PAIN, POWER, AND THE PASSION

by Betty Luks
I was moved by Michael Novak's description of the effect the film The Passion of Christ had on him (The Australian 25th February 2003). He established his position by affirming, "For me, Jesus Christ is One with the Creator of the stars, sun and moon.... Architect of the whole universe, including the enormous cold silence of the galaxies… He is the Word in whom and with whom, and by whom were made all the things that have been made…"
He acknowledged that to devout Muslims and Jews "such assertions must reek of blasphemy, and that Holy One is too great to be imagined in human form, too transcendent to be spoken of except by indirection."
But, he penned: "I have never sat in the presence of a religious film with anything like the power of The Passion". I believe most Christians would relate to the impact such vivid depictions of Christ's sufferings had on Mr. Novak when he wrote: "At the end, I wanted to weep, to be silent and to commune with my God, on whom my sins had heaped such afflictions."

And his words on 'the overwhelming threatening presence of evil' bear consideration:
"And the sudden alarming appearance of the serpentine presence and power of evil. This drama goes far beyond one time, one place, one people; it is situated in the soul of each of us, where a war is being fought out".
These words would sound rather strange to those who have never contemplated the nature and power of evil. For many people today, evil has no existence.

As for the troubled relationships between Christians and Jews:
"One of the sins I was led to consciousness of during this screening is the sin of Christians against Jews. One could see forming here the historic separation between Christians and Jews…"
Mr. Novak, who holds the Jewett chair in philosophy and religion at the American Enterprise Institute, might like to expound on Christ's words to the leaders of that organised religion who were implacably opposed to Him, as recorded in the New Testament. Known today as Judaism, in the historical context of the New Testament, it was known as the Tradition of the Elders. It is quite educative to study the history behind the events depicted in the film. Not the 'pop versions' presented to today's church-goers, but some of the historical facts that have been pushed down the memory hole.

Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
This was the question Mr. Benjamin Freedman of New York City asked Catholic convert, Dr. David Goldstein LL.D. in 1954, when he expressed his concern at the suppression of historical facts which were helping to 'fudge' history. Later, the letter was published as a book: "Facts are Facts," and is widely available for those who want to investigate the assertions made.

Mr. Freedman quoted Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, the head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America… who in the foreword to his own work, "The Pharisees, the Sociological Background of Their Faith", page XXl stated: "…Judaism…Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Midieval Rabbinism, and Midieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name…the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered …"
Rather than blame for "the forming of the historic separation between Christians and Jews…" being laid at Christian's feet, it seems to me it was Jesus Christ who was responsible.
Both religions have a philosophy and from those philosophies stem policies. What would Mr. Novak say to the accusation of Jesus to the leaders of the Tradition of the Elders, which embodies the spirit of the Pharisees as recorded in the NT: "Ye do the deeds of your father… he is a liar, and the father of it."

LEADERSHIP MATTERS

The following is an excerpt from an address by Governor General, Major General Michael Jeffrey AC CVO MC, "Leadership Matters" Breakfast, 25th February, 2004. On the occasion of West Australian Newspaper Business Events program:

Leadership matters:
"In addressing leadership this morning, I've talked about its essential qualities, its practical application, its ethical base and how it's demonstrated in the community.
And - in citing examples of successful leadership - I've implicitly raised the question of who has been our greatest-ever leader. Views on this, of course, will differ. But - in reality - one person stands out.
This person came from extremely humble beginnings and had no personal possessions of any value. He had no adult home and certainly no palace. His time to impress lasted just three years.
But he had a deep faith and vision, and an extraordinary ability to inspire, unify and bring people along with him.
By demonstrating supreme moral and physical courage, he embodied a universal wisdom and creed that has transcended time, place, culture and language - such that his example continues to inspire many, many hundreds of millions - billions - of people around the world today.
That person, of course, is Jesus Christ - the greatest personification of true leadership the world has ever seen or will ever see.

PROMOTING PUBLICLY CREATED MONEY

A FINANCIAL SYSTEM AT THE SERVICE OF THE HUMAN PERSON

From Wallace Klinck, Canada:
While discussing the Jan/Feb issue of Michael the bi-monthly journal of the Louis Even Institute for Social Justice, and the Institutes' activities in promoting Social Credit in countries around the world, most recently in Poland, Mexico and Ecuador, reference is made accordingly to: "...a conference on Social Credit entitled, 'A financial system at the service of the human person,' (which) was organized in Zakopane, in the south of Poland, by the Catholic Action of the Archdiocese of Krakow. The organisers invited us to send representatives, so there were from Poland, Mr. Janusz Lewicki of Wroclaw, who is in charge of our Polish edition in that country, and Dr. Szczesny Gorski of Poznan, who writes books and gives lectures on Social Credit, and from Canada, Alain Pilote, who is in charge of the edition in English of Michael, and Mrs. Diane Boucher, of Quebec City, who holds a master's degree in computer science and another one in economics."

Last time I talked to her, I understood that she was working as part of a doctoral program on an enhanced version of her earlier computer model or simulation of a functioning Social Credit economy, and who was one of the main speakers at this conference.
The official aim of the conference was 'to explain in a synthetic way the Social Credit idea, and to emphasize the possibilities of its implementation in Poland.'

On December 4, four representatives spoke about Social Credit on Radio Maria in Torun.
Mr. Lewicki wrote to the Michael journal: "The Congress in Zakopane was a great success for Social Credit in Poland. There were 50 people from different areas in Poland: professors, doctors, economists, and even a lady who is a member of the Polish Parliament."

Wally Klinck suggests:
Anyone wishing to enquire about Diane Boucher and her computer simulation of Social Credit, etc.--or about the general activities of the Louis Even Institute--write, phone or fax the Institute as listed. I have never seen Mrs. Boucher's work but do know someone who visited her and was very impressed at the sophistication and detail of her research.
The Jan/Feb issue of Michael the bi-monthly journal of the Louis Even Institute for Social Justice discusses Diane Boucher and her work. (Maison Saint-Michel, 1101 Principale Street, Rougemont, P. Quebec, Canada, J0L 1M0--Tel. 450-469-2209 and Fax. 450-469-2601 in Rougemont and Tel. 514-856-5714 in Montreal).

FAIRY GOLD

STAKEHOLDERS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

In On Target, 20/2/04, we reprinted an article by Mr. Bevan O'Regan, "Stakeholders and Property Rights" which first appeared in OzNews November 2003. The article prompted Mr. Graham Strachan of Queensland to reply. For the record we want it known it was never our intention to embarrass Bevan, we hold him in high regard, but for the sake of open discussion and better understanding of the battle we are engaged in, we were pleased to receive Graham's response.

Dear 'On Target',
"I hate to disagree with Bevan O'Regan a man whom I admire. But if the battle for the retention of property rights in Australia is to be won, it will not be on the basis of misleading theories and home-made law. The arguments have to be factually and legally correct, or the farmer challenging the authorities will not only emerge defeated, but looking silly into the bargain, which tends to discredit the cause itself.
Mr. O'Regan claims that "The Green Movement have (sic) engineered, through the University of Melbourne, a plan that has made farmers cringe and believe that groups such as the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLAWC) and Departments of Natural Resources have somehow been given authority to challenge property owners of (sic) their property rights."
Mr O'Regan's theory may have some foundation in fact, who knows? But that is NOT the basis of what is happening. Bureaucrats in those departments HAVE been given authority to do those things, and the 'somehow' is legislation - legislation passed pursuant to written Agreements between federal, state, and local governments drawn up at meetings of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).
The legislation implements the Australian government's commitments under Agenda 21, an international instrument signed by Ros 'Whiteboard' Kelly on behalf of the Nation at the June 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. Agenda 21 is 800 pages long, consists of 40 chapters, and is a comprehensive programme for the planning and management of the economic and social development of the entire world during the twenty-first century.
Both the major political parties are committed to it. While a Labor government signed it, the Coalition government registered its commitment to its continued implementation at the Millennium Summit at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 8 September 2000. There, Prime Minister John Howard signed the Millennium Declaration, Article 22 of which states: "We reaffirm our support for the principles of sustainable development, including those set out in Agenda 21, agreed upon at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [Rio 1992]."

Agenda 21:
Information about Agenda 21 and the progress of its implementation by all levels of government in Australia is readily available on the Internet - the websites of COAG, ALGA, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Why Mr O'Regan would seek to lay the blame on the Green Movement and the University of Melbourne when the real culprits are Australian governments at all levels is a mystery.
Farmers reading and acting on Mr O'Regan's legal theories could well find themselves in more trouble than they bargained for. For example, he dismisses as 'utter rubbish' Section 61 of the Native Vegetation and Conservation Act 1997 (NVCA), which confers on government officers a statutory right of entry upon private property. "The law courts," he says, "are again dotted with case-law of would be and could be government agents failing to observe the Act of Trespass. A property owner is still King of his castle."
First of all there is no Act of Trespass, if by that he means a statute. As for the case law, perhaps he has in mind Plenty v. Dillon [1991] 171 CLR 635, which held that police can't legally force entry to serve a summons. But for virtually everything else they can, and the case made it clear that the common law right to exclude trespassers can be overridden by a statutory right of entry by government officials. Where that right exists a property owner is NOT still 'King of his castle'. Farmers following Mr O'Regan's advice and ordering government officers to 'move on' could well find themselves in court charged with obstructing government officials in the course of their duty.

Mr. O'Regan then claims there are 'property rights' protected by Schedule 4 of the NVCA. Schedule 4 is a very important clause, he says, because it states: "'The provision does not operate to effect in a manner prejudicial to any person the rights of that person existing before the date of the publication'. This means the government cannot shift the goal posts."
In fact the government can and does 'shift the goal posts', regardless of anything in Schedule 4 of the NVCA. Schedule 4 only refers to Regulations under the Act, not the Act itself, and its effect is not to entrench rights, but to protect whatever rights existed before a regulation comes into force. So far as the future is concerned there is nothing to stop the legislature not only 'shifting the goal-posts', but doing away with them altogether. Like it or not, that is the reality of the situation the farmers face.

When he goes looking for the source of 'property rights', Mr O'Regan claims to find them in a number of places, none of which will stand the test. First he states that "….Local Government with its planning laws and zoning laws guarantees that the purchaser of land is automatically given property rights. These rights in NSW were set in stone as far back as 1979 with the declaration of the 'Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979."
While the nature and extent of these 'property rights' that were 'automatically guaranteed' is not clear, one thing is certain: they were not 'set in stone'. What Local government giveth, it can taketh away (sic). Furthermore, Local government planning laws can readily be overridden - and are being - by State legislation designed to achieve 'sustainability' goals under Agenda 21.
If the State government enacts a Water Plan for an area - as it has in the Barron region of North Queensland - farmers will be told how much water they can pump from a bore on their land, regardless of any 'rights' they might claim to get under zoning laws. The Vegetation Management Act will tell them what they can do with natural vegetation on their properties, and if an area on their property is declared to be the habitat of an endangered species, they will be told what they can and can't do with that too. In fact each Local government throughout Australia either has, or will soon have, its own Local Agenda 21, and any inconsistent zoning laws will be changed to enable its implementation.

Confusing the issue further for farmers is the notion being promoted by certain groups that the common law contains 'God-given rights', including property rights, that can never be overridden by statute. The legal position is that statutes can, and routinely do override the common law, and indeed can replace it altogether as is gradually happening. It is well settled legal principle under the Doctrine of Legal Positivism which dominates Western jurisprudence, that if a statute evidences a clear intention to override or replace the common law, it cannot be struck down as being inconsistent with it. The statutory basis is to be found in the Imperial Acts Application Acts and the Statute of Westminister for the Federal Parliament; and the Australia Acts for the State Parliaments; see also Carnes v Essenberg & Ors [1999] QCA 339.

Mr. O'Regan again raises the Magna Carta, which at one time (I understand) he hoped might contain a 'right to farm'. He says, "State Planning in 1979 used a Royal Commission into Land Tenure as its basis for continuance of 'Property Rights'. From the pages of this Royal Commission one reads that by implication of Section 29 of the Magna Carta, the term 'existing use rights' and 'continuance of use' is the basis for the state's planning."
Well it would indeed take some 'implying'. First of all, neither of the phrases 'existing use rights' nor 'continuance of use' appears anywhere in the Magna Carta. And Section 29 reads: "No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce." Farmers no doubt will gain a good deal of comfort from that.
Secondly, while the Magna Carta might enjoy a special status in England where it forms part of the unwritten 'constitution', in Australia it has never been any different from any other English statute imported at the time of colonisation and can be overridden, modified or abolished altogether by the legislatures: Chia Gee v. Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649; Carnes v Essenberg & Ors [1999] QCA 339. Like it or not, that's the reality.

Thirdly, regardless of anything said or done in 1979, since the commitment of the Australian government to Agenda 21 in 1992, and the reafffirmation of that commitment in 2000, Agenda 21 and principles of 'sustainability' are now the basis of planning and land use law in Australia at Federal, State and Local government level.
Australia's farmers' property rights are definitely under threat, but farmers are not going to be assisted in defending those rights by misleading explanations as to who and what is behind it, and home-spun theories as to what the law is. Sorry Bevan,
Graham Strachan, Barrister. Email contact: bizbrief@iprimus.com.au
Author of the books 'Globalisation: Demise of the Australian Nation', and '22 Steps to Global Tyranny', (both available from League Book Services) and also the 'Water Report' on CD.

ARGENTINA'S GOVERNMENT BAULKS AT IMF

It Pays to Get Tough with IMF, by Mark Weisbrot 23rd February, 2004

"For the second time in less than six months, the government of Argentina stood up to the International Monetary Fund -- and the IMF backed down. Last week the Fund approved the latest installment of its lending to Argentina, after having failed in its efforts to get a better deal for Argentina's private creditors.
Argentina's debt default on $88 billion
This is unprecedented. The IMF is the most powerful lending institution in the world, and is used to having its way -- especially with a country that is not so big (38 million people) but is one of the Fund's largest debtors in the world. And it's not like Argentina can get easy credit elsewhere. The government is currently in default on $88 billion of debt, the biggest sovereign debt default in history.
Argentina has offered the private creditors a "haircut" -- or reduction -- of 75 percent on their debt. This might sound like a lot, but it would still leave Argentina with an enormous debt burden of more than 90 percent of GDP.
Argentina went through devastatingly hard times
To do better than this, the government of President Nestor Kirchner would have to run large primary (not counting interest) budget surpluses. This is exactly what the IMF wants from Argentina: squeeze its taxpayers and citizens and use any surplus due to long-awaited economic growth to pay off foreign creditors.
Kirchner had other ideas. From 1998 through 2002, Argentina suffered one of the most devastating depressions in the history of Latin America. It went from having the highest living standards in the region, to a country with the majority of people living below the poverty line.
When Kirchner was elected last May, he pledged not to "return to paying debt at the cost of hunger and exclusion of Argentines, generating more poverty and increasing social conflict."
Standard fare - deeper poverty and massive unemployment
IMF economists had plenty of loans to encourage the disastrous economic policies that led to the country's economic collapse. Chief among these was the "convertibility plan" that fixed Argentina's peso at one-to-one with the U.S. dollar. Together with trade and financial liberalisation, this helped destroy the country's manufacturing jobs, and set the stage for a series of financial crises in the late nineties.
And the Fund pushed its standard fare of high interest rates and budget cuts to deal with the crises as they unfolded, making matters worse.
But when the currency finally collapsed, and the financial system imploded at the end of 2001 -- when Argentina was flat on its back -- the IMF offered nothing. The country descended into deeper poverty and massive unemployment, and was left to recover on its own. This it finally did, growing 8.7 percent in 2003.
IMF -- Organiser of private creditors' cartel
The case of Argentina has enormous implications for our understanding of what the Fund actually does and does not do. Not only does it pay its clients to take economically destructive advice -- as it also did in Asia, Russia, Brazil, during the 1990s. It also fails to act as a "lender of last resort" - - the common understanding among policy makers of what the Fund's purpose is -- when such a lender is most urgently needed.
Furthermore, we can see more clearly than ever in the IMF's 60-year history its role as organizer of a creditors' cartel, as it openly tries to use its muscle on behalf of the private foreign creditors. Ironically, the U.S. Treasury Department, which has the dominant voice within the Fund, decided that the IMF should back down and approve the latest loan installment, in spite of Washington's bitterness over Argentina's treatment of its foreign private creditors.
Some of the European countries and Japan showed their anger by abstaining -- they never go so far as to vote against the U.S. -- because their constituents want a better deal on the debt. The European companies that own Argentina's privatised utilities also want a rate increase for Argentine consumers.
Apparently Washington decided after the Monterrey Summit in Mexico -- where Bush was the most unpopular president in the Americas -- that this was not a good time for a showdown with Argentina. There will be more confrontations in the months ahead, but with Argentina running a large trade surplus, it does not need any "help" from the IMF.
Indeed, some analysts -- including conservatives who believe in the "free" market -- are now questioning why the IMF (and the World Bank and other multi-lateral lenders) shouldn't share the losses of the private sector and take a haircut on their own loans. Now that would truly mark the end of an era.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net) in Washington, D.C.

DON'T FORGET THOSE SUBMISSIONS TO THE SENATE

THE TWILIGHT OF THE ELITES

by David Flint
This book challenges the policies promoted by the "elites" (those in positions of influence in the media and other high profile positions) and presents sensible and practical alternatives. The chapter headings give an outline of what David Flint has to say:- The Success Story of the Twentieth Century: The Australian Federation, The Elite Agenda and the Media, A Commonwealth without Borders, A Treaty for the Dissolution of Australia? Any Republic Whatever it Takes, An Elite Population Policy? Financing Their Agenda, Restoring the Federation. An excellent outline of traditional Australian values capable of inspiring a challenge to current and future "elite" policies. $30.00 posted within Australia.

THE BIG IDEA by C.H. Douglas: SPECIAL OFFER:
Single copy: $7.50 posted; FIVE copies $30.00 posted.
Most certainly a prophet to the English-speaking people wherever the streams of history have taken them. Clifford Hugh Douglas warned of the attacks on their culture and traditions, and from whence those attacks originated. First written over sixty years ago, in serial form, in The Social Crediter between January and May 1942, C.H. Douglas' The Big Idea accurately predicted just what has happened before our very eyes. This book must go out in its thousands.
We are making it available at a special price to those who want to give the book a wide circulation. It has proved to be a prophetic warning.
end for your copies today. All League Book Services.

ERIC CUMMINS TAPE NOW AVAILABLE FROM MAYO TAPE LIBRARY

CHANGE OF ADDRESS & CONTACT NUMBERS

INVERELL FORUM