Peter Smith Why the ALA Gets My Vote I’ve concluded after much thought that a party does not need to tick every box to be supported, just the important ones. As there is only one prepared to state that Islam is antithetical to Western democracy and values, the choice is not difficult.
First, I believe that Islam represents a dire threat to civilised values. Second, Mrs Smith seems to me, having read about her and heard her speak, an excellent candidate. Third, the ALA is a party of traditional values and small government. Fourth, the ALA supports increasing defence expenditure.
Bear in mind that I will vote for the ALA despite one of the Party’s policy apparatchiks, ex-National Ron Pike, explaining his grand scheme to take the dividends from the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which presently go to the NSW, Victorian and the federal Governments, and use them to pay interest on new borrowings to fund a massive program of hydro-electric dam building. I won’t go into more detail. Rex Connor came to mind.
I have nothing against dams. I like them. But it is self-evidently Mr Pike’s pet scheme and the ALA would have been wise to leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the price of fish – no pun intended. Mr Pike should set up his own party, perhaps.
Too much policy detail leaves a new party hostage to pet schemes of those who have had no success in pushing them within the established parties. It is best, in my view, simply to establish philosophical positions which will guide policy choices, rather than get among the weeds. The exception in this case is the ALA’s position on Islam, which is its raison d’être and the basis of its appeal for electoral support. Those who do vote for it won’t have dams on their minds.
I cemented my support for the ALA after attending a meeting held last Tuesday in Sydney. The ALA intends to field Senate candidates in all states at the next election. Three of them were speakers at the meeting: Debbie Robinson of WA, Bernard Gaynor of Queensland, and the aforementioned Mrs Smith. They were an impressive and articulate set of candidates. I don’t want to be unkind by mentioning some current members of the Senate but I would say that the average level of common sense among Senate members will soar if the ALA candidates succeed in being elected – as I hope and believe that they will.
The meeting was well attended. The large room was filled, by my rough count approaching the two-hundred mark. There was a decent age range from younger to older and I think about evenly split between men and women. Angry Anderson introduced the speakers with his usual style and it was two hours well spent (even with the damn dams).
As a registered attendee, I was informed of the venue only the evening before and security on the night was tight. Doesn’t that say it all? Doesn’t it also say it all that I not only formed a good impression of the competence of the candidates but admired them for their courage? This is Australia in 2016, when standing for a political party might put you under physical threat. Imagine Australia in 2026 and then in 2036 if we all sit back and do nothing. Imagination not required; the model is there in Europe in the guise, for example, of the security required to keep Geert Wilders safe from the barbarians in Holland.
Make no mistake. This is the time to vote for the ALA. We have no other defences. There is no Christian spirituality left to speak of within the Western world to combat Islamic supremacism. Christian church leaders are milksops waiting to be beheaded, who would no more quote Jesus in foreseeing false prophets, of whom Muhammad must be the doozy of them all, than they would refuse to visit a mosque or kiss the Koran, as did John Paul II. The gay and feminist lobbies are in the keeping of the Left, which makes common cause with a fascist Islamist ideology — after all they have much in common. The mainstream media constantly brushes up its anti-Islamophobia credentials. And, most career politicians would sell their mothers for a Muslim vote; for any vote for that matter.
Islam is blight on the values of tolerance and freedom which emerged out of Judeo-Christian civilisations. It cannot be tolerated. It must not be tolerated. There should be no taxpayer funding for anything which is associated with Islam. Sharia should be disallowed and its practice made illegal. Potential migrants who carry the Islamic faith in their baggage should no longer be let into the country. This has nothing to do with people who happen to be Muslim being good or bad people. There are plenty of good people who are Muslims and plenty of bad people who claim to be Christians. Notice the subtle change of language.
You cannot be a bad person and be a Christian. It is logically impossible. But it is perfectly possible to follow the tenets of Islam and be an extremely bad person. All you have to do is faithfully follow the very words of God and, e.g., “strike off their heads [disbelievers] and strike off every finger tip of them.” (Koran 8:12)
If you remain unconvinced, find just one imam or one devout Muslim who is willing to disavow any single word or phrase in the Koran. You will not find them. And yet the pathetic among us go around insisting that it is a matter of interpretation.
Much of the intolerant and violent parts of Islamic doctrine are so plain that it would need a very clever charlatan to make them appear benign to those of critical mind. Unfortunately, as it happens, a good majority of people appear to be gullible enough to fall for platitudes of Islamic charlatans of very meagre talent. That’s why the ALA needs supporting.
Comments are closed.
