MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL ! from Jeremy Lee 2010

It has been wisely said that knowledge of the truth will set us free. All people can spend their own income in their own personal interests, and not be told what to do by bureaucrats, politicians and – above all – those who control the money system. How many will be destroyed before humanity discovers that freedom is a God-given gift, rather than a government-manipulated function, is the question that now faces all of us in the period ahead.

Despite the gravity of the situation and the obvious world crisis, this is a joyful time for all Christian believers. As Christmas approaches, true joy and courage are needed as never before. The Christmas message will ring louder across the planet over the next short period, and will triumph as the darkness deepens. Merry Christmas to all League members and supporters.  

Monckton’s Mexican Missive #3
Posted on December 9, 2010 by Anthony Watts
The abdication of the West

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Cancun, Mexico, Dec 9th, 2010

I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:

Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments.

Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer.

Babylon, Byzantium, the later Ottoman Empire, the formidable bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, the vast empire of 27,000 paper-shufflers at the European Union: add all of these together and multiply by 100 and you still do not reach the sheer size, cost, power and reach of these new subsidiaries of the Secretariat.

In addition to multiple new bureaucracies in every one of the 193 states parties to the Convention, there will be an Adaptation Framework Body, a Least Developed Countries’ Adaptation Planning Body, an Adaptation Committee, Regional Network Centers, an International Center to Enhance Adaptation Research, National Adaptation Institutions, a Body to Clarify Assumptins and Conditions in National Greenhouse-Gas Emission Reductions Pledges, a Negotiating Body for an Overall Level of Ambition for Aggregate Emission Reductions and Individual Targets, an Office to Revise Guidelines for National Communications, a Multilateral Communications Process Office, a Body for the Process to Develop Modalities and Guidelines for the Compliance Process, a Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by Developed Countries, a Body to Supervise the Process for Understanding Diversity of Mitigation Actions Submitted and Support Needed, a Body to Develop Modalities for the Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, an Office of International Consultation and Analysis; an Office to Conduct a Work Program for Development of Various Modalities and Guidelines; a network of Developing Countries’ National Forest Strategy Action Plan Offices; a network of National Forest Reference Emission Level And/Or Forest Reference Level Bodies; a network of National Forest Monitoring Systems; an Office of the Work Program on Agriculture to Enhance the Implementation of Article 4, Paragraph 1(c) of the Convention Taking Into Account Paragraph 31; one or more Mechanisms to Establish a Market-Based Approach to Enhance the Cost-Effectiveness Of And To Promote Mitigation Actions; a Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; a Work Program Office to Address the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; a Body to Review the Needs of Developing Countries for Financial Resources to Address Climate Change and Identify Options for Mobilization of Those Resources; a Fund in Addition to the Copenhagen Green Fund; an Interim Secretariat for the Design Phase of the New Fund; a New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism; a Body to Launch a Process to Further Define the Roles and Functions of the New Body to Assist the Conference of the Parties in Exercising its Functions with respect to the Financial Mechanism; a Technology Executive Committee; a Climate Technology Center and Network; a Network of National, Regional, Sectoral and International Technology Centers, Networks, Organization and Initiatives; Twinning Centers for Promotion of North-South, South-South and Triangular Partnerships with a View to Encouraging Co-operative Research and Development; an Expert Workshop on the Operational Modalities of the Technology Mechanism; an International Insurance Facility; a Work Program Body for Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues Relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; a Body to Implement a Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures; and a Body to Develop Modalities for the Operationalization of the Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures.

The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.

Continuous expansion: The verb “enhance”, in its various forms, occurs at least 28 times in the Chairman’s note, Similar verbs, such as “strengthen” and “extend”, and adjectives such as “scaled-up”, “new” and “additional”, are also frequently deployed, particularly in relation to funding at the expense of Western taxpayers. If all of the “enhancements” proposed in the note were carried out, the cost would comfortably exceed the annual $100 billion (or, for that matter, the 1.5% of GDP) that the note mentions as the cost to the West over the coming decade.

Intellectual property in inventions: Holders of patents, particularly in fields related to “global warming” and its mitigation, will be obliged to transfer the benefits of their inventiveness to developing countries without payment of royalties. This is nowhere explicitly stated in the Chairman’s note, but the transfer of technology is mentioned about 20 times in the draft, suggesting that the intention is still to carry out the explicit provision in the defunct Copenhagen Treaty draft of 15 September 2009 to this effect.

Insurance: The Secretariat proposes, in effect, to interfere so greatly in the operation of the worldwide insurance market that it will cease to be a free market, with the usual severely adverse consequences to everyone in that market.

The free market: The failed Copenhagen Treaty draft stipulated that the “government” that would be established would have the power to set the rules of all formerly free markets. There would be no such thing as free markets any more. In Cancun, the Chairman’s note merely says that various “market mechanisms” may be exploited by the Secretariat and by the parties to the Convention: but references to these “market mechanisms” are frequent enough to suggest that the intention remains to stamp out free markets worldwide.

Knowledge is power: The Chairman’s note contains numerous references to a multitude of new as well as existing obligations on nation states to provide information to the Secretariat, in a form and manner which it will dictate. The hand of the EU is very visible here.

It grabbed power from the member-states in four stages: first, acting merely as a secretariat to ensure stable supplies of coal and steel to rebuild Europe after the Second World War; then as a registry requiring member states to supply it with ever more information; then as a review body determining on the basis of the information supplied by the member states whether they were complying with their obligations on the ever-lengthier and more complex body of European treaties; and finally as the ultimate law-making authority, to which all elected parliaments, explicitly including the European “Parliament”, were and are subject. Under the Cancun propsoals, the Secretariat is following the path that the plague of EU officials here have no doubt eagerly advised it to follow. It is now taking numerous powers not merely to require information from nation states but to hold them to account for their supposed international obligations under the climate-change Convention on the basis of the information the nations are now to be compelled to supply.

Propaganda: The Chairman’s note contains several mentions of the notion that the peoples of the world need to be told more about climate change. Here, too, there is a parallel with the EU, which administers a propaganda fund of some $250 million a year purely to advertise its own wonderfulness to an increasingly sceptical population. The IPCC already spends millions every year with PR agencies, asking them to find new ways of making its blood-curdling message more widely understood and feared among ordinary people. The Secretariat already has the advantage of an uncritical, acquiescent, scientifically illiterate, economically innumerate and just plain dumb news media: now it will have a propaganda fund to play with as well.

Damage caused by The Process: At the insistence of sensible nation states such as the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, Canada, and Italy, the Cancun outcome acknowledges that The Process is causing, and will cause, considerable economic damage, delicately described in the Chairman’s note as “unintended side-effects of implementing climate-change response measures”. The solution? Consideration of the catastrophic economic consequences of the Secretariat’s heroically lunatic decisions will fall under the control of – yup – the Secretariat. Admire its sheer gall.

Damage to world trade: As the power, wealth and reach of the Secretariat grow, it finds itself rubbing uncomfortably up against other supranational organizations. In particular, the World Trade Organization has been getting antsy about the numerous aspects of the Secretariat’s proposals that constitute restrictions on international trade. At several points, the Chairman’s note expresses the “decision” – in fact, no more than an opinion and a questionable one at that – that the Secretariat’s policies are not restrictive of trade.

The Canute provision: The conference will reaffirm the decision of its predecessor in Copenhagen this time last year “to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”, just like that. In fact, temperature in central England, and by implication globally, rose 2.2 Celsius in the 40 years 1695-1735, as the Sun began to recover from its 11,400-year activity minimum, and rose again by 0.74 C in the 20th century. There has been no warming in the 21st century, but we are already well over 2 Celsius degrees above pre-industrial levels. The Canute provision, as some delegates have dubbed it (after the Danish king of early England who famously taught his courtiers the limitations of his power and, a fortiori, theirs when he set up his throne on the beach and commanded sea level not to rise, whereupon the tide came in as usual and wet the royal feet), shows the disconnect between The Process and reality.

Omissions: There are several highly-significant omissions, which jointly and severally establish that the central intent of The Process no longer has anything to do with the climate, if it ever had. The objective is greatly to empower and still more greatly to enrich the international classe politique at the expense of the peoples of the West, using the climate as a pretext, so as to copy the European Union by installing in perpetuity what some delegates here are calling “transnational perma-Socialism” beyond the reach or recall of any electorate. Here are the key omissions:

The science: The question whether any of this vast expansion of supranational power is scientifically necessary is not addressed. Instead, there is merely a pietistic affirmation of superstitious faith in the IPCC, where the conference will “recognize that deep cuts in global [greenhouse-gas] emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the [IPCC’s] Fourth Assessment Report.”
The economics: There is no assessment of the extent to which any of the proposed actions to mitigate “global warming” by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide or to adapt the world to its consequences will be cost-effective. Nor, tellingly, is there any direct comparison between mitigation and adaptation in their cost-effectiveness: indeed, the IPCC was carefully structured so that mitigation and adaptation are considered by entirely separate bureaucracies producing separate reports, making any meaningful comparison difficult. Though every economic analysis of this central economic question, other than that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, shows that mitigation is a pointless fatuity and that focused adaptation to the consequences of any “global warming” that may occur would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective, the Cancun conference outcome will continue to treat mitigation as being of equal economic utility with adaptation.
Termination: Contracts have termination clauses to say what happens when the agreement ends. Nothing better illustrates the intent to create a permanent world-government structure than the absence of any termination provisions whatsoever in the Cancun outcome. The Process, like diamonds, is forever.
Democracy: Forget government of the people, by the people, for the people. Forget the principle of “no taxation without representation” that led to the very foundation of the United States. The provisions for the democratic election of the new, all-powerful, legislating, tax-raising world-government Secretariat by the peoples of the world may be summarized in a single word: None.
How did this monstrous transfer of power from once-proud, once-sovereign, once-democratic nations to the corrupt, unelected Secretariat come about? The story begins with Sir Maurice Strong, an immensely wealthy UN bureaucrat from Canada who, a quarter of a century ago, established the IPCC as an intergovernmental, political body rather than as a scientific body precisely so that it could be maneuvered into assisting in the UN’s long-term aim, reiterated at a summit of senior UN officials this May by Ban Ki-Moon himself, of extinguishing national sovereignty and establishing a world government.

The Process began in earnest in 1988, when the IPCC was established. Shortly thereafter, on a June day in Washington DC deliberately chosen by Al Gore because it was unusually hot, his political ally and financial benefactor James Hansen appeared before a Congressional committee and put before it a wildly-exaggerated graph predicting global warming over the coming 20 or 30 years. Yet June 2008, the 20th anniversary of his testimony, was cooler globally than June 1988, and worldwide warming has happened at less than half the rate he predicted.

The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 allowed environmental groups and world “leaders” to grandstand together. From that summit emerged the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began holding annual conferences on “global warming”.

The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 committed its signatories to cut back their national CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. Most are not going to make it. The US Senate, with Al Gore as its president, voted 95-0 to reject any treaty such as Kyoto, which bound only the West while leaving developing nations such as China to emit carbon dioxide without constraint.

Very little progress had been made by the time of the Bali conference in 2007: but at that conference a “road-map” was constructed that was to lead to a binding international treaty in Copenhagen in 2009.

Just one problem with that. The US Constitution provides that, even if the President has signed a treaty, his signature is meaningless unless the treaty has been debated in the Senate, which must ratify it by the votes of at least 67 of the 100 Senators. It became clear to everyone, after the Obama administration failed to cajole or bully even 60 Senators into passing the Waxman/Markey cap-and-tax Bill, that no climate treaty would pass the Senate.

Worse, the Secretariat grossly overreached itself. Believing its own propaganda to the effect that none but a few vexatious, fossil-funded sceptics believed that “global warming” would be small enough to be harmless, it drafted and posted up on its website a 186-page draft Treaty of Copenhagen, proposing to turn itself into an unelected world government with unlimited powers to impose direct taxation on member nations without representation, recourse or recall, to interfere directly in the environmental policies of individual nations, and to sweep away all free markets worldwide, replacing them with itself as the sole rulemaker in every marketplace (treaty draft, annex 1, articles 36-38). Some quotations from the draft reveal the sheer ambition of the UN:

“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism. … The government will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.” (Copenhagen Treaty draft of September 15, 2009, para. 38).

The three central powers that the UN had hoped to grant itself under the guise of Saving The Planet from alleged climate catastrophe were as follows:

“Government”: This use of the word “government” is the first use of the term to describe a world government in any international treaty draft.

“Financial mechanism”: The “financial mechanism” was a delicate phrase to describe a new power of the UN to levy unlimited taxation directly on the peoples of its member states: taxation without representation, and on a global scale.

“Facilitative mechanism”: This mechanism would, for the first time, have given the UN he power directly to coerce and compel compliance on the part of its member states, by force if necessary. The Treaty draft describes it as –

“… a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”

In short, there was to be a New World Order, with a “government” having at its command a “financial mechanism” in the form of unlimited rights to tax the world’s citizen’s directly, and a “facilitative mechanism” that would bring the rules of all formerly free markets under the direct control of the new UN “government”, aided by an already-expanding series of bureaucracies.

At no point anywhere in the 186 pages of the Treaty draft do the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, or “vote” appear. As the EU has already demonstrated, the transfer of powers from sovereign democracies to supranational entities brings those democracies to an end. At the supranational level, in the UN, in the EU and in the proposed world government, decisions are not made by anyone whom we, the voters, have elected to make such decisions.

The exposure of the draft treaty in major international news media panicked the UN into abandoning the draft before the Copenhagen conference even began. Instead, the UN is now legislating crabwise, as the European Union does, with a series of successive annual agreements, the last of which was the Copenhagen Accord, each transferring more power and wealth from individual nations to its supranational bureaucracy. The latest of these agreements is being finalized here in Cancun.

The European Union, which has stealthily stamped out democracy over the past half-century by a series of treaties each transferring a little more power and wealth from elected hands in the member states to unelected hands in Brussels, has been advising the Secretariat on how to do the same on a global scale.

After the spectacular bloody nose the Secretariat got in Copenhagen, it was most anxious not to endure a second failure in Cancun. To this end, it obtained the agreement of the German government to host a monthly series of conferences in Bonn in the early part of 2010, some of which were open to outside observers and some were behind closed doors in a comfortable suburban palace, where the new way of legislating for the world – in secret – first came into use.

The Chinese regime, anxious to get a piece of the action, agreed to host an additional session in Tientsin a few weeks ago. The purpose of this near-perpetual international junketing – which the national delegates have greatly enjoyed at our expense – was to make sure that nearly all of the elements in the Cancun agreement were firmly in draft and agreed well before Cancun, so as to avoid what too many journalists have tediously and obviously described as a “Mexican stand-off”.

It is precisely because of all this massive and expensive preparation that the note by the Chairman, whose main points are summarized above, may well reflect what is finally decided and announced here in a couple of days’ time. The Chairman is not simply guessing: this Note reflects what the Secretariat now confidently expects to get away with.

However, following the Copenhagen disaster, our grim future New Masters are taking no chances. They persuaded their friends in the mainstream news media, who cannot now easily back out of their original declarations of blind faith in the Church of “Global Warming” and are as anxious not to lose face as the Secretariat is, to put it about that at Cancun this year and even at Durban next year very little of substance will occur.

The intention is that, after not one but two international climate conferences, the second of them in Rio in 2012 on the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit that began it all, the Secretariat will have become so wealthy and will have accreted so much power to itself that no one – not even the US Senate – will dare to resist ratifying the Treaty of Rio that brings democracy to an end worldwide and fulfils Lord Mandelson’s recent statement that “we are now living in a post-democratic age.”

Over my dead body. The people know best what is best for the people. The governing class no doubt knows what is best for the governing class, but does not necessarily know what is best for the people, and must always be kept in check by the ballot-box.

If we are to have a world government at all (and, as the science of “global warming” alarm continues to collapse, the current pretext for world domination by a privileged few is wearing more than a little thin), then it is essential that the world government should be an elected government, and that, as Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution makes plain when it grants “All legislative power” to the elected Congress and to the now-elected Senate, none shall make laws for the world or impose taxes upon the world except those whom the people of the world have elected by universal secret ballot.

How can we, the people, defeat the Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretense at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.

What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.

JUSTICE V LAW

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
What is Law? What is justice? These questions have been discussed by philosophers since the time of Plato and admit no easy answer. Perhaps there is no answer. Many conservatives in the so-called “natural law” tradition believe that law must be essentially linked to morality for law to be “law” and not just arbitrary rules. That brings in the issue of justice because justice, whatever it is, is morally right law. If morality is viewed subjectively, then on this view, law is in trouble because judges would not place the law above their own politics. However the moral assessment of laws is not supposed to filter into legal decisions. Contrary to English judge Alfred Denning who thought that “The proper role of a judge is to do justice between the parties before him,” the proper role of the judge is to judge according to law and not moral and political convictions, as was done in cases like Mabo. The role of morality is to impact on politicians formulating law so that good laws are created. Good laws should be judged by natural law standards as promoting human well being and flourishing. Judges then are to be administrators, not moralists, deciding cases on legal principles not morality or philosophy. The search for “justice” has led to too much common law being flawed by moralism. This is self-defeating because by eroding the standard of law’s objectivity, higher-level injustice flows.  

-------------------

RULE OF LAW: Open letter: To Julia Gillard, re Julian Assange

We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.

The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.

We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we thought it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names. If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html

Dear Prime Minister,….
We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.
William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”
“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.
“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.
Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.
And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).
In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.
Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.
As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference. We look forward to your response.

BANKERS’ DELIGHT – GLOBAL DEBT MANAGEMENT

by Jeremy Lee
The latest bank profits of the Big Four, as announced on Melbourne Cup Day, exceed $1000 for every living Australian - man, woman and child. All banks have now raised their interest rates above the Reserve Bank target. Muted criticism has been given by the Shadow Treasurer, but no State or Federal politician has dared to criticise the banking monopoly of credit creation.
Both the previous Liberal government and the ALP have boasted of the Australian economy. They have reduced government debt, but they have simply transferred that debt on to ordinary people.
Household debt in Australia is now higher than that in the United States. Twenty percent of the population lives below the poverty level, with 100,000 homeless. There is a severe housing shortage, while at the same time we are admitting illegal would-be immigrants on to the mainland of Australia. Charity no longer begins at home.

The debt crisis in the United States is so large that the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) is now printing another $US650 billion. This is a further addition to the debt system, to be paid in the future. Unemployment is at 10%, the housing crisis is a disaster and the President has lost control of the budget.

The European debt crisis has spread like a contagion from one country to another, threatening the Euro. First to crash was Iceland, followed by Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. England has introduced the tightest squeeze since WW2, with millions suffering, widespread unemployment and riots among young people. France is also experiencing widespread riots. Even the bureaucracy is being squeezed, but there has been no drop in parliamentary salaries.

The gap between rich and poor throughout the world is widening as never before, while bankers, followed by politicians, are among the elite. The global volume of money increases dramatically year by year. What was once millions is now billions and trillions – all of it as debt. Full employment used to be a guarantee of security. A single wage supported a family, now a double wage hardly makes ends meet.
The young have no childhood and are increasingly trained for future employment.
Creative leisure no longer exists. Power is centralized into ever-expanding blocks which are played against each other. Evangelical Christianity has little to say about the distribution of wealth, and never challenges political power, however great the disparity.
Elected democratic government has long since been replaced by party politics and welfare bribery. The great majority of electors have been disenfranchised, and an independent member has been replaced by international monopoly control.

Propaganda is now so prevalent that people can no longer detect what is true and what false. The “Wikileaks” revelations have exposed the lies that are told, but few know what is true and what is false. The level of welfare has turned free people into slaves, voting for handouts that seldom arrive.
Decent men and women no longer enter politics, leaving the field for third-raters and power-grabbers. Few people would vote in elections at either State or Federal level were voting not compulsory.
The debt and political crisis in western nations is now so grave that a breakdown is inevitable. Until power is returned to ordinary people and taken away from welfare manipulators a point of return is approaching. Constitutions are no longer observed, and the law no longer trusted. Anarchy, followed by violence and lawlessness will finally be replaced by conflict and a call for dictatorship. When people are frightened enough they will call for a Caesar, a Stalin, a Hitler or a Mao Tse Tung.

There are signs of a great evangelical awakening in many parts of the world, but so far there seems to be no challenge to “mammon” or the monopoly over money and credit. There is clear evidence that all people in the industrialized western world could enjoy an independent income. The elimination of poverty for all people has been possible for at least a hundred years, whether or not they are believers.
First of all, the power to manipulate incomes must be removed from those in power. The role of government is to “keep the peace” and defend the nation against war. The freedom of individuals and the choices they make must be taken out of the hands of those who control the money system and use it for their own ends. The role of government must be confined to defending the liberty of young and old. Listen to Jeremy here...

Watch this MEP give fellow parliamentarians a good dressing down. Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?... Turn to:

THE LATEST ‘GEM’ FROM CANCUN: FORCED-RELOCATION OF POPULATIONS

Source: Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com Tuesday, November 30, 2010 Not content with merely pushing world war-style rationing and the complete de-industrialization of the planet, global warming alarmists meeting in Cancun Mexico this week will propose the forced relocation of entire populations in the name of offsetting man made climate change. The shocking proposal appears on page 6 of the executive summary of the Special Climate Change Program.

As a means of mitigating climate change, encouraging sustainability and reducing CO2 emissions, the document calls for, “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.”

Relocation of populations has historically been achieved by force at the hands of an authoritarian ruling elite, to the “substantial harm” of the target settlement, with loss of private property and harrowing social dislocation, and in some cases genocide, being three primary outcomes. The most odious example in recent history was of course the forced transfer of Jews from wartime Germany by the Nazis.

Political scientist Norman Finkelstein notes that forced relocations are often justified by the ruling authorities as a necessary solution to a drastic crisis, which is precisely the rhetoric used in the Cancun document. The proposal by climate alarmists to forcibly relocate communities against their will is yet another revealing indication that the green movement has dispensed with all pretence of liberal legitimacy and has openly bared its teeth as an authoritarian and despotic undertaking….

Leading climate skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who is in attendance at Cancun over the next ten days, appeared on the Alex Jones Show, to warn that globalists are attempting to play down the significance of the summit in an effort to impose world government treaties by stealth. Monckton stated that the alarmists were proposing “lunatic measures” like forced resettlement of populations and concentration camps, as well as food rationing in the west, all concepts familiar to socialists and communist enforcers. He said that the ideas were deliberately extreme in order to make what actually comes out of the conference look reasonable and rational so that “we almost breathe a sigh of relief when the world government takes over.” Watch on Youtube:  

Monckton’s Mexican Missive: “Nopenhagen to Yes We Cancun”
“Thanks to Wikileaks, everyone here in the Mañana Republic of Mexico now knows just how much bullying and arm-twisting the administration of Barack Obama in the United States applied to various countries around the world so that they would (and did) sign up to the Copenhagen climate accord. Without that pressure, nothing at all would have happened at Copenhagen this time last year, and “the Process” – the interminable round of flatulent annual climate conferences in exotic locations at taxpayers’ expense – would have tipped into the gulch forever…” Full text here:

LESS–THAN–HONOURABLE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSITY

by James Reed
I have been critical of relativists, sociology of knowledgers and the like. I was sent a useful article by an anonymous admirer written by leading social constructionist Steve Fuller, “Can Knowledge Have a Happy Ending?” Social Epistemology, Vol..12, 1998, pp89-94. Fuller says that the autonomous pursuit of knowledge was an “emergent feature of the university, an institution of uniquely European provenance, whose legal autonomy reflected the general breakdown of large-scale political sovereignty during the Middle Ages. From a legal standpoint, universities were constituted on the same terms as the craft guilds, which meant that those belonging to a university had to demonstrate some useful manual skill.

Writing turned out to be the ticket, as it enabled the early dons to provide accounting services for the invariably illiterate local landholders. The dons were also encouraged to produce texts, typically commentaries on earlier texts, sometimes used in teaching (by 'masters') and other times in examination (of students). The result was a bureaucrat's sense of productivity (i.e. the generation and movement of texts) that over the centuries has become increasingly mediated, so that its bureaucratic character is now almost forgotten by its practitioners. For example, the steps one needs to take from one's first encounter with an inspirational text to the publication of one's own text includes the acquisition of skills, funds and, not least, the time and space to deploy those newly acquired skills and funds in the activity loosely known as 'research'.”

He continues his historical deconstruction of the university:
The emergent nation-states of Europe struck a Faustian bargain with the medieval university. They would continue supporting the university's autonomous status as long as its members 'professionalized'. In that way, what we now call 'academic freedom' was made into a state-protected monopoly that effectively kept the dons from criticizing the state as they increasingly focused on policing each other through what is now called 'peer review'. This, in turn, made it easier for the state to appropriate whatever knowledge claims survived the criticism and use it for a variety of administrative purposes, in some of which the academics themselves directly participated, e.g. as political advisors, dispensers of credentials. I invoke this smattering of history to underscore a point that Delanty does not stress sufficiently, namely, that the nationalisation of the university system transformed the social function of academics from that of monks to priests. It has been possible for Platonists like Polanyi to portray the pursuit of knowledge as a 'pure', subjective, and even cult-like activity, because he regarded academics as akin to monks. This may have captured their social function before the rise of the state, but not afterward.

When the universities began, academics dedicated themselves exclusively to the cultivation of the intellectual virtues, which included deciding who was mentally fit to undertake a disciplined course of study. However, they did not minister to lay people's souls. Priests, of course, were invested with just such a pastoral mission, which immediately expanded their sphere of accountability. They had to confront not only the Creator and their own colleagues, but also a lay constituency. This distinction between the monastic and priestly roles of academics, while easily ignored in the early days of the national university systems, has become more pronounced as the 'flock' has come to be dominated by some rather large wolves in sheep's clothing, especially funding agencies supported by either the taxpayer or a private business concern." Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that increasingly a wedge has been driven between the alleged universality of the knowledge produced in such settings and the multiply interested knowledge producers themselves. '”

As I read this, historically the universities have always been concerned with serving the self-interests of their elite priesthood, and to hell with the bulk of ordinary humanity, whose hard work fed them. As I see it these monopolisers of knowledge are in the same moral position of the manipulators of finance : moral corruption born from the abuse of power. That of course is not Fuller’s conclusion, but as I see it, from my own relativistic frame of reference, that is what I conclude.

Surely if the real aim of social constructivism is to dethrone knowledge, then those who pretend to be the kings of the mountain of knowledge must also be dethroned.  

MERRY CHRISTMAS-TREE BOMB !

by James Reed
Mohamed Mohamud, a 17-year old US citizen who was born in Somalia, tried to detonate what he mistakenly thought was an explosive devise parked in a van, near a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland Oregan. The bomb was a fake, provided by the FBI in a ‘sting’ operation. But Mohamed Mohamud was keen to blow up the area especially when he was told by undercover FBI agents posing as terrorists that the blast would kill many children. That he welcomed.
Various conservative and nationalist websites have commented on the fact that the mainstream media did not report that the terrorist was a Muslim. Really? With a name like “Mohamed Mohamud” was that necessary? Did anyone think he was a Buddhist monk?  

THE BOERS’ LAST STAND

by Brian Simpson
The UK Mirror (8/11/2010) reports on the village of Orania, South Africa, where 800 Afrikaners have done what should have been done a century ago and established an all-white enclave. This act of racial resistance has been made in a country where 95 per cent of the population is non-white : the ultimate liberal liberal cosmopolitan’s dream society.

Even the conservative press will occasionally admit that South Africa is hovering on the eve of destruction. The Afrikaners who set up the village of Orania believe that South Africa has 5-10 years before complete social collapse. Hence they have constructed a society based on traditional values, where many people do not have TVs, and where guns and manhood are valued. Assuming South Africa’s present state of decay continues, my guess is that their chances of survival are good. Them today : us tomorrow.

Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/11/08/apartheid-s-last-stand-inside-south-african-village-orania-where-800-afrikaners-cling-to-all-whites-culture-115875-22700829/  

THE BURNING BUSH

Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli who has renounced Judaism, describing himself as a humanist now resides in the UK and often has articles of interest on his website. His report on the recent terrible fires in Israel are written from a thought-provoking slant. Hr writes: “In spite of its nuclear power, its criminal army, the occupation, the Mossad and its lobbies all over the world, Israel seems to be very vulnerable. It is devastatingly alienated from the land it claims to own. Like the pine tree, Israel and the Israeli are foreign in the region”.

Why the pine tree? Well that piece of news reveals the saddest story of all:
Atzmon continues, “As I am writing these lines, Israeli fire fighting crews are battling with the flames. They also express no hope of controlling the fire soon. "We lost all control of the fire," said the Haifa Fire fighting services spokesman. "There aren't enough fire fighting resources in Israel in order to put out the fire."

Israel doesn’t have any neighbours – it made them all its enemies
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hurried to the scene of the fire on Thursday. He requested the help of the U.S, Greece, Italy, Russia, and Cyprus to send additional forces to aid the Israeli firemen. A normal country would probably ask for the help of its neighbours, but the Jewish state doesn’t have neighbours. It made all its neighbours into enemies.

But the story here goes far deeper. The fire in northern Israel is far from being a coincidence. Israel’s rural landscape is saturated with pine trees. These trees are totally new to the region. They were not there until the 1930’s. The pine trees were introduced to the Palestinians’ landscape in the early 1930s by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in an attempt to ‘reclaim the land’. By 1935, JNF had planted 1.7 million trees over a total area of 1,750 acres. Over fifty years, the JNF planted over 260 million trees largely on confiscated Palestinian land. It did it all in a desperate attempt to hide the ruins of the ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages and their history.

Along the years the JNF performed a crude attempt to eliminate Palestinian civilisation and their past but it also tried to make Palestine look like Europe. The Palestinian natural forest was eradicated. Similarly the olive trees were uprooted. The pine trees took their place. On the southern part of mount Carmel the Israelis named an area as ‘Little Switzerland’. I have learned tonight that Little Switzerland is burned.

However, the facts on the ground were pretty devastating for the JNF. The pine tree didn’t adapt to the Israeli climate as much as the Israelis failed to adapt to the Middle East. According to JNF statistics, six out of every 10 saplings planted did not survive. Those few trees that did survive formed nothing but a firetrap. By the end of each Israeli summer each of the Israeli pine forests become a potential deadly zone…”

Well, the updated news is that Turkey responded to Israel’s call for help – even though Israelis had not long ago boarded the Turkey registered ship and killed some of the peace activists who were set on unblocking the Israeli blockade imposed on the Palestinians in Gaza. Watch here...

THE AGE OF PROPAGANDA AND PANIC

from Andrew Bolt’s Blog:
The article by Andrew Bolt on the ‘mega-fear campaign: “Swine flu: it’s the panic which cost us most”, 3/12/2010 struck a cord with me. After the government had spent millions on ‘free’ vaccines the public didn’t take up, it has been announced our nice government is going to donate unused stock to other countries and destroy what can’t be used before the ‘use by’ date expires.

Read more here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/swine_flu_its_the_panic_which_cost_us_mostRemember the great swine flu fear campaign of 2009:  

COMMENTS ON A CLAIM OF NAB’s AND WESTPAC’S ‘SECRET BAILOUT’

We asked one of our contacts for an appraisal of a newsletter being circulated around the internet. Among other things, the email from Monday Morning’s (Australia) writer Kris Sayce states:
“…We take the view that anything a mainstream economist or analyst says is wrong. It's up to them to convince us they're right. Very few of them succeed because ultimately… I hope this doesn't sound arrogant, they are wrong. The state of Australia's banks is a perfect example. For the past two years you've had to put up with a constant drone of commentary from the mainstream telling you that Australia is different. As I say, this bombshell from the Federal Reserve proves otherwise. And it proves we've been right to call the Aussie banks for what they are.
Maybe our claim about NAB's system shutdown last week being caused by a solvency problem rather than a computer glitch still seems crazy to you. But we wonder, after reading today's Money Morning, perhaps it now sounds just slightly less crazy than you first thought… And furthermore, it must surely make you wonder what else it is the government and central bankers are keeping secret. Most of which will probably never be revealed.
All you and I can do is use our scepticism and questioning brain to figure out what's really happening. Because more often than not, the story the mainstream peddles is as far from the truth as you can get. Yesterday's revelation from the US Federal Reserve about NAB's and Westpac's secret loans is a perfect example. We look forward to getting a reply from the RBA, ASX and APRA about how much they knew and when... But we won't hold our breath…”

We at On Target offer the following comments from our own contact for readers to calmly consider and make their own judgements:

1. The money received by Australian banks from the US Fed was $6B according to the piece below. This is miniscule compared with our banks total assets of around $2,000B or even their shareholder paid up capital of around $130B. (I’ve done these figures from memory however they are roughly right)

2. The author concludes that the banks needed the money to stave off insolvency. If this was the case I believe Australian banks would have needed a lot more money than $6B.

3. There is a logical reason for the banks asking for the money and that is it was available and it was cheap. Most banks aware of this would have asked for it. It doesn’t follow that because the banks took the money that they were about to become insolvent.

4. There are much bigger issues relating to Australian banks that the article doesn’t cover: (emphasis added…ed)

a. The first major issue not mentioned in this article is that the Australian Government went guarantor for Australian Banks on a number of fronts. This is likely to come back and haunt Australian taxpayers
b. The next major issue not mentioned in the article is the gigantic ‘off balance sheet’ exposure of Australian banks, largely to derivatives. As at 30 June 2010 the total exposure was $15,200B. This is the latest data available from the reserve bank. If there are unrealised losses in these positions then our banks could take the government out as the whole. Australian GDP is only $1,000B pa and the whole federal budget is only $300B pa (both from memory)
c. Australian residential and commercial real estate appear to be in a speculative bubble that has the potential to end in tears and cost Australian banks more than their paid up capital of around $130B. Look at Ireland to see what can happen if the wheels fall off.

5. I am a semi informed reader and I don’t like reading this material because the author makes conclusions that aren’t supported by facts. The author obviously believes the conclusions, however, it seems to me like a cult newsletter. I use the word cult because it seems that only the author and followers can see the true message. I also find it irritating how the author keeps telling the reader how good the author is and how idiotic everyone else is. I don’t think the author is nearly as smart as the author thinks he/she is. I also find it long winded and ranting.