Danny Nalliah, False Prophet and Political Agitator

I mentioned Danny Nalliah in a previous post:

Over the weekend Danny Nalliah attended and gave his vocal support at a meeting celebrating the 10th anniversary of the infamous, very violent Cronulla race riots.

“Nalliah addressed the crowd before an Australian flag, leading them in a chant of “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie”. He then denounced multiculturalism, the media, the United Nations (“United Nonsense”) and the politically correct left.”


Ironically, the Sri Lankan born, dark-skinned Nalliah would have been a victim of the violence if he'd be in Cronulla ten years ago since those targeted in the attacks were anyone considered to have a "Moslem" or middle eastern appearance.

Nalliah is the proven, and unrepentant, false prophet who leading up to the 2007 Federal election prophesied that his party of choice, the Liberal-National coalition would be re-elected to Government, and that the victorious PM John Howard would hand over the reins he'd held for a decade to his Deputy, Peter Costello.

Nalliah had previously taken it upon himself to "anoint" Costello as God's chosen leader of Australia, in the manner of the prophet Samuel anointing David as King of Israel.

The election came, the Government changed, and John Howard not only lost the Prime Ministership, he lost his seat in parliament. Peter Costello subsequently resigned from politics.

Rather than confess to his error, Nalliah chose to blame the Australian church for not voting according to God's revealed will. Revealed of course through Nalliah's prophecy.

Therefore, to Nalliah, it was Australian Christians who failed – not the prophecy.

His response to the failure of his attempt to manipulate an election result was to establish his own political party: “Rise Up Australia”.


see Nalliah’s unrepentant response about his own false prophecy on his ministries website:


And his report of his involvement in the riot commemoration WAS here:
http://catchthefire.com.au/2015/12/cronulla-assignment-carried-out-by-the-the-grace-of-god/ but now seems to have been deleted from his site.

the man who owns Zondervan

The man who controls a significant amount of the world’s media, (including “Christian” publisher Zondervan) revealed more of his character than he perhaps intended.

“AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats,” Murdoch tweeted.

See here:



Burqa Ban?

The subject of burqas has been in the news again. In particular the possible security problems they would cause because they prevent identification of the wearer.

For a short time it was decided that burqa wearers would have their access to Parliament House restricted, but that idea seems to have been overturned after objections were voiced.

Now that the Parliament House issue has been resolved, I’m wondering whether I could visit there myself over the weekend. I have just the thing to wear…

parliament house attire

Disturbing? (What do you do part 2)

Is it only my impression or is there something disturbingly creepy about these statements from a commenter on the Revivalschool blog?

 “For me personally I go by what Jesus told me before He went back to heaven…” (He then quotes Acts 1)

“If He wants me to know any more than the basic things which He has already shared with me in Matthew 24…”

“Anything else the Lord wants to tell me I’m open for it – but I’m not focusing on it – It wasn’t the last instruction He gave me before He left planet earth…”


This commenter is the same person referred to here: https://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/what-do-you-do/

It’s My Blog and I’ll Rant If I Want To (1)

Subtitled: Tolerance seems to be a one way street.

Last week Australia had a visit from Geerts Wilders, a Dutch politician who came to speak about his fears related to Islam.

The first news report I saw of him showed Wilders braving a gauntlet of vocal (apparently non-moslem) protestors. These people were clearly taking advantage of the “freedom of speech” they were trying to deny to Wilders. My thought on seeing this crowd was “try exercising that right in Saudi Arabia”. Maybe if they also made a visit to an Islamic state to protest against the persecution of Christians I could take their anti-Wilders protest more seriously.

Then on Sunday, Wilder’s was interviewed by Andrew O’Keefe on Weekend Sunrise. O’Keefe tried his best to talk over his guest insisting Wilders was wrong about Islam – not an easy thing to get across considering Wilders has lived under close guard for around a decade because of death threats from “extremist” moslems.

O’Keefe also tried to quote the bible to show that the “Judeo-Christian tradition” was no less violent than that of Islam. Considering Wilders isn’t a Christian or a Jew I didn’t see the relevance. Neither do I see the point of quoting out of context sentences from the Bible (or the Koran) to prove the violent nature of a religion. Wouldn’t it be far more relevant to observe the nature of the present day societies that are allegedly founded on the religions in question (the nations that are governed by religious law) and see what they are like in practice?

This post is not intended as an endorsement of Wilders or his views.

Tired of the violence or ignoring accountability?

In today’s Daily Telegraph (Sydney Australia) Randa Abdel-Fattah described as a Muslim lawyer and commentator notes the irony of Muslims violently protesting against a film that depicts Muslims as being violent. She says:

 “Some Muslims, apparently seeking to repudiate a certain film’s claim that Muslims are violent, took to the streets and engaged in violent protests. It would be the stuff of a comedy skit if it weren’t so depressing.”

But in her article she also asks why moderate Muslims in general should always be required to speak out against what is described as a Muslim minority who have resorted to violence, whether in the recent protests or in the extreme events of September 11 2001.

She asks:

“When Anders Breivik massacred 77 people in Norway we did not expect Christians the world over to explain why his actions were a clear abomination of Christian teachings…”

I’m sure I can answer that accusation of double standards with two clear and obvious statements:

1) Breivik was not a Christian and few would describe him as one.

2) He was an individual acting as an individual – the recent violent protests by Muslims are going on across the world and are strongly supported by huge numbers. What actually happened in Sydney was mild in comparison to what is happening in nations with Muslim majority populations.

The reality is, people see what is happening around the world and even on our own doorstep and are made afraid by what they see. If Islam is genuinely the moderate religion that the writer of the Telegraph article implies, then THAT is why the moderate Muslim community ought to be keen to distance themselves from the violent displays that cause fear and suspicion.

The Telegraph article is here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/tired-of-the-violence-and-stupidity/story-e6frezz0-1226476804604

Freedom or persecution?

Protests around the world turned violent as Moslems demonstrated against a film they  found offensive.

In Australia the morning news shows have featured interviews with Moslem leaders trying to distance themselves and the greater Moslem community from the violence that marred an intended peaceful protest. The fact that a peaceful protest regarding an insult against their religion could even be considered shows the vast difference between western, nominally Christian, but mostly secular nations and those that come under Islamic law.

How free would Christians be to protest in Saudi Arabia? Is the true picture of Islam shown by the Moslem spokespeople featured on the morning news in a country where Islam is still a minor (but growing) faith? Or is it shown in those nations where Islam is dominant?

These links to the Open Doors site are interesting:


A list of top 50 countries where persecution of Christians is most intense: