JOHN OR KEVIN: WHICH ONE IS THE MOST INGRATIATING?

by James Reed
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia said in his address to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce in Melbourne (26 April 2007):
"I take this opportunity of re-committing my government to… a proper protection of the legitimate rights of the State and people of Israel.
I have come here… to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary commitment over generations that the Jewish community has made to the life and shaping of our nation."

Kevin, not to be outdone: Kevin Rudd, Federal Opposition Leader on 27 April 2007, in an address to the Labor Friends of Israel said:
"As you know, we in the Labor Party have been with Israel from the jump. From the beginning… And if you examined the diplomatic record and look at the intervention which Ben Chifley engaged in on the telephone with Atlee in London and with Truman in Washington, encouraging and urging and building a consensus around the important upcoming vote in the United Nations General Assembly for the establishment of the State of Israel, we played no small part." Source: Australia-Israel Review, June 2007 pp.26-27.

Yes folks! There is an election coming and the red carpet of propaganda is being rolled out.

PHILOSOPHY OF A ONE-WAY STREET

by Betty Luks
Atheist Richard Dawkins has caused quite a stir in some circles with his book: "The God Delusion", but what particularly interested me was an article in Quadrant (May 2007) "Dawkins and the Morality of the Bible" by David Hodgson, a judge of the NSW Supreme Court.
Mr Hodgson observed most of the published responses to Dawkins' book focussed on his atheism but gave little attention to "its clear and forceful criticism of the morality of aspects of major religions, including Christianity and Judaism."

He wrote: "Dawkins is certainly right in his assertion that religions should not be immune from rational criticism. We must be rational in making decisions as to what is right and what is wrong; and because beliefs on religious matters can have a strong bearing on those decisions, we must be rational in addressing religious questions, no less than in addressing any other questions that may be relevant to our conduct. It is important that any 'leap of faith' to religious belief be consistent with rationally held beliefs about the world and particularly about morality, and that any beliefs contrary to reasonable morality be rejected."

The judge agreed with Dawkins "that there are aspects of the stories and teachings of major religions that are immoral, and have the potential to encourage evil attitudes and actions." Not only that, we shouldn't "be deterred by considerations of respect for those religious beliefs from pointing this out and urging that it be recognised."

An example of a 'one-way street' philosophy
I well remember asking a reverend-politician a question along these lines. I was in the audience when this reverend-politician publicly attacked the League of Rights but defended the actions of hard-line Jews in Israel. It was some time ago so my memory is rather vague as to the context of his defence. I later asked him did he think God still saw the Jews as His 'chosen' even though they may continually break the Ten Commandments. His answer was a firm 'yes'.
How can a rational discussion take place about the killings and destruction in the Middle East with anyone with that mind-set?

And therein lies a major problem for people generally and religious leaders in particular, how do we distinguish between that which is good and that which is evil, and that which is 'lawful' (equity, fairness, just, right) and that which is 'legal' when considering the host of issues confronting us today?

The 'two-way street'
Whatever happened to: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Or: "Love your neighbour as yourself." (Agape: contains the meaning of social and moral).
It is a two-way relationship, of mutual love and co-operation. If there is ever going to be peace and security for the people of the Middle East - and elsewhere - shouldn't the actions, the judgements, be based on mutualism, a 'two-way street' philosophy?

THE USS LIBERTY AND AMERICA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL

Many Americans recently commemorated the day 40 years ago when America's 'ally' Israel attacked one of her ships and killed many of the sailors on board.

Justin Raimando, Antiwar.com wrote in a May column
"Remember the Liberty! When Israel attacks, the Pentagon retreats". He quoted the words of former Secretary of State Dean Rusk. "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. … Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
Even more outrageous was the cover-up by the Pentagon: - and the White House of Lyndon "Hey Hey LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?" Johnson.
Raimondo continues
According to USS Liberty officer David Lewis, who was below deck at the time of the attack: "[6th Rear Fleet Adm. Lawrence Geis] told me that since I was the senior Liberty survivor on board he wanted to tell me in confidence what had actually transpired. He told me that upon receipt of our SOS, aircraft were launched to come to our assistance, and then Washington was notified. He said that [Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara] had ordered that the aircraft be returned to the carrier, which was done. RADM Geis then said that he speculated that Washington may have suspected that the aircraft carried nuclear weapons so he put together another flight of conventional aircraft that had no capability of carrying nuclear weapons. These he launched to assist us and again notified Washington of his actions. Again McNamara ordered the aircraft recalled. He requested confirmation of the order, being unable to believe that Washington would let us sink. This time President Johnson ordered the recall with the comment that he did not care if every man drowned and the ship sank, but that he would not embarrass his allies."

President 'buried' the truth
Rather than embarrass his "allies," the president of the United States caved in to the Lobby and buried the truth about the death of American servicemen under a mountain of obfuscation and official silence.
As Tim Fischer, a former deputy prime minister of Australia and a former army officer, put it in The Age (26/5/2007):
"If Israel did deliberately attack the most powerful nation on Earth, it knows it can do so and get away with murder. Worse still, U.S. military personnel now know that if the truth is politically inconvenient, they and their legacy are expendable."

Our sons and our daughters, we are all expendable: Raimondo
"When it comes to the calculations of the Lobby, we are all expendable - that is the bitter lesson we are learning as a futile war in the Middle East not only rages on but threatens to expand beyond the borders of Iraq. Our "ally" Israel is an albatross hung 'round our necks'…

Former captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps assigned to the Liberty investigation, Ward Boston, has signed an affidavit stating unequivocally:
"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral [Isaac C.] Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack … was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received firsthand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate."

And that is the bitter truth
When it comes to the plans and ambitions of corrupt and venal leaders the sons and daughters of their nations, the cream of their own nation's youth, are expendable. It is not only Communists who believe that to lie to, to cheat, to steal, to kill is 'moral' if it advances 'the cause'.

WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?

From Robert Fisk's: Lies and outrages... would you believe it?
It was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran:

"When I was a schoolboy, I loved a column which regularly appeared in British papers called "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" In a single rectangular box filled with naively drawn illustrations, Ripley - Bob Ripley - would try to astonish his readers with amazing facts:

"Believe It or Not, in California, an entire museum is dedicated to candy dispensers ...
Believe It or Not, a County Kerry man possesses an orange that is 25 years old ...
Believe It or Not, a weather researcher had his ashes scattered on the eve of Hurricane Danielle 400 miles off the coast of Miama, Florida." Etc, etc, etc.

Incredibly, Ripley's column lives on, and there is even a collection of "Ripley Believe It or Not" museums in the United States.
The problem, of course, is that these are all extraordinary facts which will not offend anyone.

There are no suicide bombers in Ripley, no Israeli air strikes
("Believe It or Not, 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon"), no major casualty tolls
("Believe It or Not, up to 650,000 Iraqis died in the four years following the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq"). See what I mean? Just a bit too close to the bone (or bones).

1967 Arab-Israeli War
"But I was reminded of dear old Ripley when I was prowling through the articles marking the anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Memoirs there have been aplenty, but I think only the French press - in the shape of Le Monde Diplomatique - was prepared to confront a bit of "Believe It or Not". It recalled vividly - and shamefully - how the world's newspapers covered the story of Egypt's "aggression" against Israel.

In reality - Believe It or Not - it was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and ordered UN troops out of Sinai and Gaza following his vituperative threats to destroy Israel.

"The Egyptians attack Israel," France-Soir told its readers on 5 June 1967, a whopper so big that it later amended its headline to "It's Middle East War!". Quite so. Next day, the socialist Le Populaire headlined its story "Attacked on all sides, Israel resists victoriously". On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time".
Believe It or Not, the Second World War - which might be counted one of the greatest of all time, had ended only 22 years earlier.

Johnny Hallyday, France's undie-able pop star, sang for 50,000 French supporters of Israel - for whom solidarity was expressed in the French press by Serge Gainsbourg, Juliette Gréco, Yves Montand, Simone Signoret, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and François Mitterand. Believe It or Not - and you can believe it - Mitterand once received the coveted Francisque medal from Pétain's Vichy collaborationists.

It cannot work without oppression, repression and expulsions:
"Only the president of France, General de Gaulle, moved into political isolation by telling a press conference several months later that Israel "is organising, on the territories which it has taken, an occupation which cannot work without oppression, repression and expulsions - and if there appears resistance to this, it will in turn be called 'terrorism'".

This accurate prophecy earned reproof from the Nouvel Observateur - to the effect that "Gaullist France has no friends; it has only interests". And Believe It or Not, with the exception of one small Christian paper, there was in the entire French press one missing word: Palestinians."

A MUSSOLINI-TYPE FASCIST CORPORATE STATE? .... HUH?

The Australian League of Rights has in its possession a video of an Annual State Seminar with the theme "Our Christian Heritage at Risk," held nearly twenty years ago in Adelaide South Australia. The video features three speakers: Eric D. Butler, Jeremy W. Lee and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.

Mr. Downer's paper was titled: "Our Constitution is Under Attack". Downer, at the time, had just been appointed to a shadow minister's position in the Coalition Opposition, but for his unforgivable sin of speaking on a League platform, was swiftly kicked down stairs. He spoke of his rise and fall at the time. It is the same video Paul Keating used as a weapon to attack him in Parliament.

Now why do I bring this matter up at this time? Because Downer at the time presented an excellent defence of the Commonwealth Constitution and spoke out against the Labor centralists in Canberra who were pushing for a Mussolini-type Fascist Corporate State!

Now a Howard-type Neocon-Corporate-Fascist State?
Twenty years in politics can make all the difference in the world to the direction of political parties as a review of this video so dramatically reveals. Mr. Downer should be asked when did his philosophical beliefs change so dramatically and would it now be correct to refer to the present Liberal policies as those of a "Howard-type Neocon-Corporate-Fascist State"?

SPECIAL OFFER: A package of THREE VIDEOS for $35.00 posted. All relevant to what is happening in Australia today.

Alexander Downer "Our Christian Heritage at Risk"
Bevan O'Regan "Your Council the Target" ?
Eric D. Butler "The Fabian Idea Throughout History".

Send your order with cheque/money order to: Heritage Books, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley SA 5159

THE LATEST HOWARD-COSTELLO BUDGET IN CONTEXT

2006/07 : Personal Income Tax $117: Other Income Tax $185 : Indirect Taxes $32 : Total Taxation $220 = Total Budget Receipts $232b.

2007/08 : Personal Income Tax $119: Other Income Tax $198 : Indirect Taxes $32 : Total Taxation $231 = Total Budget Receipts $249b.

Anyone who can describe these Budgets as "tax-cutting" is a genius in inventive language, if not accuracy!

Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto"
Here is a classic example of Karl Marx's economic proposals in "The Communist Manifesto", wherein Marx advocated, among other things, "heavy progressive taxation".
It allows a Treasurer to create an illusion of tax-cuts in certain categories. But the process of inflation, added to wage and salary increases, simply lifts the earner into the next level of taxation. So tax receipts remain the same or slightly higher. In modern terms this is called "bracket-creep". In reality, it is pure Marxist theory.

With a combination of Marxist bracket-creep, the selling of public assets and the highest general levels of direct and indirect taxation in Australian history - plus brutally starving the States and Local Government of finance through its monopoly of the purse-strings - the Howard/Costello regime has created an illusion of insuperable prosperity.

Unspent taxation should be returned to taxpayers
It has eliminated its own federal debt, and has in its hands a $15 billion surplus, equivalent to $2,600 for every Australian household. It is unspent taxation which should be returned to taxpayers. Instead, the government believes it can spend this money more wisely than the people who earned it in the first place, and is quite prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars in election advertising to convince the public of their wisdom.
In reality, the country is governed by one of the laziest and most complacent group of politicians imaginable! In physical assets, Australia is the richest per capita nation in the world. Its mineral and energy exports are past belief! But it has built itself a current account deficit and a foreign debt that threatens our very existence as a sovereign nation.

Indebtedness up from 60% to 160% of household incomes
Under the eleven years of the Howard/Costello (Marxist) regime the indebtedness of Australians has tripled, from an average 60% of household income to an average 160% of household income.
Both mothers and fathers are forced into the workplace to pay their debts, raise a family and pay off a home.
Two million Australians live in poverty. Young Australians have virtually no hope of home ownership.
These are the real facts Australians should be told this election.

A READER ASKS: WHAT WERE THE CAE'S?

Thanks to a League friend for the following info...
The CAEs (Colleges of Advanced Education) were established under Menzies as a second layer in education between the universities (with degrees and higher degrees) on one hand and trade training organisations (apprenticeships, etc) on the other.
Courses offered were advanced technician training (called associate diplomas and roughly equivalent to half an engineer) up to Bachelor degree level. They were specifically set up to train good energetic school leavers who were not, perhaps, star intellectual performers.
That is, people who were going to be good professional performers without necessarily being a Nobel Laureate.

For that reason, class sizes were kept down (not more than 35), laboratories were extensive with lots of hands on work and lecturers were basic professionals (not necessarily with Ph.Ds.) with a requirement of at least 8 years of industrial experience. They were given high levels of autonomy. The CAEs were more or less run by the State with a fair bit of professional association oversight. That is, in engineering for example, the engineering departments were quite rigorously assessed by the Institution of Engineers, Australia, on a regular basis (it may have been every two or three years, my memory on this is hazy).

This set up worked extremely well to the point where the CAEs were attracting star students and graduates were snapped up by industry and the CAEs were perceived as a threat by universities. I might add that, the laboratories were also extremely successful and became largely self-funded.

The tactic then was, that if the CAEs could not be beaten, turn them into universities and centralise control.Thus QIT became QUT, NSWIT became NSWUT, etc. Like all universities, the requirement for Ph.Ds. became mandatory, the requirement for industrial experience largely removed. Because of centralisation, the laboratories largely lost their self--funding capability and were thus greatly diminished. Faculties such as Business and particularly Law ballooned. Class sizes went from 35 up to (in some cases) 200.

Produce graduates 'to sing' the Party song
This was all done by Labor Party idiots. Wayne Swan now the Opposition treasurer was one of those who led the charge.
The notion that the Labor Party is committed to education is a lie. All they want to do is produce people who will sing the party song, not good engineers, scientists and technicians who might actually serve society. --- (B.W. B.E., M.I.E.Aust, M.R.Ae.S.)

REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT ON 'LIFE SUPPORT'?

from David Flint's Opinion Column:

Even if the out-of touch republican politicians have not realized it yet, the press is gradually coming to the conclusion that the republican movement is in trouble. As the ABC and Fairfax commentator David Marr put it, the republican movement is "near comatose," a conclusion we reported in this column on 22 January, 2006.

And now, Lenore Taylor has come to a similar conclusion. Writing appropriately in The Queen's Birthday issue of The Australian Financial Review, 9-10 June, 2007, Ms. Taylor says that republicanism is "on life support.". Even a republican prime minister - Labor's Kevin Rudd or the Liberals' Peter Costello - "will struggle to revive the issue." Her comparison between the republican and constitutional monarchist organisations is telling.

She finds that even the most ardent republicans cannot pretend there is strong support for their cause. Moreover they are resigned to it not coming back until the end of this reign. She finds this to be "quite an admission given all the time they have spent telling us that it's all about our own identity, rather than about passing a judgement on the Queen or her offspring." Republicans, she says concede the upsurge in "overt patriotism" that has characterised the Howard years has not translated into support for a republic. She refers to love of our flag among the young. (Perhaps our youth know of the now surreptitious but once open republican agenda to change the flag.)

When Ms Taylor interviewed me, I referred her to polling which now indicates that among the young support for the republic was in free fall. The strongest indication of this came an in-depth youth poll undertaken by the West Australian which we reported on 6 September, 2006. That showed a collapse to 38% support for some vague undefined republic. Ms. Taylor's research confirms that support seems to have fallen away "most dramatically" among the young. Ms Taylor also refers to the then Senate majority's attempts to push republicanism in 2003 and 2004. (This involved republican senators, not content with the $150 million of taxpayers' hard earned funds already spent, shamefully throwing away even more of the taxpayers' money on that hopeless exercise, how to ram a republic down the throats of Australians. I hasten to add that this is my considered judgement not Ms. Taylor's.) But as Ms. Taylor says, senators from all parties "toiled" - yes, "toiled" - over a 200-page committee report wrestling with the issue of how Australia might move further down the road to a republic. They took submissions all over the country, and they debated all the issues at length. (As we reported here on 24 May 2004, those toiling senators were to be confronted in Perth by Janet Holmes à Court, La Passionara of the republican movement, who choked back tears when she recalled the 1999 referendum defeat.) The government, which sensibly regards the issue as settled by the 1999 landslide rejection of the republicans' preferred republic, has not "even deigned to respond" to the senators' wasteful exercise. On that, Ms. Taylor finds that "no one much seems to care, or even to have noticed."

Ms Taylor asks is this because, as I argued, that there is an almost universal lack of interest among the rank and file in republicanism? Or will it, "as republicans dearly want to believe, surge back into the headlines once the nation has a leader apt to take up the cause?" Ms Taylor says this raises two questions. First do republicans have such a leader? And even if they do, does that leader have a plan to overcome the previously fatal divisions within the republican movement? Her answers will depress republicans - both are in the negative. Peter Costello, one possible leader, last year went so far as to include "the" republic (as if they have a model) among the "five big issues" the nation would have to face over the coming years. In what was probably yet another attempt at brand differentiation from John Howard, he claimed that some sort of republic is where "we" are already in "our sympathies and in our imagination." Mr. Costello said that republicans needed a person to "provide a model capable of winning genuine public support." But what was a big issue last year seems to have shrunk, for he now tells Ms. Taylor that he thinks this is "a very low-order issue for Australians."…

Nor does Labor offer much hope. The Leader of HM's Opposition, Mr Rudd, does say a republic is an "important part of Australia's future," but then says it would not be a priority for Labor's first term in office. It would be dealt with "in due season." Nicola Roxon, a passionate republican who is on Labor's front bench, ominously told Ms. Taylor that the first term of a Rudd government would be used "to lay the groundwork for what could be done to bring about a republic in the future." What does this mean? Taxpayer funded republican propaganda?

Ms Roxon, like Peter Costello and the Liberal minister and former prominent republican Malcolm Turnbull, believes a "full debate on the issue is unlikely to be triggered until the Queen leaves the throne." They forget the Commonwealth and the world will then be plunged into sadness, to be followed by enormous interest and fascination as the Coronation approaches, and about the Sovereign and the new Heir. Nobody will be much interested in the attempts by a gaggle of republican politicians and others to revive a dead issue.

Enjoying the generous superannuation taxpayers provided
The chances are that at the time of the next Coronation, Ms. Roxon, Mr. Costello and Mr. Turnbull will be enjoying the generous superannuation the taxpayers provide for their class. Ms Taylor also draws an interesting comparison between the present vitality and viability of the republican and constitutional monarchist movements.

"At the height of the 1999 referendum, the republican movement occupied a large suite of offices in central Sydney, employing around 20 campaigners, (n)ow it has a small office in inner Canberra near some car yards, (and) just one part time member of staff."…
She says "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy have an office in the centre of Sydney, two full-time staff and 20,000 supporters on their books…."And he believes the ARM's policy is untenable. He says the first plebiscite "looks like asking people to cast a vote of no confidence in their constitution without knowing what might replace it" and the subsequent question of a new republican model raises even greater questions."

Ms. Taylor concludes: "Which leaves Australia on the verge of having a republican prime minister but still a very long way from having a republic." ...Incidentally, her article appeared under the superb headline: "Long Live Our Noble Queen." We concur.