When I was a kid, my father used to joke about people having faces like half-sucked mangos.
Well, Barnaby Joyce has a melon that resembles a bruised tomato. And it’s turning a deeper hue of crimson by the minute.
Of course, back then Dad was joking. And, of course, this is now and I am not.
Basically, with ‘friends’ like Barnaby, who needs enemies?
It’s not the Alan Joyces of this world who worry me. We know how his flag flies. It’s the Barnaby Joyces who are the problem. We have no idea where they’ll end up falling at all, or how much damage they’ll do on the way down.
It is painfully obvious that most of the politicians who claim to be ‘conservative’ these days are nothing of the sort.
In fact, blokes like Barnaby are an empty charade. They bung on a conservative show because it keeps them paid, rather than because they actually have the slightest belief in what they say.
Blokes like Barnaby are not conservative; instead they are parasites on conservative Australia. They see us as a resource to be sucked dry for their own personal gain.
A quick recap of Barnaby’s career demonstrates this in spades.
He’s backed halal certification.
He’s shot down attempts in parliament to stop the baby bonus or paid parental leave from being paid out after babies are aborted.
And now we find that the highest-ranked ‘conservative’ politician to oppose homosexual marriage actually has no regard for the sanctity of marriage at all.
Indeed, about the same time as the actual fight to save marriage was blowing up in July last year, Joyce was off blowing his own one up.
There are many reasons the fight to save marriage was lost. But somewhere in all of this, blame must rightfully be laid at the feet of those who led us to utter defeat. Not because they tried and failed. But because they failed to even try.
Barnaby is a farce. A sham. An embarrassment. A disgrace.
It seems that the nicest thing that has been written about Barnaby in recent days was penned by the left-leaning columnist, Malcom Farr. And that’s really saying something:
It means Mr Joyce now has limited scope for maintaining his championship of traditional, conservative views on marriage.
Barnaby Joyce has not just let his wife down. He has not just let his daughters down. And he has not just brought a child into this world with a woman that he doesn’t even have the courage to name.
By virtue of his position, he has let all conservative Australians down. He is entirely compromised. As a result, Joyce is not just unable to help in the big fights that are barrelling towards us; he’ll actually hurt our defences.
This story needed to be told. So do the stories of other hypocritical ‘conservatives’ (and let’s get the truth on the virtue-signallers as well). Voters have a right to make an informed choice about the moral compass of those who seek their support.
This is not to say that I don’t feel for Barnaby Joyce’s humiliated family. But we need a clean out and new leadership if we are ever going to have a chance of winning the culture wars. The dirty linen needs airing if we are to move forward.
To put it bluntly, Barnaby Joyce is the Neville Chamberlain of conservatives. He’s spent his whole career appeasing the enemy. And now it’s time for him to go, like a dog with his tail between his legs.
And he should forever be remembered as the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party who, when the time came for a fight on marriage, not only failed show up but who was acting up while the war raged around him.
Some have called him a hypocrite. The truth is far worse. He betrayed us all…
Malcolm Farr is right to point out the hypocrisy in Barnaby’s position. But he just might like to consider this: why don’t journalists point out the hypocrisy of Christine Forster?
She was a married woman who destroyed her own family to pursue a lesbian relationship. And she was also one of the most prominent campaigners for ‘homosexual marriage’.
Why is it is hypocritical for divorcees to campaign for traditional marriage but not for ‘homosexual marriage? Why doesn’t he write that Christine Forster has limited scope to champion ‘marriage equality’? Why do these left-leaning journos scribble love-story write ups about Christine Forster’s ‘affair’ but not about Barnaby Joyce’s?
Oh yeah, of course. How could I forget…
Divorce and homosexual marriage come from the same steaming bucket labelled with the words, ‘101 Ways to Destroy a Family’. These ideas are not opposed. They are singing from the same hideous sheet of music.
And the media commentariat praising the Forsters of this world while kicking the Barnabys are just as hypocritical as the man they pull down.
Bill Shorten’s craven political opportunism over the Barnaby Joyce affair is sickening. Remember this?
LABOR MP Bill Shorten has left his wife for the daughter of Kevin Rudd’s newly appointed Governor-General, Quentin Bryce.
The parliamentary secretary for disabilities and children’s services separated from his wife, Deborah Beale, in the past month and is understood to be in a relationship with Chloe Bryce.
That being said, there is a stench over the secrecy, silence and protection that appears to have been given to Barnaby and his mistress.
Barnaby’s affair may well cover others in the proverbial as well…
It’s one thing for a bloke to fail. None of us are perfect and I have many faults of my own.
But it’s another thing entirely to persist in scandalous conduct.
This is how Barnaby Joyce was described in The Australian las week:
Mr Joyce is a Catholic and has spoken often of his conservative social and economic values.
I’m guessing it will only be a few moments before Barnaby is publicly warned that he will not be able to receive Holy Communion while he publicly persists in this scandal.
Actually, I joke.
Whoever heard of a bishop in recent times defending the church in the face of public scandal?
Some of Barnaby’s own constituents have had the courage to confront him over this affair. Collectively, the bishops could learn a lot from their example…
For those who want a little more info on Barnaby Joyce’s shameful antics in the Senate regarding baby bonus payments for abortion, here is part of the transcript of the debate that took place on 16 June 2010:
Senator Fielding (Family First): … Another huge flaw in the bill is the fact that people who have late-term abortions would still be eligible to receive paid parental leave payments. That is right. Under this bill drug addicts and welfare cheats can rort the system and get paid parental leave money for nothing. Drug addicts and welfare cheats can get pregnant, then after 20 weeks have an abortion and still pocket the government’s cash. It is absolutely ridiculous and it makes you wonder whether the government is making policy on the run again. This was a loophole which was discovered in the baby bonus legislation, and I cannot understand why the government has been so careless as to make the mistake again and is then too stubborn to fix it up…
Senator Fielding (Family First):… —by leave—I move amendments (2), (3) and (12) on sheet 6112 revised:
(2) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 8), after the definition of ABN, insert:
Abortion means intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy with the consent of the woman by:
(a) using an instrument; or
(b) using a drug or a combination of drugs; or
(c) any other means.
(3) Clause 6, page 17 (line 16), at the end of the definition of stillborn, add “; but does not include a child whose period of gestation was terminated by abortion”.
(12) Clause 31, page 41 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:
(6) Despite subsections (2), (3) and (4), a person is not eligible for parental leave pay for a child on a day if the child:
(a) is stillborn following an abortion ; or
(b) has died before that day following an abortion .
These amendments are to do with the issue of abortion. I know that this is always a difficult topic for discussion, but it is a discussion that needs to be had. These amendments will close any loophole and remove any greyness which currently allows parental leave payments to be paid to someone who has an «abortion» after 20 weeks. It takes away any greyness. All the assurances that we may have heard before are just talk. We do not need assurances; we need to make sure it is in legislation. These amendments are quite clear. Amendment (2) says: ‘abortion means intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy with the consent of the woman’. It is a clear definition that will be written into law and will not be left to someone’s guesswork or to assurances that the minister or the government may give. This makes it clear. It is not an assurance from the minister. This puts into law that people who have an abortion after 20 weeks should not be able to receive money from paid parental leave.
Barnaby Joyce (National Party): These amendments do not create an assurance; they create a wedge. These amendments bring into this chamber an issue on which there are deeply held beliefs around the parliament. It is a conscience issue. The way in which this issue has been introduced takes the debate to a base level. You know full well that if you bring the abortion debate up then a bit more diligence is required than you have shown with the process you are following here. I am disgusted by the mechanism of this. An assurance has been given. We have actually been doing the footwork—asking people and getting the assurances across parliamentary lines on this issue. I find it one of the more base forms of politics to bring up an issue that you know full well, Senator Fielding, is held as an absolutely primary issue by so many people around this place. I really question the motives you have at the forefront of your mind in bringing this issue forward in this manner.
It is quite clear—it has been disclosed by the minister and also by Senator Stephens. You are asking what we are to do if a person commits a criminal act—that is, if the doctor lies about the motives that they have put forward. I suppose that if the doctor lies they go to jail or they lose their registration. What are your motives on this one, Senator Fielding? What are you trying to do here today? What is your motivation? Is this a sincere and honest approach on which you have spent a period of time lobbying people, discussing the issues and going through the proper mechanisms and processes? Have you done that, Senator Fielding? Or have you just brought in a highly emotive issue without actually consulting or doing the footwork? What is your primary motivation? Can you tell the chamber about all the people that you have discussed this with? Can you tell the chamber about all the lobbying you have done on this issue? Or is this merely a political ploy of yours? If it is, I think it is absolutely disgusting.
To be fair to Barnaby, at the time he was given an assurance Centrelink payments would never be paid out for abortion. Yet three years after that ‘assurance’ was given, the South Australian government was helping people to claim the baby bonus after late-term abortions.
And the law has not changed.
Just so you know, right now, Barnaby Joyce is the Deputy Prime Minister.
And just so you know, right now, there are several Centrelink payments available following the death of a child or if it is still born.
And just so you know, these payments have been and continue to be available following late term abortions.
There is not a single clause in any of the laws relating to Centrelink payments preventing payments following abortion. There are, however, several clauses that stipulate the only requirement is that the child was stillborn after 20 weeks gestation or weighing more than 400 grams, or that they died after birth. There are also other clauses that mean a person can lose entitlement to these payments if they are charged with and convicted of murder. That hasn’t happened anytime recently when it comes to abortion.
And just so you know, every aborted child is still ‘delivered’. Some of them are even ‘delivered’ alive.
And just so you know, Barnaby Joyce labelled Senator Fielding as ‘disgusting’ for trying to close this loophole. And now Barnaby Joyce is overseeing it.
Barnaby Joyce was perfectly right to use the word disgusting. He just applied it to the wrong person. It is a label that fits him perfectly.
UPDATE: It seems I have been too lenient on Barnaby.
Readers have pointed out on Twitter and Facebook that Barnaby also defended 18c, got into bed with Turnbull and carried on with his affair while refusing to stand down as Deputy PM while he knew he was a dual citizen…