a story for you…I am so excited that I just dropped a slimy sandwich which I rescued from the dumpster last night. Already the cockroaches are fighting for it on the floor of the shed, but once I finish this article, I will fight them all for it. This time, I may even win.

     I have met my first transgender person, and found her, or him, to be well…just a person like me. Here is how it happened. I was going through bins on North Terrace, Adelaide, looking for food, which the rich Asian students usually throw out. For new readers, I add the footnote that I am the resident homeless, near-senile dispossessed Anglo, a living symbol of your future. Right. Now where was I?

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Graham Richardson claims (‘Spouting feel-good fluff is no proof of foreman material’, 7/8) that constitutional recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders is ‘within reach if both sides get behind the campaign.’  On the contrary, irrespective of what MPs do, the Australian people will almost certainly reject any form of constitutional recognition, provided that they have been adequately informed beforehand by a fully articulated ‘No’ case supported by equitable government funding (50% of allotted funds to each side).
     This is because there has been too much gung-ho talk by the Aboriginal lobby about a treaty and Aboriginal sovereignty, to say nothing of special seats in Parliament or an entrenched advisory body, and the people are too savvy not to realise that success in achieving constitutional recognition would be used as the basis for pushing the more wide-reaching demands in the future.  In short, widespread public faith in the whole campaign has been irretrievably lost. True statesmanship would recognize this and seek other ways of honouring the Aboriginal peoples, ways that do not threaten national unity and security and which are just to other Australians.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

     Forget about knife and car attacks, Sweden, a once Nordic country, now has embraced further diversity and  pluralism, with an increase in – yes, you guessed it – grenade attacks! Here is a reliable true news source on this one:

“The number of hand grenade attacks in Sweden has risen by 550 per cent in just three years, with police describing the situation as “completely unacceptable”.
Police data shows that in 2014 the Swedish force investigated eight grenade incidents, none of which involved a detonation.  But last year this figure inflated by a massive 550 per cent, as officers saw a total of 52 grenade-related incidents, 27 of which involved detonations.
At first, the grenade attacks were mostly directed at cars and homes linked to criminals and their relatives  — but from two years ago perpetrators began to target the nation’s “society and state”, an expert at Sweden’s National Police Department told SVT.”
At: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/06/hand-grenade-attacks-sevenfold-sweden/
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/handgranatsattacker-har-okat-markant

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Noel Pearson is at best only half right in claiming (‘Memo Richo: Facts count, not lazy fictions’, 8/8) that ‘constitutional conservatives’ are ‘passionate advocates’ for the proposed ‘indigenous voice in Parliament’. What about the real conservatives on this issue: Keith Windschuttle, Andrew Bolt, John Roskam, Frank Salter and Greg Sheridan? Moreover, on this particular matter Julian Leeser cannot validly be described as a ‘hardcore constitutional conservative’. He has long been supporting constitutional recognition.
     The true conservative position is warm and respectful recognition of Aboriginal history and culture, but not by misuse of the Constitution. It would set a bad precedent, too, for future ideological meddling with what at present is a proven national treasure.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Lyn Mitchell asks why Malcolm Turnbull is ‘taking on nearly all of Tony Abbott’s policies’ (8/8). Perhaps because they are wise and he is bowing, albeit reluctantly, to reality.  ‘Stopping the boats’ is a vital first step in curbing immigration into this continent and maintaining a reasonable quality of life here. A plebiscite on marriage gives all Australian citizens a chance to indicate their wishes. Climate change is a reality, but whether and to what degree it is caused by humankind is a question still being debated.
     On one issue the PM will be wise not to follow in Abbott’s footsteps: constitutional recognition. The Constitution should not be tampered with to favour one small group at the expense of the great majority. Recognition, yes, of course; it already happens in many ways; but not by unjust and destabilising change to our book of rules which has long protected our free way of life and largely civil society.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to SUNDAY AGE
     No better example of political gobbledegook could be found than the promise of the Leader of the Opposition to make the constitution ‘better, more equal, more Australian’ (‘Shorten backs Indigenous “voice”’, 6/8). Equality does not permit of degree. To what does he intend to ‘equalise’ our constitution, which is already completely Australian?
     It is chilling to see the ALP leader backing a ‘truth-telling commission’. Shades of Stalinism and Maoism! His language (‘the right-wing rump’ of the Liberal Party) is also coarse and uncivil. As for his support of a ‘treaty’, the Australian people are currently one; and a people does not enter into a treaty with itself. He says that Aboriginal Australians do not need a ‘lecture about the difficulty of changing the constitution,’ but he evidently does.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     The Prime Minister is right (‘Hate mail - Fears of malicious campaign’, 10/8) that, during the run-up to the marriage postal vote, ‘the views of all sides should not be censored, even if offensive and extreme.’ That is an essential aspect of free speech. On this question there are obviously powerful arguments on both sides: it is not a simple black-and-white matter. Views which one commentator sincerely believes to be truthful and relevant may well appear to an ideological opponent as ‘misleading and deceptive’.
     Is a compromise possible? Defenders of traditional marriage are unlikely to object, for example, to gay partners having ‘rights such as next of kin or being named on a partner’s death certificate’ (Letters).
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Galarrwuy Yunupingu has given a clear and noble account of the traditional Aboriginal process of settlement, but seems unaware of how, after the history of the last two or three centuries, it is irrelevant to constitutional procedures in the Australia of today.  Another mistake he makes is to imagine that Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten can speak on the issue of constitutional recognition for all Australians. They cannot, and true democracy demands that any change must be effected by means of a properly conducted referendum. Finally, there is a contradiction between his professions that he and the authors of the Uluru statement wish to be part of a unified nation, while he pursues an obviously divisive course which does not represent the wishes of all Aboriginals anyway.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

to THE AGE
     My defence of the spiritual nature of monarchy and its unifying capacity within the realm has struck a few nerves (letters, 1/8). Yes, of course there have been some very bad monarchs and others have been unable to successfully protect their peoples from disorder; but the majority of kings and queens, and not only those of Britain, have by and large ruled well and not betrayed the ideal. History has, too, a lengthy list of corrupt republics.
     It is significant that the world’s arts and literature are filled with the joyful celebration of royalty. By their very nature republics and presidents simply can’t compete, and no amount of derision can hide this.   
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Marcia Langton asks (‘Put nation first, Langton tells indigenous MPs’, 26/7): ‘Are the indigenous parliamentary representatives serving party interests rather than the national interest?’ I ask: ‘Is the Aboriginal lobby, whose numbers have been inflated by a questionable mode of definition of Aboriginality, putting its own selfish interests ahead of those of Australians as a whole?’
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

To THE AUSTRALIAN
     Cheryl Saunders, in advocating constitutional recognition (‘Their distilled voice of hope’, 28/7), claims that there is ‘a deep fissure in our national identity’, but perhaps this is a figment of her imagination or a piece of wishful thinking by a committed political activist. There are a lot of other Australians apart from the 1200 who produced the unimpressive and unconvincing ‘Uluru statement from the heart’ and I believe that most of them are very pleased that they live in a free nation in which civic unity and co-operation is found throughout the land.
     Aboriginal culture is highly regarded and deeply respected by most of us; and we are happy for public funds to be deployed generously to assist Aboriginal persons and groups in need. What we do not want is campaigns to split Australia and Australians.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic    

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Is the Leader of the Opposition planning to avoid the rigor of a referendum in his push to make us a republic? (‘Revival for republic plebiscite’, 29-30/7) Our forefathers wisely gave us a model for constitutional change that avoids hasty acts that might later be regretted. It does this by requiring rather more than a mere 50% plus 1.
     The proposed question for the plebiscite should be asked at a referendum. If the plebiscite does occur, then the subsequent referendum should include an option for the people to say ‘no’ to a republic.
     And it is essential that government funding and publicity for any plebiscite or referendum should be completely fair: 50% each.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Rosalind Dixon suggests (‘Strong and clear: let’s support a voice for indigenous people on legislation that affects them’, 20/7) that ‘the main criticism that can be levelled’ at the Referendum Council’s proposal is that ‘it leaves too much to Parliament.’  Not so: the main criticisms against that and all other models of ‘constitutional recognition’ are threefold. They are unjust; they endanger national unity and security; and they will lead to more and more demands against the interests of most other Australians.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     As an Australian of British ethnicity, I object to the defamatory statements about the British made by Margaret Shaw (20/7). There was no collective intention to exterminate the Aboriginal people at any stage of history and the British arrival, on balance, has brought more of benefit to our present Aboriginal citizens than it took away.  Even before Captain Arthur Phillip sailed with the First Fleet, British authorities had insisted that the natives were to be fairly treated; and most British Australians have abided by that ideal.
NJ, Belgrave, Victoria

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Why are supporters of ‘constitutional recognition’ of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders so unwilling to address the major arguments against it?
     Noel Pearson and Shireen Morris (‘A modest yet profound way to give the indigenous a say’, 22-23/7) say nothing about its injustice to other Australians through selective suffrage, or its dangers to our national unity and security, or the likelihood that this so-called ‘modest’ proposal will lead to further demands for more drastic change in the future.
     Why do they cite a supporter, Julian Leeser, as a ‘constitutional conservative’, but ignore the real conservatives - Keith Windschuttle, Andrew Bolt, John Roskam, Gary Johns and others, who firmly oppose the project? Perhaps their reliance on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a clue: it all looks like part of a plan to balkanize Australia and make it less easy for us to remain independent of a planned world government - or tyranny.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     As James Paterson notes (‘Radical approach to Indigenous recognition will fail’, 25/7), the Referendum Council’s recommendations have 'far-reaching implications for all of us.’ He does not, however, seem to have grasped the problems associated with the proposal for a ‘declaration of recognition.’  From one point of view, why do we need an official statement of the obvious? On the other hand, is it so obvious? Government should be wary of making historical assertions about controversial matters. That’s the stuff of totalitarianism. There is some doubt as to whether our Aboriginals really were the ‘first people’ on this continent or whether they displaced an earlier group. Then again, no present-day Aboriginals existed in time before other present-day Australians.
     And who knows what radical implications future High Court judicial adventurers might claim to read into even the declaration’s seemingly innocuous statement about ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’?
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

Australian Conservative, Senator Cory Bernardi, in his “Weekly Dose of Common Sense” shows the real agenda behind Free Trade Agreements and how the UN has morphed into a type of World Government.

He wrote, in part ………………

“As I told the crowd of over 450 people in Brisbane last night, it doesn’t mean any one of us has all the answers. Individually, we bring our unique gifts and skills and talents into the battle of ideas. But together, those gifts complement each other and strengthen our capabilities. Through working together, our individual differences become a source of strength rather than isolation.
That’s what being a community is all about. It’s that sense of belonging and contributing to something bigger than oneself that strengthens families, clubs, cities and nations. It strengthens political parties too.
However, all communities need ties that bind. They need the thread of continuity that runs through all so that we may be drawn together.
At the most basic level that thread is familial. In a political party it is idea, vision and values. As a nation, it is culture.
Culture is our language, our traditions, our laws and our expectations of each other. It emerges over successive generations, each one building upon the previous, bringing us ever closer.
Except that’s not what’s happening now. There is a new force at work within our culture. It isn’t of us and it isn’t working for us. Many refer to it as globalisation but it can take on many monikers.
Despite the reckoning of many pundits, globalisation isn’t about free trade or international markets. Those forces can and do work to our advantage. They provide local businesses with export opportunities and local consumers with a broader range of more competitively-priced goods.
Rather, globalisation is a direct attack on our national sovereignty and self-determination.
It sees unelected bureaucrats in supra-national bodies influencing our domestic agenda through groupthink, peer pressure and intimidation.
The best example is the United Nations. Formed in 1945 for the purpose of preventing another world war through dialogue, it now sees itself as a quasi-world government.
It dictates refugee policy, spruiks the great global warming scam, redefines marriage, smoking policy and so many other virtue-signalling and identity-politics agendas that it has simply become a vehicle for the globalists to push their view.
The UN’s stacked resolutions and dodgy reports are used by political outfits like the Greens to undermine our domestic policy agenda in favour of someone else’s.
These people truly believe they are the enlightened powers that should be running a world of open borders and wealth redistribution in order to save us all. Perhaps that should be ‘enslave’ us all.
It’s time for that to change. We need to reassert our self-determination. That means we need to revisit the treaties, agreements and pacts of decades past to make sure they are working in our interest.
Let’s review them to see if they are achieving what we thought they would. We could start with the UNHCR refugee treaty. It was written in 1951 and the driving forces and key players have changed since then.
Just as every prudent person would insist that every contract has a termination or review date, so too should we insist on reviewing our government’s international agreements at regular intervals.
It will help ensure a check is kept on the agenda that is intent on diminishing, rather than strengthening Australia.”…

I wonder of the Australian Conservatives have a firm position to introduce Citizens Initiative and Referenda as a "core" (non-redactable) policy-ed

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     The Coalition will be both sensible and ethical to continue its call for a plebiscite rather than a free parliamentary vote to determine whether Australia should significantly change its legal definition of marriage. Here are some answers to Peter van Onselen’s advocacy (‘Opposing gay marriage vote will hurt conservatives’, 15-16/7).
     There have been plebiscites in our history before and the seriousness of this present controversy demands another, if not a referendum. Moreover, the ALP wants a plebiscite on a republic. Now, while the plebiscite result might not be binding, if it proves favourable to change, it would undoubtedly be honoured by the parliament and opponents of change would not feel betrayed, which would be good for national unity.
     Opinion polls results are not always reflected in actual voting; nor do we want to live under government by such polls.
     That other Anglophone nations have gone one way does not mean we must follow; they might have made a mistake, for it is simply not true that their decisions have been happily accepted by supporters of the traditional definition of marriage. On the contrary, there is great concern at certain subsequent developments and other mooted possibilities.
     Finally, a free parliamentary vote, no matter what its result, would not be a truly representative way to proceed.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic