Rudd Caught Out Again
We of course have come to expect politicians to play fast and loose with the truth, to be masters at equivocation, and to never answer a direct question, but it seems that Kevin Rudd has perfected all this – and then some. Indeed we find this perfectly played out in a recent article about the guy – someone we might call the great pretender.
What he says in this article – or doesn’t say, or says with weasel words – is just a perfect example of the way Rudd does things. And it is just not how anyone who seeks to run this country should be doing things. It is another good reason why he deserves to be given the flick.
This article is simply incredible for so many reasons. In it we see Rudd the master politician, who has perfected the art of lying, of distorting facts, and twisting things out of all recognition. It has to do with his push for homosexual marriage.
In his first debate he insisted that this would be a super-priority, rammed through in the first hundred days of being in office. Now he is back-pedalling like a frightened turtle. Let me offer a few lines from the article, then speak to it further:
“Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has declared he is not going to ‘ram’ his views on same-sex marriage ‘down the throats’ of others by allowing a referendum on the matter if he is re-elected. When asked on triple J’s Hack tonight why he would not promise a binding vote if he was ‘really serious’ about marriage equality, Mr Rudd said he would not force his views on ‘questions such as this’ on people who don’t share them.”
Um, yeah right Rudd. You are backpedalling big time for one simple reason: most folks are not the slightest bit interested in homosexual marriage. It is simply a non-issue, and one which will in fact cost Rudd votes by ordinary folks in the electorate.
And plenty of homosexuals themselves are not in the slightest interested in it either, as I carefully document in my book Strained Relations. And many of the big cheese homosexual activists who are now pimping this in fact not so long ago thought it was a non-event as well.
Consider what activist Rodney Croome said some years ago about this topic: “I was also once a sceptic about marriage reform, believing it to be a distraction from more important issues, at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous”.
And get a load of this baloney about not forcing a referendum on this. Oh, aren’t you nice Kevvie – so very considerate of you. The simple truth is this: of course he does not want to go the route of a referendum. He knows his stupid idea will be shot down in flames if he does. The people will vote it down big time. Indeed all the homosexual militants know this as well.
Thus they keep telling us we must not have a referendum on this issue. They are scared stiff about it, knowing they would lose big time. Thus we find ol’ Rodney penning whole pieces on this: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/why-a-referendum-on-gay-marriage-is-a-bad-idea-20130429-2inuh.html
There he whines about this issue being divisive and how “cashed up” groups will oppose it. Yeah right Rod. Our side is just rolling in the dough. After all, we have so much government funding – something which your side just never experiences – not.
So he offers us these baloney opinion pieces telling us the people cannot be trusted on this issue, so better leave it to the elites to decide for us. And that is exactly Rudd’s point as well. He most certainly wants to ram homosexual marriage down our throats. He wants to simply bypass the will of the people and use Parliament to push his deviant agenda.
This is just how dictators operate: ignore the people and force things on them whether they like it or not. Thus this entire article shows us just what a conniving, deceitful, low-life Kevin really is. It is incredible that anyone would even consider voting for this guy.
And when uber-lefty rags like the Canberra Times start saying the same things about the guy, then you know that Rudd is a real dud. In what was an extraordinary attack on the PM, the CT today printed “Rudd’s delusional world is crashing around him” by Nicholas Stuart.
It begins, “Perhaps accidentally, but Bill Shorten got it absolutely right when he said, ‘I know who’s more popular. It’s Tony.’ Make-up artist Lily Fontana got it totally right when she said, ‘I’ve never had anyone treat me so badly while trying to do my job.’ A third of the cabinet got it completely right when they resigned rather than work with Kevin Rudd.
“They didn’t judge him politically – their conclusions are personal and based on the belief that Rudd only cares about himself. According to them the rhetoric and the fine words simply serve to camouflage personal ambition, detached from reality.
“Indications that Rudd is living in a delusional world came when he allowed the perception to grow that he’d stopped campaigning to ‘undertake, in a calm and measured fashion’ briefings on the situation in Syria. ‘These are troubling times in the international community,’ he said, ‘and we need to focus carefully and squarely on unfolding events as they affect Australia’s core national interests.’ Well, it seems we’ve done nothing. Perhaps our interests weren’t involved after all.
“Rudd may have no policy principles, but we can live with that. But sociopathology (the absence of a moral compass and the belief that reality can be defined to suit yourself) is another thing altogether. To justify overthrowing Julia Gillard, he claimed she was ‘leading Labor to a catastrophic defeat’. Now he says: ‘I will not be engaged in any character assassination of her or her political … record.’ Both statements can’t be true.”
He ends his piece as strongly as he begins it: “He is, in short, arrogant and offensive to people whether they’re putting on make-up, picking up his clothes or serving up policy papers. Let me assure you, it’s not just one make-up artist who has suffered. I’ve heard similar complaints expressed by many staffers over the years, although always on the basis that the details aren’t to be repeated.
“Arguably it doesn’t matter if he’s a rude pig if he gets the job done. Some would excuse a gifted leader because they’re operating on a higher plane. Or, as Rudd claimed, ‘in the zone’. This works fine while things are going well; the trouble arrives if it begins to fall apart. There’s no one to fall back on.
“Rudd’s going down. People in the party are already peering over his shoulder to secure their future, because he won’t be shaping it. They’ve begun looking beyond Rudd to see who’s coming on as the next leader. There’s a spreading realisation that this campaign represents the end. There will be no forgiveness.
“The election campaign has moved into a new phase. The circle in the Ruddenbunker is growing smaller. Increasingly, people are keeping one eye on the exit. Too many inside Labor hold bitter grudges. It’s the media’s job to record honestly what others tell them. Facts are verifiable – but packing a story full of fact doesn’t mean you’re faithfully recording what’s occurring. It’s necessary to look beyond statements to reality.
“There comes a moment, once every three years, when the spinning and construction and the myth-making stops. That time is finally approaching with all the ruthless finality of a Soviet tank army closing in on Berlin in 1945. The phantom defences won’t stop Abbott’s assault. Many voters may not particularly like him, but they still prefer him to Rudd. That’s for a reason.”
As I say, when even the CT dumps on Rudd, you know he is history. I can’t wait for September 7.
17 Replies to “Rudd Caught Out Again”
Mention of a referendum makes homosexual marriage supporters very uneasy because they know they are not representative of the majority of Australians.
Quite right Jo.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The irony is, it would definitely require a referendum and a change to the Constitution, because a law to that effect would run into very serious problems with the High Court. I have previously written on this:
Even a referendum is not necessarily an obstacle to a determined dictator, oops I mean representative of the people.
In Western Australia in 2005 we had a referendum on changes to trading hours:
58.66% voted NO to extended weeknight trading, but it was introduced anyway in 2010.
61.39% voted NO to general Sunday trading, but we got it anyway in 2012.
Strangely, most people seem to have forgotten that not so long ago we collectively rejected what we now have. I suspect any referendum on gay marriage, if there ever was one, would also be just a temporary setback rather than a shut door.
I was surprised to read that Family First will be preferencing the Labor party over the LNP in some marginal seats. From what I understand they are doing this where the Labor candidate expresses they are against same sex marriage.
Watch out people- if you vote for Family First check who they are preferencing or your vote could help Rudd get back in.
You get pride of place, Bill.
My friend Amfortas reprises you.
Off topic… but so worth reading.
This was on Andrew Bolts blog today. It is letter written by a conservative college professor in response to a student who accused him of being ‘the biggest embarrassment to higher education in America’ because he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman.
What a mad mad world.
Definitely crazy and tragic.
Dear Bill, I noticed someone wrote how Family First is preferencing the A.L.P. over the Liberals. This is because some Liberals cannot be trusted on the issue of same sex marriage. Many “conservatives” have fallen for the propaganda from the homosexualactivists. Kevin Rudd seems to be making the Federal Election a referendum on same sex marriage.
Regards, Franklin Wood
Sadly, Australia is not alone in its share of hypocritical leaders – in fact all over the western world they display the same lack of backbone and moral fibre before the “gay” juggernaut.
The UK also has its share – thus David Cameron PM comments on an LGBT Mardi Gras in Wales as
a “great celebration” of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
But in the next breath says: “No-one should face prejudice and discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,”
Fine! But he ignores the plight of Christians and non Christians alike who in the UK today, through his own legislation, do indeed face constant “prejudice and discrimination” on the part of the State and militant homosexual ideologues, for simply holding a different view on grounds of Scripture or conscience.
He wants nothing less than both an imposed uniformity and conformity of view in an appalling abuse of power by his government.
Disagree? Then we’ll run you into our courts under “equality” laws.
Graham Wood, UK
The best election outcome for the nation and the Labor Party is for Abbott to win in an overwhelming landslide and Rudd to lose his seat. This should drive the ALP to look closely at their philosophy, morals and ethics. Lies deceit, slander and character assassination must be punished, if not we will get more of the same. The culture of the nation will be affected because if this is seen to work, everyone will be using these tactic on their competitors and opponents. All political parties have the responsibility to model honesty and decency and lift the standards of morality in this nation.
I still like the fact that the election was originally called for September 14 Yom Kippur. The following description is taken from Wikipedia.
According to Jewish tradition, God inscribes each person’s fate for the coming year into a book, the Book of Life, on Rosh Hashanah, and waits until Yom Kippur to “seal” the verdict. During the Days of Awe, a Jewish person tries to amend his or her behavior and seek forgiveness for wrongs done against God (bein adam leMakom) and against other human beings (bein adam lechavero). The evening and day of Yom Kippur are set aside for public and private petitions and confessions of guilt (Vidui). At the end of Yom Kippur, one hopes that they have been forgiven by God.
Rosh Hashanah starts sunset September 4th and ends nightfall of the 6th. Rudd’s fate will be sealed on the 7th of September. If we get a close result and some of the minor parties chip in then it might end up being prophetic.
The Marriage ‘label’ is the most important label that heterosexuals have, and there really is no other heterosexual label for heterosexuals! I can’t think of any!
But with ‘gay marriage’ that label is no longer a heterosexual label, but a label to reflect a relationship of almost any sort. We lose OUR identity – the natural order losses it’s identity! Marriage is then no longer about mum, dad and the kids. Reproduction is now simply a women’s lot and will be recognised as such.
And in NZ – the public never had a say in having their identity taken from them! The government simply decided that heterosexuals should no longer be entitled to a heterosexual label!
No party in NZ ran on a ‘gay marriage’ campaign in the last election as they did not want to be penalised at the booths for supporting gay Marriage. Labour simply decided to enter ‘a private members bill’ to parliament AFTER the election was held. [They had pulled this trick previously with prostitution. And are now doing it with euthanasia.] And National have NEVER called them out on the dishonesty of it!
Anyway, the gaystapo in NZ had to admit after the second reading of the ‘gay marriage’ parliamentary bill that they would lose a public referendum if one was held. But prior to the first reading of the bill, public polling was about 50/50 [so the media said].
And on the night that the bill was passed through parliament [the 3rd reading], a poll was taken on a tv news programme [Cambell Live] – and the 2nd highest number of votes ever recorded on the programme were phoned in – and the result: 83.1% against!
So where is the political advantage in all politicians getting just 16.9% of votes on one pathetic policy that was introduced dishonestly, when 83.1% of the public are FUNDAMENTALY against it?
There is no advantage. MP’s simply believe that they can all get away with being seen as being ‘progressive’ to ignorant/ill informed/propagandised voters on social matters, because they will be re-elected on mostly economic matters. And that is why on both sides of the Tasman they are having ‘conscience’ votes, as all parties are then not held liable at the following election for gay marriage.
And how ironic is it, that the only good thing to ever come out of Canberra is that 1980’s band – The Church?
Keep up the good work Bill. God Bless.
Paul Sheehan’s latest piece is also a must read”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smile-youre-on-candidate-camera-20130825-2sjrn.html#ixzz2dEoo20fH
Steve Gibbons got it right – Kevin Rudd has a Behaviour Personality Disorder.
I thought Kevin Rudd was pushing for a conscience vote on a bill, not a referendum. I’d love a referendum on the issue. It would prove where people stand on the issue and not what the activists and their friends in the media would have us believe.
I hear activist groups are working overtime to force the issue, targeting marginal liberal seats. One has already changed their mind on the issue. If it goes to a conscience vote the will of the activists is more likely to be heard than the will of the people.
I was watching “7 Pm” (or whatever it’s called) on channel 10 the night Magda Szubanski “came out” and the claim then was that over 60% of Australians surveyed supported Gay “marriage”.
I would like to know where they got their figures from.