Mike Pence1 810 500 75 s c1

US Vice President Mike Pence has penned an op-ed for the National Review slamming Democrats for their extreme abortion stance.

Pence wrote about the shocking admission from a Virginia state politician that a bill she sponsored would permit abortion during active labour and how Virginian Governor Ralph Northam took an even more extreme abortion stance.

[Governor Northam] tried to reassure [the bill’s] opponents that if a child survived an abortion, “the infant would be kept comfortable. [And] the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue.”

There’s another word for this: infanticide. And it is morally reprehensible and evil.

Pence noted how the Virginia bill came hot on the heels of the barbaric New York state bill, which allowed abortion up until birth and whose passing was followed by ghoulish celebrations, including the lighting up of One World Trade Centre.  Pence stated that:

This shameless embrace of a culture of death is startling to every American who cherishes life.

Pence also noted that only a handful of countries, including China and North Korea, allow late-term abortions.

Pence finished his piece by stating the Trump administration strong stance for life:

Our commitment to the unalienable right to life is as sure as the stone in which those names are etched. And our administration, and our movement, will continue to fight until our nation once again recognizes and celebrates the sanctity of all human life.

daniel andrews 2

By James Parker, Mercator.net

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has released a media statement relating to so-called “gay conversion therapy”, promising to outlaw therapies offered to people with unwanted same-sex attraction. This sets off my antennae as I am a male who throughout his entire childhood and early adulthood believed himself to have been “born gay”. 

As a contented gay male I entered into regular therapy in early adulthood. The goal was not to change sexuality (I didn’t believe that was necessary and was told categorically by my LGBTQ elders that it was not even possible), but rather to deal with some of the poor boundaries I experienced in my friendships.

As I stepped over the therapist’s lintel, it was of course impossible to leave behind any part of my character or life experience. All of me entered the room, including every one of my sexual attractions.

In brief, over the period of a few years I had morphed into a very different person to the one who had originally embarked upon therapy. The greatest change was that I left therapy feeling significantly more sexually attracted to women than I did to men. That had never been the plan, so nobody was more shocked than me.

What is the Victorian government’s agenda?

Today, Premier Andrews drives the national debate around the topic of whether change is possible in the area of sexual attraction. The fires he creates are stoked by a myriad of LGBTQ advocates and their allies.

It is interesting that, as this debate rises in pockets of the Western world, very few people, including clinicians and members of the LGBTQ community, can clearly define what this therapy is and what exactly it entails.

This question alone should make us all consider carefully what the Victorian government’s underlying agenda might be. This is vital since the legal chains being melted and cast in Victorian furnaces could well be shackling individuals right across Australia and beyond before too long.

In his statement, Andrews mocks the claim that it is possible “to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity.” He says that any attempt to do this is “a most personal form of torture, a cruel practice that perpetuates the idea that LGBTI people are in some way broken” referring to any help offered as “bigoted quackery.”

His hyperbole is based on a report produced in partnership with La Trobe University (yes, architects of Australia’s contemptible Safe Schools Coalition). The report’s summary states that “the historical review” undertaken by its researchers “shows that attempts to reorient LGBT people are recent,” going on to say that “in clinical medicine they were only experimental and were never successful”. (my italics)

Never successful, eh?

Twenty well-known studies over 40 years show success

Researchers of the final report, surreptitiously entitled Preventing Harm, Promoting Justice, clearly failed to access over 20 renowned empirical case studies (see footnote) which demonstrated that over a 40-year period between 1970 and 2010 over 40 percent of homosexually oriented people who underwent therapy, often in the care of compassionate, insightful and trained professionals, experienced some degree of healthy shift towards heterosexuality.

They also ignore contemporary research undertaken by Dr Lisa Diamond, a non-religious lesbian researcher at Utah University, and Ritch Savin-Williams, professor emeritus of developmental psychology of Cornell University who specialises in gay, lesbian, and bisexual research.

Both Diamond and Savin-Williams produced conclusive evidence that many people experience change in sexual attraction and that sexuality can be incredibly fluid. Here we see science backing up the plethora of stories increasingly found online from people who have moved beyond gay to live what they speak of as more fulfilling and stable lives, with some marrying the opposite sex and enjoying parenthood. The recently birthed Changed movement bears witness to this.

Andrews’ researchers also ignored a peer-reviewed 2018 study undertaken by New Zealand scientific research consultant Dr. Neil Whitehead along with Paul Santero and Dolores Ballesteros.

Whitehead and colleagues examined the reported benefits of sexual attraction fluidity exploration in therapy (SAFE-T) as well as the positives and harms in a sample of religious men with unwanted same-sex attractions. Their outcomes show that, “as found in previous surveys, there was real change, little harm, much good, completely opposite to the findings of the [2009 American Psychological Association] report”.

“A number changed a dramatic extent – from nearly completely same-sex attraction to nearly completely opposite-sex attracted,” Whitehead stated.  “About two thirds moved a significant amount, and the rest mainly did not show any change. A very few actually became more same-sex attracted. However, it was rather remarkable how much therapy was found to be very beneficial, even among those who did not change. One can surmise they had lots of help for other issues and found real fellowship in the support groups.”

This doesn’t sound so profoundly torturous and cruel, does it, Mr Andrews?

Sexual agendas and religious freedom

Andrews also told journalists: “We’ll drag these practices from the dark ages and into the brightest of lights. We’ll put an end to the suffering and help survivors to heal. And we’ll send the clearest message of all: Here in Victoria, not only are you good enough – you’re worth celebrating.”

Strong words of threat and of warfare. Also rather strange: although the La Trobe report he relies on says that “attempts to reorient LGBT people are recent,” suddenly Victorian politicians will be dragging these practices “from the dark ages.”

Could there be just a hint of an underlying agenda to all this? Well, yes. It is politics after all.

Whitehead states in his peer-reviewed research (unlike the research embraced by Andrews which has not been peer-reviewed), “The people in this survey had a religiosity very much higher than the general population. However, they were quite diverse – nondenominational Protestants, Jews, Mormons, a few Catholics, and a few traditional Protestants – no Atheists!”

It does not take much effort to understand why religious freedom, a dominant pillar of a stable society, must be mocked and attacked at every level by LGBTQ advocates and their allies after the passing of same-sex marriage legislation. Think about it: if people aren’t actually “born gay” (and please wake me up if they ever find “the gay gene”) then the whole LGBTQ push for newly-minted rights is null and void.

Religious belief and practice have throughout history offered individuals a very real way out of unwanted behaviours and mindsets, and we see today that these include unwanted same-sex attractions. It is for this reason that so-called ex-gays love gays and try to reach out to them, and explains why gays hate ex-gays and bully them mercilessly into silence.

Andrews’ proposed laws are likely only to achieve the opposite of what he preaches.

They will create greater suffering for a number of very vulnerable people.  They will block many survivors of sexual trauma from accessing healing and hope. They send a strong message to Victorians that only proponents of LGBTQ ideology are “good enough” and that those who dare to risk searching for inner freedom outside of the fundamentalist religion of the Fallen Rainbow Bubble are not worth celebrating and must be excommunicated.

This law should enrage everyone who values true freedom. It manifests a dictatorial state deciding whether an unwanted aspect of a citizen, which might well be changeable, can be professionally addressed or not.

Will the same prohibition, or a similar one, which denies a person the right to undergo their own selection of therapy, be placed upon any of the twelve-step programs which presently assist our fellow Australians to free themselves of alcohol and drug addictions, thus saving the taxpayer a small fortune in Medicare rebates?

Will it lead to those with a plethora of sexual fetishes being told that they are normal and to live these out without concern or shame?

Let’s give the final word to gay political writer and broadcaster Matthew Parris, whose column in last month’s British Spectator was entitled, “The fact no one likes to admit: many gay men could just have easily been straight”. He says:

"…there are plenty of ‘gay’ men who know that, in a different life, they could reasonably contentedly be straight. Indeed, hordes are: happy in real marriages with wives and children. And I’ve noticed in myself and heard reported from others how the shapes of our desires can shift with the years.

"In what passes for the gay ‘community’, there’s something of a taboo about admitting, even to ourselves, that quite a few of us (not me) could, with a little coaxing and self-discipline, be ‘straight’."

Will somebody please change the lenses in Mr Andrews’ glasses and remove the earplugs from his staff’s ears? Victoria wants to make laws based on a taboo of the LGBTQ community. If denying a person’s request for internationally proven care is rejected in the area of something as fluid as sexual attraction, and endorsed by a community that fears to look its own reality in the eyes, then what else might such a denial be applied to in years to come? And which member of your family will it ultimately affect, if indeed it somehow manages to bypass you, which of course it may not?

All is not well in the state of Victoria as harm is promoted and justice prevented, where lies are now casually delivered as truth and where truth is now denied the freedom of debate.

As Australians, the challenge we all have is this: if we fail to speak up for person-centred therapeutic choice now, how long before we too are incarcerated in similar chains of faux-freedom presently being cast in the furnaces of Victoria?

James Parker is a former gay activist who today supports same-sex attracted people and their loved ones. 

Studies showing change towards heterosexual after therapy:

Jones & Yarhouse, Book: Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study, InterVarsity Press, 2007. Experiencing at least some heterosexual shift: 33 out of 73

Shidlo & Schroeder, Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 2002 – 14 out of 202

Nicolosi, Byrd & Potts, Psychological Reports, 1997 - 573 out of 882

Berger, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1994 - 1 out of 1

MacIntosh, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Assocn, 1994- 276/1215

Golwyn & Sevlie, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993 - 1 out of 1

Schechter, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1992 - 1 out of 1

Van den Aardweg, Book: On the Origins & Treatment of Homosexuality,’86 – 37 out of 101

Schwartz & Masters, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1984 - 35 out of 54

Pattison & Pattison, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1980 - 11 out of 11

Birk, Book: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal, 1980 - 1 out of 29

Masters & Johnson, Book: Homosexuality in Perspective, 1979 - 29 out of 67

Socarides, Book: Homosexuality, 1978 - 20 out of 45

Callahan, Book: Counseling Methods, 1976 - 1 out of 1

Freeman & Meyer, Behavior Therapy, 1975 - 9 out of 11

Canton-Dutari, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974 - 44 out of 54

Birk, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1974 - 14 out of 66

Liss & Weiner, American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1973 - 1 out of 1

Barlow & Agras, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973 - 2 out of 2

Pittman & DeYoung, Int’l Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1971 – 3 out of 6

Truax & Tourney. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1971 - 20 out of 30

Hatterer, Book: Changing Homosexuality in the Male, 1970 - 49 out of 143

McConaghy, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1970 - 10 out of 40


Labor is continuing its ‘Rainbow ideology’ pro-LGBTQ push, notwithstanding claims from the Left that marriage was the last “inequality” for LGBTQ people that needed “rectifying.”

So what can we expect from a Labor government if elected?

Labor’s 2018 National Platform makes clear that it doesn’t respect freedom of religion and won’t hesitate to crackdown on believers if at odds with its Cultural Marxist agenda:

  1. Labor believes no faith, no religion, no set of beliefs should ever be used as an instrument of division or exclusion, and condemning anyone, discriminating against anyone, vilifying anyone is a violation of the values we all share, a violation which can never be justified by anyone’s faith or belief. Accordingly, Labor will review anti-discrimination laws to ensure that exemptions do not apply to employment in, access to and the delivery of essential social services.

Of course Labor likes to point out the selective practices by organisations with which it disagrees ideologically.  But do you think that it ever examines itself?  How many Liberal Party members of staff do you think Bill Shorten has working for him?

Before the marriage plebiscite which he opposed, Mr Shorten said:

I don’t want to give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock and make life harder to LGBTI people or their families, to somehow question the legitimacy of their relationship.

If Bill Shorten’s statement smearing those who opposed same-sex marriage as “haters” isn’t an example of “condemning anyone”, which is prohibited by the ALP National Platform, what is?

Reverend Ian Powell wasn’t impressed and confronted him later about his disgraceful comments:

“You made a comment a few months ago which I thought was disappointing because I like you and I like the Labor Party,” Mr Powell said.

“And you described people who weren’t in favour of changing the definition of marriage as haters who come out from under rocks. Can I ask you not speak, because I know lots of people like that … Please don’t speak like that about other Australians so we can have a civil and tolerant discussion rather than the hate speech coming from, at our perspective.”

As so often with politics, there’s one law for the Cultural Marxists and another for the rest of us.

But it doesn’t end there.  Labor has previously announced that it will introduce an LGBTI Commissioner to police those who dissent from its Rainbow ideology.

Penny Wong at the last election made clear that faith-based schools will be a target:

The Commissioner will address structural discrimination, work towards ensuring our schools, workplaces, and communities are free from discrimination.






FamilyVoice National Secretary David d’Lima used the Australia Day weekend to promote conciliation between black and white when he addressed the indigenous Brethren church at Port Augusta on 27 January.

Highlighting the Christian crosses on Australia's national flag, David d’Lima encouraged the almost completely aboriginal congregation to recognise how the message of Christ came to Australia in 1788.

“Today most indigenous people identify as Christian,” he said.

“While much wrong-doing has occurred, it was God’s plan to bring the knowledge of Christ and connect everyone in the wider family of nations across the Pacific.”

He thanked the indigenous people for their patience as white Australians learn to honour aboriginal language and identity.

“I see on Google maps the Pitjantjatjara words ‘Kata Wami’ at Port Augusta and I believe that means ‘Head of the Snake’ - obviously Spencer Gulf.

“We’ve learned to call Ayers Rock ‘Uluru’ and the Olgas ‘Kata Tjuta’ (many heads) in recognition of the names used for generations untold by the Pitjantjatjara peoples.

“I’m hoping South Australia’s State Flower the Sturt Desert Pea will be renamed ‘malu kuru’ (kangaroo eye) using the Pitjantjatjara name,” he said.

“But today I noticed kangaroo burgers on a menu in the Wadlata café, identified by the word ‘malu’.

“While someone is trying earnestly to honour your culture, hardly anyone understands that word and indeed no tribal people would eat kangaroo - unless it was killed according to ceremonial law!

“You can see how hard is the clash of cultures - though some people are trying to make connection; above all there is unity through faith in Christ.”

David d’Lima ended his message by highlighting The Proclamation issued in 1836 by Governor John Hindmarsh.

“We have a public holiday to mark Proclamation Day - yet hardly anyone realises this founding document is explicitly Christian and mainly describes the requirement to reach out with the love of God to assist the aboriginal people,” he said.

David d’Lima reported afterwards the listeners thanked him profusely for his message as they eagerly took printed notes on Australia's national flag and details about The Proclamation.

religious freedom 3

FamilyVoice National Director Charles Newington speaks out about the importance of religious freedom for faith-based schools on Vision Christian Radio:

 “[Faith-based schools] are for religious purposes.” 

“Religion doesn’t just cover what we do in the building, but it covers how we approach science and how we approach the arts, and how we approach our engagement in the world.  And that is the nature of religion and this is part of the big debate that has been going on that some people don’t want to concede that religion is that holistic, that it influences everything.  They want to confine it to the private spaces – the home and the church hall.   

“We need to see that we are dealing with a major shift in the culture in an attempt to limit the freedoms of, not just the Church of Christ, but all religious bodies, to limit their freedoms and to impose the state over religious bodies and, in fact, telling them what they can and can’t teach.”

“The momentum in the public square commentary is very selective and frames Christians, in particular, as reactionary and historically irrelevant now.  I think it’s making Christians think very hard again about our engagement in society.”

You can hear more of Charles Newington’s interview at the Vision Christian Radio website here.