Hey Andrew K,

Try picking up a rifle with your weak hand, and go shoot a USPSA qualification under extreme duress that puts you into the top 1% of anyone that's ever held a gun, from the hip of your weak side, and then act chill about it. Whatever training you do or don't already have is more than enough, it's more than Martin Bryant had. Go try it. Try getting an accurate sub 2MOA from 10 feet with a rifle from the hip. Try it. Some gun ranges have freebies, just ask, don't be shy they're people too. 

Oh, difficult to do, is it? Must be pretty easy considering it was done more than 20 times in less than 90 seconds by a retarded individual who you claim doesn't even know what coolant to put into their car. But he can become the world's top shooter during a mass shooting with all odds stacked up against him.

I'm not sure if you can see it, but not knowing about the coolant on one's own vehicle while simultaneously knowing about being the best at a very difficult, complex and dynamic task are not computing together.  A comparison for you to understand would be to say that I can't tie my shoes, but I can certainly rewire the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. 

20 head/neck shots on moving screaming targets while "dancing" (witness quote) around his victims and actually getting a 3-in-1 shot once. If you want an accurate representation of what that must have looked like, I would implore you to watch videos of Taran Butler shooting from the hip and reloading at targets out to 20 yards. Search Taran Butler El Prez AR from the hip. 

Spoiler alert, he misses more than once and hits groups of 5+ inches. He's also the one who trained Keanu Reeves on pistol, shotgun, and AR for his 4 "John Wick" movies. Now Taran trains Hollywood's elite, showing them that guns are safe, fun, and most importantly, something you need to fail at before you can get good. Check out all the A-List actors he's worked with. Taran is the real deal. 

Martin Bryant, even if he lied, undoubtedly has less than 20 hours behind a gun. Taran has been shooting his whole life, and he's NOT legally incapable of managing his own affairs. Even if Martin had training from a combination of the world's top shelf military disciplined shooters for over 100 hours, Martin Bryant would still be incapable of achieving the killed-injured ratio confirmed at Port Arthur. That's a note you can cash at the bank, good for life. 

So, Martin Bryant was without question to you then, born naturally as one of the world's top riflemen. Better even than fictitious action heroes with real world training. Does that sound right? Forget everything else about this case. Forget the shots over the phone call, forget the witnesses who contradicted the story, forget the impossibility that during the world's worst mass shooting at the time, there were no police for over 6 hours. Does that conclusion ring true to you? It doesn't, and you know it. Leave this to those who care, or learn to think for yourself.  

Whoever pulled the trigger in the BA Cafe, whoever did that, had thousands of hours behind a gun. That wasn't just pulling a trigger and running around. Perfect planning, perfect tempo and perfect shooting, perfect reload, perfect victims, no police for hours, no one trying to stop him. Pretty Perfect. 

Waiting for a link to a video of your hipfire attempts, looking forward to seeing your results!

Alrighty then, I think i've made my point. Thanks for giving me a reason to keep my chin up. 

As the 2025 election date nears, both the major parties are doing everything in their power to have a smaller field of candidates. From deliberate removal of signage and destruction of signage, through to the old trying to dig up dirt.

Sadly, the challenges of the running as a candidate and the toll it takes on family life, has led to a number of Democracy First Alliance Candidates withdrawing from the 2025 Federal Election. This coupled with the amount of money being thrown at “independent” candidates from Climate 200 and the emergence of Trumpets of Patriots make the importance of remaining a candidate even more important.

Despite the challenges thrown towards me, I am pleased to confirm that I am on the ballot paper and will be taking my policies to the federal election with the aim of representing EVERY Dunkley voter regardless of the way they vote.

Analysis of "Want to fix the housing crisis? Then listen to dads like Morgan," by Parnell Palme Mc Guinness, The Age, Opinion.

McGuinness is a professional PR manager for commercial and political messages and here's what I think is the killer-propaganda in her opinion piece for the Age: "Of course, it is inexplicable to Morgan that our society should extend compassion to people from other countries while shrugging off his plight. After all, he would also like to build a better life in Australia."

The treatment of immigration here highlights the whole 'little man' thing in all its 19th Century Victorian glory: Yes, little Morgan knows he is suffering.  Yes, the lowly Morgan truly does suffer from resource competition from lowly immigrants. Of course Morgan cannot understand the much higher aims that his betters have in bringing overseas migrants here for a 'better life.'

There is a logical failure to add Morgan's deteriorating life here to 'immigrants' better life here' - in the same country.  Maybe we are supposed to infer that immigrants are coming from such hell-holes that the Australian hell-hole is heaven in comparison. So, who still believes that most immigrants are 'refugees?' (I met someone who still does, yesterday!) To my knowledge Australia's refugee intake has just been increased to 20,000 from about 15,000.  

The second part of the article drops immigration and asserts that the housing problem is really a failure of many other kinds of institutions to efficiently apportion social housing according to number of rooms per number in occupying family.

What, besides improving the allocation and logistics of 'social housing' is canvassed as a possible solution for Morgan's problem?
It seems that the article, whilst purportedly encouraging the voices of those affected by housing and immigration policies, still only envisages a solution of social housing logistics. 

The article goes in circles: 'Socio-economic' problems here still only mean 'housing.' The article makes everything revolve around the provision of social housing except maybe the idea that some other factor that could find another solution might emerge from listening to the 'affected communities.'  But we don't get any example.

If you realise that 'social housing' - meaning public housing and privately provided new 'affordable housing' - in Australia, is almost non-existent, and the Commonwealth Gov is actually reducing public housing to even less, then this excursion into better provision of 'social housing' is absurdly disproportionate as a solution to a problem involving a million more immigrants every two years, at the rate of 4 new immigrants to one new Australian-born, with a doubling time of about 28 years.

Actually, the problem goes much further than that. Australia does not have the biophysical geographic space for dense development and expansion. The population lives in cities on the patchily watered fringes of a continent with 70% rangeland and desert, and the density of economic activity reflects soil and climate fertility conditions. Whether housing goes up or out, it still requires more water and more power, and these things are in short supply. Twenty and 30 years ago, these population arguments also involved the protection of Australia's green spaces and biodiversity, and the welfare of wildlife and wild vegetation, which were important restraints on further housing. These historic Australian values have been absolutely left out of recent mediatised and government 'discussion.' Such considerations are completely ignored in discussions of carbon emissions and climate change, as they have been gradually completely excluded from the vocabulary of official 'environmentalists' and 'planners.' Many now promote the nonsensical idea that building new cities with carbon-intensive concrete towers will solve our problems, when it will likely increase them by an order of magnitude.

As youtuber and housing crisis critic, Bikos Constantinos, wrote: Wow, the gaslighting when it comes to immigration and housing is off the charts. https://x.com/BikoKonstantin1/status/1899070320692330729

I thank my fellow Senators for their participation in a successful debate on my Motion in defence of free speech and peaceful freedom of association. I’m not sure if some understood how the Government’s "Misinformation and Disinformation Bill" (MAD for short) will limit the right to protest. As demonstrated during COVID, posts promoting protests were banned and organisers arrested. This Bill would allow the Government to ban posts that promote protests as a threat to public order, which is why my motion mentioned both free speech and the right to protest. In my speech, I drew attention to the bigger picture – that predatory foreign billionaires have bought Australia, and this Bill prevents us talking about it.

https://x.com/i/status/1835608169646796845

Democracy is deceased in the USA and Australia. Corporate Fascism now rules. Elections are a facade. Human population growth and concomitant rapid increase in capitalist advertising industry consumerism are the biggest threats to our survival as a species. Humans are now at a plague proportion. Global population growth at an insane eco destructive 90 million net per annum with an unsustainable 8 billion humans now on the planet ......is the biggest threat to wildlife, habitat, the Biosphere's fragile endangered bio diversity, complex life support systems. Most techno-fixes are an unnecessary tax payer expense.

Solution is:

1. Don't build roads, houses, anything, in high biodiverse habitat areas

2. End human population growth by encouraging low birth rates to below replacement and end all non humanitarian immigration... close borders

3. End the Capitalist corrupt growth-addicted eco-destructive so-called economy. Close down or nationalise the advertising industry

4. Progress to the Steady State Eco Socialist eco responsible, sustainable economy now. Join CASSE now.

1. Jurisdiction and venue challenges: Writs of habeas corpus typically need to be filed in the jurisdiction where the person is being detained. With Assange's case spanning multiple countries, there may have been challenges in determining the proper venue to file such a writ.
2. Timing and procedural issues: Habeas corpus writs have strict filing deadlines and procedural requirements. Assange's lawyers may have determined that the timing or other procedural factors made a habeas corpus petition less viable or advisable.
3. Strategic considerations: Assange's legal team may have decided that other legal avenues or arguments were more promising or appropriate for his specific circumstances, rather than pursuing a habeas corpus writ.
4. Uncertainty of success: Writs of habeas corpus can be difficult to obtain, especially in high-profile cases involving national security and extradition issues. Assange's lawyers may have evaluated the chances of success and determined other approaches were preferable.
5. Resource constraints: Mounting a robust habeas corpus challenge can be resource-intensive. Assange's legal team may have had to prioritize their efforts and resources across multiple fronts of his defense.