Homosexualising the Liberal Party

by NICK BURY – THE huge number of elected NSW Liberals who are now part of, or identify with, the aggressive LGBTQ movement is truly astonishing. 

Given that the percentage of LGBTQ Australians is about three to four per cent at most, such an imbalance among the elected makes little sense. 

While most Australians tolerate this small minority quite well, most voters are more concerned with cost of living pressures and the well-being of their families.

While the general populace tolerates this small minority quite well, most voters are more concerned with cost of living pressures and the well-being of their families – not the LGBTQ cause.

In fact, such fringe concerns are mainly the pre-occupation of wealthy voters, as evidenced by the successes achieved by inner-city Teals, who specialise in pandering to minority issues.


Voters in struggle street have been left with nowhere to turn, as both major Parties increasingly concentrate on appeasing the minority and the woke Left.

This is at the expense of bread and butter issues such as energy prices and education.

Most parents want their kids to learn functional life skills, such as how to read and write, not how homosexuals have sex.

In fact, the more money that governments borrow to throw at dysfunctional education programs, the further behind our kids’ literacy rates fall compared to the rest of the world.

Young life is precious, and the case for drag queens engaging with young children and reading them stories is certainly debatable.

Have Australian voters really considered the implications of a tiny demographic leading society down a path of embracing and glorifying this overly lauded agenda?

Haven’t grooming and coercive practices hurt our defenceless youth quite enough already?

Australia’s legal system bequeathed to us by our British founders, when properly practised, has served us well, and the words written above London’s Old Bailey entrance read: “Defend the Children of the Poor & Punish the Wrongdoer.”

One seemingly safe, wealthy Liberal seat after another has fallen over successive electoral cycles as incumbents have attempted to outdo the Teals with claimed zeal for all this woke, Left and homosexual.

When faced with such a terrible choice, confused voters have opted to vote for the real thing. Remarkably, Left Liberal MPs really think the answer is to move even further toward the woke cabal.

Contrastingly, WA Liberal MP Andrew Hastie and Queensland’s Phil Thompson have converted marginal seats into safe seats by concentrating on electors’ real needs, which is where electoral success is to be found.

Perhaps the best overseas example of this is the formerly swing State of Florida.

Recently re-elected Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has governed competently in the interests of his constituents.


He declared “Florida is the State where woke comes to die”. Unsurprisingly, he won re-election last year in a landslide.

Australia’s Liberal Party failures in WA and SA also corroborate this premise, as the further Left they swung the greater their respective electoral wipe-out was.

With both the WA and SA Liberals now under new management, they have recently returned to the core ideals espoused by Party founder Sir Robert Menzies.

While this will see them regain their competitiveness, the Libs in the two biggest States of NSW and Victoria have long since lost their way.

Argentina was a rich nation at the beginning of the 20th century. The currently flyblown Venezuela has both agriculture and oil.

Yet, somehow, voters don’t believe the same could happen in Australia is the socialists and Left are allowed to work the same magic here.

Former NSW Premier Mike Baird was an excellent economic manager, but the State’s current budgetary position bears little resemblance to what he bequeathed us.

PM Albanese and his administration are hopeless enough to enable the Libs to return to federal power next time, but then what’s the point if they govern little better!

Much better and more able types need to be pre-selected to stand for seats, otherwise our standard of living will nose dive, precipitated by higher and higher electricity prices.


The Liberal’s late superstar, Senator and former Major General Jim Molan, stopped every illegal boat from coming to Australia, saved thousands of lives and the government billions of dollars.

There was seemingly no end to his remarkable abilities and talents, yet when he nominated against pygmy opposition for Liberal senate pre-selection, the Party’s Left factions did all they could to oppose him.

Australia’s foremost foreign affairs writer Greg Sheridan was scathing in his assessment of these dysfunctional processes after Molan’s death.

Decent and able people who can help us are not being pre-selected, and Liberal Party members who love their country need to band together to save their Party.

The Party’s duty is to serve, not plunder the spoils of office.PC

Nick Bury

MAIN PHOTOGRAPH:  NSW Liberals at the 2023 Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras. (courtesy Senator Andrew Bragg)

11 thoughts on “Homosexualising the Liberal Party

  1. Poor article. The central point of the article is that there is a disproportionate number of Liberals politicians who are gay. Yes, there is not a single piece of evidence presented to back up this assertion – except to say it is a ‘huge number.’

    1. “Poor article. The central point of the article is that there is a disproportionate number of Liberals politicians who are gay. Yes, there is not a single piece of evidence presented to back up this assertion […]”

      The “liberal” party is full of sodomites, fellow travellers, and apologists for just about any type of immoral behaviour that you could imagine. You are either very, very thick or willfully blind, or perhaps both (maybe you should try for “liberal” party pre-selection, as you clearly tick the most important boxes).

  2. Melbourne has the Australian GP, The Australian Open Tennis Championship, Moomba etc, Sydney has the pride parade. Sadly, despite the beautiful harbour, I know which city I now prefer.

  3. On the matter of Liberal MPs who are openly homosexual, the electoral demise of Messrs Wilson and Zimmerman seems significant to this writer. Both MPs were men married to men. Both were defeated by women with children. Message?

  4. Frankly, what the Liberal Party do or don’t do has become of little interest to me now. I have written them off in toto.

  5. So who is the UK’s head of state, and who is the UK’s sovereign? Given they are two seperate roles, they must have two different people, correct?

    And just so we are clear, in your view the monarch’s appointed representative from Australia is equal in status to the UK’s head of state, yes? They are both peers and diplomatic equals and fellow heads of state, and neither is in anyway subordinate to the other, correct?

    Can you see where these despicable constitutional lies lead you?

    1. Quote:

      “Australia is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the head of State is a monarch, or sovereign, who is governed and bound by the Constitution.
      In centuries past, the monarch exercised direct political power and governed as a political and administrative figure. Absolute monarchs governed with few restraints on their power. Some monarchs claimed the divine right of kings, asserting that they were chosen by God to rule.
      By contrast, the modern British monarchy is above politics. The monarch is a figurehead who performs ceremonial functions, but does not exercise political power. This power resides in the Parliament.
      Australia’s Head of State is Britain’s King Charles. He is represented in Australia by the Governor-General.
      Whilst the Constitution gives the monarch and the Governor-General extensive powers, our political system has evolved into a liberal democracy in which Parliament and the Executive share power and the monarch acts on the advice of the government of the day.
      This is regarded as appropriate because both the monarch and the Governor-General are unelected. The monarch inherits the position through birth and the Governor-General is appointed by the government of the day.
      The appointment of the Governor-General is a good example of how a constitutional monarchy works. Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates that the Governor-General is appointed by the King, but for the last half century and more the appointment has been made by the Prime Minister of the day.”

  6. Imagine a monarchist complaining about the preferential treatment of a minority, whilst supporting the birthright of one selected individual from one selected family to reign over Australia for life.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Nick Bury

    1. Quote: “The King plays an important role under our system of government as King of Australia, as does the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative and as the embodiment of the Crown in Australia. These separate and distinct roles are carried out without detriment to our sovereignty as a nation, and without detriment to our independence. Republicans argue that the King is our Head of State and that the republic would give us an Australian as Head of State. Constitutional monarchists argue that the King is the Sovereign and that the Governor-General is the Head of State.

      The Australian Constitution does not contain the words “Head of State”, nor was the term discussed during the constitutional debates which resulted in the drafting of the Constitution and its subsequent approval by the Australian people. In the absence of a specific provision in the Constitution, we need to see who actually performs the duties of Head of State in order to determine who is the Head of State.

      As discussed in this paper, these duties are performed by the Governor-General, and the Sovereign’s only constitutional duty is to approve the Prime Minister’s recommendation of the person to be appointed Governor-General, or, if the need should ever arise, to approve the Prime Minister’s recommendation to terminate the appointment of a Governor-General. Although the Governor-General is the King’s representative for the purposes of exercising the prerogatives of the Crown in Australia, when he exercises his constitutional duties as head of the executive Government of Australia he does so in his own right and not as a delegate of the Queen.”

      1. You fools have not thought this through.

        The monarch’s appointed representative is inferior and subordinate to the monarch, who is also the UK’s head of state.

        So that means Australia’s (so-called) head of state is inferior and subordinate to the UK’s head of state…..which makes Australia ITSELF inferior and subordinate to the UK.

        THEIR head of state appoints OUR head of state.

        What a stagering insult.

        1. Constitution, constitutional laws, constitutional monarchy system, democratically elected governments by the people, highest court High Court of Australia.

          Insulting are they?

          Maybe for fools.


Comments are closed.