FOR WHOM DO WE VOTE?

by Betty Luks
It is not unusual to receive requests from folk to advise them who would be a good choice for their vote for the House of Representatives and/or for the Senate in the looming federal elections. It is not our place to do that, and we would hope that each responsible voter had checked out for themselves the Senate candidates for their own State and House of Representative candidates in their own electorates. How can a responsible vote be made otherwise?

Don't we judge by their fruits?
As for those members of Parliament who are standing for re-election, surely the voters will judge by the results they can see all round them - whilst not forgetting what happened under Labor before the Coalition gained office.

What we can do is make known some of the minor Independents and/or minor party Candidates known to us who, we believe, would act as genuine representatives for their own State and/or Electorate.
No person or group has approached us to do this, in fact, there could be those who would prefer we didn't. But we do it for our readers.

We feel sure each of the following would also need what help you could give them - financial and otherwise.

Senate candidates
· Western Australia: Graeme Campbell. Contact number: Mobile 0418 925946
· South Australia: Nick Zenophon. Contact number: 1300 72 7909
· Queensland: Pauline Hanson. Contact number: Phone 07 32931444

Independent/Party candidates for House of Representatives
· Independent for the Murray (Victoria) Diane Teasdale. Contact number: 03 5831 3826
· Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
· One Nation
· Family First Party

SURRENDER AUSTRALIA?

by James Reed
It is worth recalling that John Howard's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council said in a report that the federal government should remove (the few remaining) immigration barriers to allow "the best" Chinese and Indian students to remain in Australia. (The Australian 14 June 2006, p.31)

Australia can ride "on the coat tails" of the magical, fantastic, exciting, booming Asian giants of India and China but only if universities can capture god-like Indian and Chinese students - and that requires producing world-class infrastructures. At present Australia does not attract the top Chinese and Indian students.
Well, why bother - if Australians have to build "world-class infrastructure" why not train our own students to do better than the Indian and Chinese students? How about a bit of pride in our own kind for a change!

What's that? Oh - I'm sorry - for a moment I forgot that "our government" is not a government for us, but a government to eliminate us, in serving the tyrannical orientalist, new world order.

SHORT ON LOGIC

by James Reed
We are so excited today! Here we are at the University of Melbourne attending a lecture by Professor Roger Short on reproductive biology.

And here is a summary of some of the topics covered:
"Peter Costello is a bloody idiot for talking up fertility. Australia will become an Indonesian colony, courtesy of 'climate change'.
A new world order will be led by China with its exciting one-child policy." ("Professor Rants About Doom Under PM Costello," The Australian 26/10/07 p.3)
The good professor also said that the US would be "consigned to the dustbin quicker than they might imagine," by Hispanic migration.

But wait! If it's so exciting to be ruled by China and Indonesia, how about the professor giving up his job to a Chinese or Indonesian academic?
If this is the sort of nonsense peddled at universities, the sooner universities are closed down and replaced by alternative training institutions, the better.

LET'S CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS - TREASON!

Peter Hitchens in The Mail on Sunday, United Kingdom. 4/11/2007
How will we be able to look our grandchildren in the face when they ask what did you do to stop Britain's taken over by a foreign power - and that includes even you Lady Thatcher This is too frightening and too important to ignore any longer. If we don't want to become a neglected outstation of the European Superstate, stripped of our nationhood, powerless to decide who lives here, controlled by laws we don't make and can't change, ruled by a government we cannot throw out, we have rather a short time in which to do something about it. You may think none of this matters to you, but the trouble is that it does, whether you think so or not.

The European Union is interested in you, your liberty and your money, even if you don't care about it. Its decisions affect your life, even if you don't realise they do. When I point out that local councils are changing rubbish collections because of EU laws, people don't believe me. They rightly think it ridiculous that such things should be affected by what is supposed to be a partnership. But they are.

A huge number of our laws have been drawn up in Brussels and hurried through Parliament without anybody really understanding what they were doing. A lot of us still don't even grasp why it is that we can no longer have nice blue British passports.
They also don't grasp why they have to queue for ages to get back into the country after a holiday. They aren't paying attention.
That passport you have isn't British. It's European. It gives you no more right to enter this country than a Lithuanian. The border you are crossing is the border of the EU, not Britain.

If the Government set up a special channel for UK passport holders it would be breaking EU law. There is no longer any such thing as a British passport. This has another grim meaning. We cannot control two thirds of the immigration now revolutionising this country because it comes from EU states. British people have a way of ignoring the Continent then finding out just in time that what happens there matters - Dunkirk being the most recent example of this complacent folly.
We probably won't get another Dunkirk to warn us. By the time it is clear to everyone what has happened, it will be far too late.

Look at the row we are having, a rather lukewarm row in my view, about the European Constitution, dressed up as the Treaty of Lisbon but still what it always was -the official foundation document of the European Superstate. At first it looks as if there are two sides, those for a referendum, and those against.
But what use would a referendum be? Who seriously believes that if Britain said 'No', the EU would say, 'Oh, sorry to have troubled you with our silly, over-ambitious idea. We'll give it up for good'.

No, they would threaten and suborn the British Government into holding the vote again. Or they would have yet another summit in which the thing would be adjusted a tiny bit and presented as if it were new. Or they would say: 'Very well then, if you don't like it why not leave?'

Gordon Brown might hold a referendum on the very subject. At this point we would badly need a major political figure to stand up and say: 'Yes please let's leave'. He could add: 'After all, if Norway and Switzerland can cope outside, we certainly can.
And I defy anyone to tell me one single way in which this country has benefited from its long entanglement with this horrible organisation.' But this will not happen.

Our entire political elite, in all parties, love the EU, not because it is good or the country, but because it is good for them. They love its regular service of gravy trains, carrying off failed Ministers off to a life of high salaries, big expenses and huge pensions, plus an almost total absence of responsibility. They don't mind at all that it deprives them of the power to do very much.
They are, for the most part, short of ideas and lazy, and happy to be able to pass the buck to Brussels while enjoying their pay and perks. Note, specially, the behaviour of the Tory Party. People sometimes ask why I call them 'useless'.

Well, here's an example. You get a lot of something called "Euroscepticism" from Tories. It's a stupid word and it describes a worthless thing. They act as if they are against the EU grabbing our power and money, and talk sternly about how they disapprove. But David Cameron, William Hague and Malcolm Rifkin are clear that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, that will be that.
In the (highly unlikely) event of them coming to power, they won't hold a referendum because, oh dear, it will be too late. In doing this, they are part of a great tradition.

Harold Macmillan first sought British entry to the Common Market in 1962.
Then Ted Heath succeeded in getting it, ramming our membership through Parliament with characteristic ruthlessness and sacrificing Britain's fisheries industry [and I would add space programme] for his ambition.
When in 1975, Harold Wilson held a referendum [3 years too late] on staying in, Margaret Thatcher campaigned vigorously for Britain to remain in the Market, sporting a jumper bearing flags of member states. When she came to office, she pushed through the Single European Act, a huge surrender of British vetoes. Then she was bludgeoned by Cabinet colleagues into entering the Exchange rate Mechanism.
By the end of her premiership, she had begun to realise what was at stake. But it was precisely because of this that the Tory Party then threw her out of office.
John Major then went on to browbeat his MPs into voting for the Maastricht Treaty. Yet another huge surrender of independence.
Mr Cameron represents a firm return to the Europhile days before Lady Thatcher's rebellion.
When it comes to action, the Tory party will continue to support the EU because they have been committed to it since the sixties, and cannot admit that it was a mistake. But they also recognise how unpopular it is, which is why they pretend to be hostile and invented ˜Euroscepticism" to console disgruntled voters. The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to unscramble.

My advice is not to be diverted by campaigns for a referendum that will get us nowhere. It is to consider very carefully, whether you will be able to look your children and grandchildren in the face when, 20 years hence, they ask: ˜What did you do to stop your country being taken over by a foreign power?" [and I would add not a very pleasant bunch of politicians either].

Hitchens promises: I shall continue, week by week, to suggest ways in which you might be able to ensure that you that they never need to ask that question.

THE DISEASE OF MARXISM

BIG WHITE TRUTH

by Brian Simpson
When the Rudd era of darkness dawns, expect a somewhat sleepy politically correct class of intellectuals to turn up the heat and pour out black-arm-band history books by the crate load, as happened in the Keating era. Hot from the UNSW Press is "Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia" by John Fitzgerald.

The argument is that the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act was racist and a product of Social Darwinism because the Chinese were committed to freedom, equality and "Australian values." The "big white lie" was that Australia needed to be "White" or maintain cultural continuity with Britain to maintain "Australian values."

So, if unlimited Chinese migration was permitted, we would have had freedom, equality and fraternal solidarity? Nonsense! We would have had a colony of China!

Free migration hasn't reinforced "Australian values," it has destroyed them. "Big White Lie" doesn't come to grips with realistic fears by other Asian nations about Chinese colonialism, being very much a book in the genre of "great White guilt."
Some months back Professor Andrew Fraser wrote an essay critiquing another "White Australia Guilt" book and I think his refutation also applies to this one.

The real "big White lie" is the common philosophical thread to all of these sorts of books: that race doesn't matter. Race does matter and it is races that make cultures and values, not the other way round.

LETTERS IN THE PRESS

PROPERTY OWNERS PAY ATTENTION!
Property Rights - trees are only large plants: Editor, Queensland Country Life, 8/11/07:
Sir:
Implementation of the Private Native Forestry Code of Practice is another example of a try-on to see if the public will react to more actions of a police state by appointed, not elected, DNR officers.
People need to understand that freehold land is free to the holder and is guaranteed by the sovereignty of the Crown. Trees that grow on your land are not sacred as a cow in India; they are the same as a lettuce plant, a tomato plant or a plant of wheat. Trees are bigger, that is all. Farmers who have mature trees to harvest should sharpen their saws and fell them. As I said, forestry is a permitted use under the classification of agriculture.
My advice to all owners of freehold land, including town blocks, to keep nosy DNR officers in their place, is to place a trespass notice on your gate to say:
"Entry by invitation only, with reference to the High Court decision of Dillon v Plenty in 1991."
Australia can well do without wet-behind-the-ears do-gooders who peddle uneducated tripe, only to scare honest landowners of their property rights.
Property rights to use land as an owner wishes were guaranteed at the day of purchase by each local council when the planning officer of that council issued a 149 certificate.
That 149 certificate in this case of forestry use legally gives the owner of freehold land the right to harvest the trees the same as a crop of tomatoes.
As a shire councillor for 25 consecutive years, I find it hard to believe that the councils have not, through the shires' association, stepped in and told the DNR to butt out of sovereign areas of which they have no jurisdiction.
- - Cr. Bevan O'Regan, Narrabri NSW.

Please note: Bevan O'Regan's DVD "Your Property Under Attack," ($20.00 posted) is a must viewing.
What the League of Rights has continually warned of has now come to pass. Political parties are not going to save you from Big Brother.
You must join with like-minded Australians and fight for your own rights! Your freehold property rights are under grave attack, and Bevan O'Regan explains why.

Party Preferences: The Advertiser, Adelaide 8/11/07
I refer to the report regarding Family First preferencing in New South Wales, (6/11/07). I would like to clarify that under the preferencing system, every party is required to preference all other political parties including those that do not share similar policies. The only decision to be made is in which order those preferences are directed to other parties.
I can therefore assure people that Family First directs its preferences to other, like-minded parties with similar policies first and then, after that, to parties where we have little in common.
The simple truth is that in SA, Family First has directed its preferences to Nick Xenophon first, ahead of all other realistic contenders.
In return, Mr. Xenophon has directed 50 per cent of his preferences to Family First.
In NSW, Family First gave our 7th and 8th preferences to the Liberty and Democracy Party.
- - Dennis Hood, MLC Adelaide.

What Humbug! The following appeared recently in the Sydney Morning Herald:
The past week clearly shows just how hypocritical the major political parties really are. When Peter Andren, the independent member for Calare, was in Parliament both parties considered him a problem and a troublemaker.
The Speaker never allowed him to ask questions in question time and his private members bills didn't see the light of day.
Now that he is dead, both sides applaud his free spirit and the clear thinking he brought to the House of Representatives.
- - Keith Hardie, Caringbah

LETTERS TO THE PRESS

Water Rights: Letters to the Editor, Queensland Country Life:
I write in reply to the Queensland Country Life article headed "Agforce pulls the plug", 21/6/07.
What a pathetic and gutless response by those producer funded organizations to open warfare against producers and their legitimate rights to earn a living from their farms.
Water meters have only one purpose which is the foundation for charging farmers (money) for farmers' own water, traditionally you can't sell water if you don't know (meter) how much water is used. Mr Kenny, raise your sights, we will not tolerate meters on any bore, or water source, including for irrigation.
Those who have been conned into installing meters already might be excused for thinking that was a reversible mistake. Refer to I & C.M. McLeod v Chief Executive NR&M heard in the Land Court on 25 March, 2003.
I can only recommend at minimum, censure, but more appropriately, departure from the mentioned organizations and joining something alternative that does work FOR producers.
The Qld Opposition are just as pathetic. Mr Turnbull clearly doesn't know his real law, yes of course landowners have an absolute right to stock and domestic water, as well as, without exception, an absolute right to irrigation water.
Likewise, and without bureaucratic fees and fines or water meters or any other illegal extortion tactics (currently employed by the water Gestapo).
And Mr Turnbull's closing remarks are a load of codswallop fully reflecting his impediment gained at university, lacking in practical experience and commonsense, as well as designed to fool those who are lacking in knowledge of real law.
Why am I not surprised?
- - Ian McLeod, Maryvale, Qld..

Increasing interest rates: To the Editor, Daily News, South Tweed Heads. 7/11/07
Can some great mathematician out there please explain to we simple folk exactly how, by increasing bank interest rates, inflation is lowered or curbed when the most inflationary aspect of our economy is bank interest?
Another puzzle is how higher interest rates will help the struggling farmers who are already drowning in debt to the banks but our 'leader' says that because of the drought it is reasonable that interest rates rise even further. What are we missing in these statements 'from on high'?
Banks spend countless millions to entice us to borrow from them and transfer nearly all that we owe to them by way of a mortgage and in return punch a few computer keys to create a line of credit out of thin air and then have the gall to charge more than ¼ per cent interest, which would give them ample income to pay their expenses and make a good profit.
Then to add insult to injury they alter the original contract with the borrower by progressively increasing their already exorbitant interest to the huge detriment of the borrower and their ears are deaf to the please of mercy from the distraught borrower.
While this is going on, our leaders are praising the good job the banks are doing to curb inflation because they are terrified to get out of favour with the banks, to whom they have handed supreme power over the nation.
- - Yours sincerely, Ted Paterson, Kingscliff NSW.