THE 'PRIVATISATION' OF OUR WATER

by John Brett:
Readers of On Target need to direct their attention to an important book about the American people's experience of the 'privatising' (or corporatising) of their water supplies. The book is a must for all Australians so they can understand what they are in for (whichever political party gains power in the coming federal elections) unless they can forget their differences and take action!

The book is valued at $AUS42 but has a thousand dollars worth of information in it. It takes examples of "Globalisation of water" from about ten U.S. cities, where turning their city water problems over to corporations, ended in disaster after great rate hikes. Every lesson we need to learn is in this book.

The familiar part for League activists in the battle to save our water is how we must mobilise grass roots organisations to have any effect.
The other key is the local newspaper; it makes or breaks the campaign battle.

I see the first problem as being able to correctly define the "ownership" of water, which for a start would go something like this: Nobody owns fresh water, it is available to all as an essential for life and each person, or persons, or any organisation is the custodian of any fresh water as it passes through their safe custody.

Just as the Queen does not own the billions of dollars worth of property and art that has been donated to the nation over a thousand years. Her Majesty is the custodian, responsible to care for it, keep it in good condition and then pass it on to those who follow after. The national heritage is not to sell to help the poor and enrich the rich.

I purchased my copy of the book from Dymocks and these are the details:- Title is "Thirst," by Alan Snitow, Deborah Kaufman and Michael Fox, published by John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco - www.josseybass.com ISBN 978-0-7879-8458-8

THE SCAM IS WORKING - SYDNEY WATER BILLS TO RISE

We are to believe that when a utility, such as a Water utility, reduces its services to the public, the costs go up! Australians will be paying more, much more, for far less services, under the great and grand 'privatisation' scams than when their government authority provided a service.

Clare Masters of the Daily Telegraph reported, 18/9/07:
"Household water bills in Sydney are set to spike by $100 next year and will increase more with Sydney Water claiming they will be in the poor house without the price rise. Sydney Water executives claim the corporation is out of pocket more than $20 million due to water policing patrols from extended water restrictions and predict the cost of the desalination plant will place them further in the red.

The rises mean a 33 per cent increase to a typical household bill over the four years, rising from about $820 in 2007-08 to $920 in 2008-09 to $1095 in 2011-12.
A spokesman for Sydney Water yesterday told the Daily Telegraph without the extra funds the conglomerate (a group of diverse companies run as a single organisation…ed) will be forced to get a bank loan or go hat in hand to the NSW Treasury to ask for more money. The rises are part of Sydney Water's submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunals (IPART's) review.

"The other reason for the price rise is to improve Sydney Water's financial position. Due to the drought, among other things, water sales have been $380 million less than IPART projected," Sydney Water's managing director, Dr Kerry Schott said. Sydney Water's submission claims the "longest drought in 100 years" coupled with water saving schemes, increased operating costs and borrowings means that it is not sustainable without more price increases…"

Editor's note:
I have frequently heard that the cities take roughly 8 per cent of Australia's water supply. This leaves 92 per cent we don't know or hear about. Australia, I am told produces enough food to feed 80 million people. We are a population of only 20 million - give or take a couple of million.

I have a question:
How much of Australia's precious water is not only used in the growing of this food for 60 million people around the world, but how much of our precious water supply forms part of that exported food, wine, etc?
When did we lose sight of the fact that the system exists to serve the people not the people the system?
If we as a nation have provided ourselves with enough food, clothing and shelter why on earth are we allowing the system to force us to produce more and more to be exported - at our own cost and to our own detriment?

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATION BATTLE IN QUEENSLAND

John Brett continues
We have just finished e-mailing 160 Queensland Local Government Councils on the "Rule of Law", a specimen of one which is attached:

Subject: THE RULE OF LAW - TO ALL QUEENSLAND SHIRE COUNCILLORS:

Dear Sir or Madam,
Having contacted a number of Councils who had indicated resistance to forced amalgamation, there has been some very disconcerting feedback coming from Councillors who hold that it is now Law, and Council's must comply.
One of the cornerstones of Australia's Constitutional foundations is what is called "The Rule of Law", the alternative to which is "The Rule of Men". (Or women!)
The "Rule of Law" is simply man-made laws, that those living by them have collectively agreed to.
The "Rule of Men" is simply laws imposed on all without the accord or authority of those who have to abide by them.
The genius of Australia's founding Constitutional architects was how, for the first time in history, they successfully separated Power from Authority, which has delivered to Australia the long period of stability not enjoyed by any other nation. We stand as the most successful nation in history.
The Constitution allowed Power to be exercised by the elected executive, on the Authority of our Representatives in Parliament assembled. While Parliaments were given the power, AUTHORITY to use that power remained with the ELECTORS. (Through their 'Representative'.) While it is obvious to most, that this is not working as intended at Parliamentary level, it was working very well and efficiently at Local Government level.
In this case of forced amalgamation, the Premier did not take his authority from our representatives in Parliament assembled, he took his authority from a group of selected men, on a very high public salary, knowing as any normal person knows they would not deliver what they were not paid to deliver.
That infamous "Commission", mocks the "Rule Of Law" like it has never been mocked before and could be the precedent for worse offences to occur.
If Local Government cannot, by way of the ballot box stop this blatant abuse of the Rule of law, we don't deserve to retain this passport to freedom, given so generously by those who went before us.
I would like to remind Councillors that dictatorship, by definition, is when one person or group of persons, posses both Power and Authority in their custody and become the sole executors of both.
With this explanation, I hope your Council goes to the Authority of your Electors by way of the Ballot Box. Otherwise you stand condemned the same as the [now former] Premier, for abandoning the Rule of Law.
If you fail, we will go the same way as those European countries that also abandoned the Rule of Law, rendering our experience useless.
But worse is the handing of this failure to the next generation, a failure not given to us.
Please pass this on to any Councillor or Council whom you feel might act in our best interests.
- - Yours sincerely, John Brett, 37 Palmer Drive, Highfields Queensland 4352.

WHAT PETER GOERS WOULDN'T LET ANDREW BOLT SAY

I just happened to switch on to Peter Goers (ABC Radio, Adelaide) last Monday night when he had Andrew Bolt as his guest. The discussion which had become quite heated, was on 'global warming' and Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
Must admit I did enjoy the heated exchange. It seems Andrew Bolt, in his Herald Sun column had taken Gore to task for the downright untruths in his movie and the fact that he had vested financial interests in promoting 'global warming'.

Peter Goers didn't want to hear this - nor did he want his listeners to hear it - hence the heated exchange; Goers 'bagging' and 'gagging' Bolt and trying to lead the discussion away from that hot topic. Finally, Bolt hung up on Goers well before the end of the scheduled programme.

The following article which comes from Canada is along the same lines as Andrew Bolt's claims.

Global warming? Look at the numbers, by Lorne Gunter National Post 13/8/2007:
In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: It's been really hot lately -- abnormally hot -- so we all need to be afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true.

Temperature data error 'quietly' corrected by NASA:
Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is. McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe.

In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century. The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.
To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections. Still, the pro-warmers who dominate the Goddard Institute almost certainly recognized the impacts these changes would have on the global-warming debate, because they made no formal announcement of their recalculations.

Changes are minor but impact on rhetoric are huge:
In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge. The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Ever since the correction became a hot topic on blogs, the pro-warmers have tried to downplay its significance, insisting, for example, that the alterations merely amount to "very minor rearrangements in the various rankings."
It's true the changes aren't dramatic. But the optics are. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine the shrieking of the warmers if we had previously thought that hot years were scattered throughout the past 130 years, but after a correction the warmest years could be seen to be concentrated in the past decade.

They would insist the revised data proved their case. They would blitz every news organization and talk show. They would demand to be allowed to indoctrinate school children on the evils of cars and factories. So they shouldn't be permitted to brush aside this new data, which makes their claims harder to prove.
Ten years ago, warmers found a similarly small error in the temperature data collected by weather satellites. The satellites were a thorn in their sides because while the warmers were insisting the Earth was getting hotter, the satellites showed it was in fact cooling ever so slightly.

Then the warmers discovered that the scientists who maintained the orbiting thermometers had failed to account for orbital decay, the almost infinitesimally small downward drift of the "birds" every year. When the effects of drift were added into the observations, the cooling was found to be just 0.01 degree per decade rather than the 0.04 degrees previously claimed.
On this basis, the warmers now insisted then that even the satellites were somehow in agreement with their theory.

Of course, the current NASA changes are only for data collected in the United States. But available surface temperature readings cover only half the planet even today. Before the Second World War, they covered less than a quarter. So U.S. readings for a period that goes as far back as 1880 are among the most reliable there are. Perhaps we will have uncontrollable warming in the future, but it likely hasn't started yet.

KEVIN RUDD AND HIS PUSH FOR A REPUBLIC

from David Flint's Opinion Column:
"Republic referendum in 2010: shock London announcement: It has been announced - in London - that another referendum to turn Australia into a republic is to be held within three years, probably in 2010. The shock announcement was made on behalf of the Leader of HM's Loyal Australian Opposition, Mr. Kevin Rudd.

Mr.Rudd was described in the announcement not only as a republican, but for the first time, as a "staunch republican." (We are not sure whether this is a more radical form of republican than the hitherto preferred affectation, the "passionate " republican. We are also unaware when Mr. Rudd's republicanism was in fact staunched, but we suspect it was later than the Liberal Deputy Leader Mr. Costello's adoption of republicanism, probably as some form of brand differentiation from the Prime Minister he has been so keen to succeed.)

In a dramatic reversion to the "cultural cringe," Mr Rudd informed neither the Australian people nor the Australian media first, but chose to make the announcement in the respected London newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.
The report, by Nicholas Squires, said the "full weight" of the Rudd government will be thrown behind the issue. The thought of the combined weight of a phalanx of former union officials, party apparatchiks, and a retired rock singer all led by a "multi- millionaire who has spent almost his entire working life on the public payroll," as The Australian put it on 6 September 2007, being "thrown" at our Constitution is, frankly, quite awful.

The report also says that "millions of pounds" in political advertising were likely to be spent to persuade Australians of the merits of becoming a republic. Well, millions and millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money have already been spent on this. And the republicans had most of the media, most of the politicians and hordes of celebrities last time, and look where it got them.

If the referendum, which we can assure Mr. Rudd will be strongly opposed, is to be held in 2010, we assume that it is planned to coincide with the next federal election. If so, it will distract the public from the issues in the election. At this time it is difficult to tell whether a Rudd government, if one is elected this year, would or would not wish for such a distraction.

Although the report says Mr. Rudd has drawn up plans to achieve some sort of unknown republic, he has not yet informed Australians what those plans are and what sort of republic he is proposing.
Nor has Mr Costello, whom the Prime Minister predicts will succeed him if the Coalition wins in the coming federal election likely to be held this year. Mr Costello says Australia will "evolve in the direction, and will evolve in that direction when you have more agreement in relation to the method of selecting a president. Obviously, I want to be part of that."

The politicians seem determined to make a republic an issue in the election. On Channel 10's "Meet the Press" on 23 September 2007 Labor's shadow health minister Nicola Roxon declared that "the republic will be an issue that we will pursue passionately."
The pursuit may be "passionate", but Ms. Roxon did not say what sort of republic she meant. There was probably no need.
As we reported in this column on 9 June 2006, Ms. Roxon seems to prefer the constitution of East Timor to ours. She does not think much of older Australians and is informed about our youth. She said, and, remember, she aspires to be a Minister of the Crown:
"There are no new monarchists being born. If we bide our time they will all die off. I still think the biggest risk is Prince William meeting someone in an Australian pub." (Opinion Column 14 March 2006) And it is sometimes said we get the politicians we deserve."

WE ASK: WHAT TYPE OF REPUBLIC WOULD MR. RUDD LIKE?

What type of republic would Mr. Rudd like? As a socialist politician who spent a number of years as a bureaucrat in Commuist China, would he push for such a regime as ruled in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)? Or maybe be would prefer the current communist/capitalist type in power in The People's Republic of China?

International Financiers such as Jacob Schiff (Kuhn, Loeb & Company - Jacob Shiff's firm) helped finance the Russian Revolution and, not only helped to impose brutal communism on the peoples of that great land mass, but continued to give the ruling regime the economic and financial lifeblood to sustain it and keep it in power.

According to the White Russian General de Goulevitsh - "Czarism and the Revolution" - translated into English from the French : "Mr. Bahkmetiev, the late Russian Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us the Bolsheviks, after victory, transferred 600 million roubles in gold between the years 1918 and 1922 to Kuhn, Loeb & Company…"
Quoted in "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen, 1972. No doubt, a hefty profit was made here! There is now no pretence that (International) Capitalism and Communism are opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Mr. Rudd, should he end up Prime Minister of this once great federation of States, would have no more trouble working with International Capitalism and Communism than does Mr. Howard and the present Coalition. It is International Capitalism that wants Australia to become a republic.

It could be Mr. Rudd's vision for a republic might be more along the lines of one of the African States; maybe such as Zimbabwe under Marxist Robert Mugabe? Mugabe claims his Marxist 'economic reforms' are working and inflation - in that once humane, thriving, productive, multiracial little country called Rhodesia - has been brought down to 6000+ per cent!

The League carries a number of important books detailing the historical secret links between Big Business/Capitalism and Communism. They are a must read for the younger generation who haven't yet grasped the fact that their leaders are luring them further and further into the web of a One World tyrannical Order.

§ "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," by Gary Allen
§ "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution," by Antony Sutton
§ "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler," by Antony Sutton
§ "The Naked Capitalist," by W. Cleon Skousen

AT WHAT POINT WAS THE WAY LOST?

by Ian Wilson LL.B:
Abortion and Foetus Rights: a forgotten human right.
Liberals are allegedly big on human rights - for homosexuals, all types of minority groups - even ecosystems, but one group has no rights: foetuses. Abortion for the liberal is a woman's basic right because she has a right to her body.
But abortion involves killing an innocent being - if not a person, then at least a developing human. In partial death abortions, the abortionist delivers the baby's body but not the head. The head then has scissors rammed into it and the baby's brains are then sucked out. The dead baby is then delivered.

If this was done outside of the woman's body it would be murder. Fortunately on 18 April 2007 the US Supreme Court found that partial-birth abortion was designed to kill the baby and upheld the Constitutionality of the US Partial-Birth Abortion Act in the case of Gonzales v Carhart. This case stays a madness of judicial activism which began in January 1973 with Roe v Wade, a case which found a constitutional right to abortion.

What would the Founding Fathers of America think if they could look at America today. At what point was the way lost?

ABORTION LEADS TO REPLACEMENT OF POPULATION

by James Reed
Poland's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Roman Giertych has recently warned Europe that abortion is a "new form of barbarism" that threatens the survival of Europe: "A nation which kills its children will be settled by people who do not kill theirs."

"If we will not use all our power to strengthen the family, then as a continent there is not a future for us. We will be a continent settled by representatives of the Islamic world who care for the family."

He called for a serious discussion of the Christian foundation of morality that sustains Europe. Source: Endeavour Forum May 2007 p.14.

TAKE THAT EINSTEIN!

by Brian Simpson
The headline "Germans Challenge Einstein's Theory" (The Australian 28/8/07 p.3) could, with a little bit of imagination, almost be a World War II headline. Have the Germans really declared war on one whom the politically correct establishment regard as the greatest brain of all time, a Super-Jew?

Gunter Mintz and Alfons Stahlhofen of the University of Koblenz have claimed to have refuted Einstein's special theory of relativity, which has as one of its postulates that no material object can be propelled at the speed of light. They claim to have done this with microwave photons, which are packets of light.
The report which I read said that the physicists now believe that they may have breached a tenet of the theory and so have not really refuted it at all. Well, that will teach them to be naughty boys and dare challenge the great Einstein.

Riddle: Why did Einstein cross the road? Answer: He didn't: the road crossed him because it's all relative.

RELIGION AND VIOLENCE A DISSENTING VIEW

by Ian Wilson LL.B:
Many articles by James Reed, Brian Simpson, Peter Ewer and others to this publication, on Islamic issues and the "race suicide" of the West, seem to be based upon an assumption that religion, especially Islamic religion is a source of violence. Perhaps they are right. But Barney Zwartz ("So Violence is All Religion's Fault?" Think Again," The Age 17/6/06 p.9 Insight) questions this.

The division between the "religious" and the "secular" is itself artificial. So called "secular" beliefs such as nationalism have a religious aspect or may actually be religions. In any case "secular ideologies and institutions can be as absolutist, divisive or irrational".

Modern politics often shares all the essential features of religion. The myth about religious violence is thus incoherent. Nevertheless, as Zwartz shows, the myth is influential. He cites the example of Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason," where the threat of an Islamist bomb and a resulting global nuclear holocaust may only be met by the West imposing "benign dictatorships" upon such countries.
The book has apparently been endorsed by academics such as Alan Dershowitz and Peter Singer. Our own James Reed seems to follow this line. But it seems to me that the logical conclusion of this rejection of liberalism in the face of a threat of survival will be a loss of our fundamental freedoms in the process. I ask: what price must be paid for survival?

ZUNDEL - APPEAL DENIED

from Ingrid Rimland

On 12 September 2007, the German Bundesgerichtshof, a sort of appeal court, rubberstamped the treason against the German People - that they have absolutely no right to hear the truth about their history. The judgment stands as Judge Meinerzhagen pronounced it shamelessly while sentencing Ernst Zundel: "It is of absolutely no relevance whether the Holocaust happened or not. Denying it is a punishable offense. That is the only thing that matters to the Court." (Source: Berliner Tageszeitung, 2 Feb 2007)

Five years in PRISON for speaking the truth about the Holocaust as documented by forensic science! Let it be said that the defence submissions appealing the harsh Mannheim sentence consisted of more than 800 carefully crafted pages of legal arguments. The Bundesgerichtsamt's reply consisted of one-and-a-half pages of blah-blah!

CORRECTION