congressional leaders had proposed cracking down on the 12 million undocumented
illegals, mostly Hispanics from Mexico. Protests designed to show Hispanic electoral
power erupted across America. Hispanics are America's largest and fastest growing
minority, numbering 41 million or 14 per cent of the population. By 2050, or sooner,
they will number 100 million or 25 per cent of the population. The wave of protests
caused the weak traitorous Republicans to abandon plans of enforcing the rule
of law. Seven million illegals will get US citizenship and 3 million will be sent
home, but they can have temporary visas, return and get citizenship. The opinion
polls showed that the majority of Americans wanted illegal aliens deported as
US law permits.
President Bush supported the proposal of letting these aliens
remain. In fact Bush opened the door to free migration of Mexicans to the US by
a guest-worker programme to make Republicans who want cheap Mexican labour in
slave-like conditions, happy. Senator John McCain, frontrunner for the republican
presidential nomination in 2008 has co-sponsored an immigration reform bill with
Democrats Senator Edward Kennedy that will give amnesty and citizenship to the
Senator Kennedy was the frontrunner of the immigration reform
movement of the 1960s which abandoned the national quota system and which led
to a massive flow of Third World immigration to America. At the time he said that
immigration reforms would lead to very few of the Third World coming to America.
Today he is really into the spirit of things and speaks of America's "immigration
future". Maybe he should give the illegals "special pensions" now
to celebrate their "diversity", "colour" and "sheer richness".
He could say that very few people would want "pensions: or that very few
more Mexican illegals would come. Get into the spirit of things Teddy boy!
course there is no "immigrant future". Hispanics largely want to regain
the lost south western States and make a new nation of Atzlan, which will probably
merge into Mexico. In other words Hispanic immigration means the end of at least
America as it has been known. Senator Kennedy and his ilk should be able to see
this because even the proverbial Blind Freddy can. Thus he supports Mexico over
The immigration reformers in Australia in the 1960s also said
that elimination of White Australia policy would mean that only a few thousand
Asians got in. Today there is an official government policy of Asianisation, which
by immigration is transforming Australia : racially, economically and culturally.
Australia as it has been known will, given present policies, cease to exist this
century. This racial annihilation is what the elites want.
America is set to
join the Third World, before cracking up and disintegrating. Thirty one per cent
of America's post 2000 immigrants have not completed high school (3½ times
the rate for "natives"). The proportion of immigrant-headed households
using welfare is 29 per cent compared to 18 per cent for "natives".
The poverty rate for immigrants is 18.4 per cent; for natives 11.7 per cent. Even
immigrants who have been in the US for 14-15 years still have much higher rates
of poverty and welfare than "natives". (The Social Contract, Winter
2005-2006, p.129) This is a sleeping bomb waiting to explode into social chaos.
The "war on terrorism" is a con-game. The real terrorists who are
destroying America are in government. They do more harm, as agents of the forces
of greed and evil than a thousand bombs.
France Goes Down
In France over one million people took to the streets
in often violent protest, including battles with police, and torching businesses.
The protesters vented their fury at France's new labour laws which make it easier
to sack young workers. Young protesters set vehicles and businesses on fire. As
these riots were going on the French elites, including Dominique de Villepin,
Chirac's mastermind of these laws, probably sipped vintage champagne at lunch
(said to be a regular thing done by Villepin). In aid of the new world order philosophy
of serving the great god of M&M (Money and the Market) these "power elites"
are willing to dismantle all that was stable in French society. Thus France has
an under 25 unemployment rate of 23 per cent. Italy also has a youth unemployment
rate of 24 per cent with multitudes of adults staying at home well into their
30s because of lack of opportunity. The birth rate shrinks at an ever-alarming
France's decline and social breakdown
is more complex than that of the US - and also appears to be progressing quicker.
The most recent riots are the product of liberal laissez-faire economic policies
- the economic wing of the globalist philosophy. Previously France was torched
and burnt from the English Channel to the Pyrenees and from the Atlantic Ocean
to the Rhine River by rampaging Muslim Arab and African youths. These rioters,
pillaged, burned and killed in a frenzy. They objected to French police entering
Muslim enclaves (banlieues) or housing projects (habitation a loyer modere). Rioters
wanted Islamic Sharia law, not French law, to apply to Muslims in France and the
creation of an Islamic State in France.
Naïve do-gooders and bleeding
heart liberals speak of French "racism", "lack of religious tolerance"
and "poverty" as the real causes. But still the Muslim migrants come.
France has a Muslim population of 5 million or 12 per cent of its total population
and 3,000 mosques. The Muslim birthrate is four-times that of French natives.
Phillips in the UK Daily Mail 7 November 2005, observed that burning France was
part and parcel of an Islamisation process that has been continuing fro some time.
It was a French intifada "an uprising by French Muslims against the State."
It was a "war being waged for separate development" - or in other words
apartheid. Many Muslims want the introduction of the ancient Ottoman "millet
system" of separate development. The French police are not welcome in the
territory "they feel they have conquered from the French State with which
they feel no identification." Phillips notes that the Muslim ghettoes arose
in the first place "because Muslim violence and harassment forced every one
else out." Thus "they became no-go areas for the police, seen by the
Muslims as occupation forces entering their territory." She concludes: "The
ghettoes are a way of ensuring a separate Islamic existence without having to
assimilate into French society."
War with the West
Then there is the question of "political Islam".
Concern with 'political Islam" is not limited to "our side" of
politics. The Australia-Israel Review of April 2006 published an article
by Daniel Goldhagen (author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners") entitled
"Offensive Ends : The Radical Politics of Islamic Fundamentalism". This
article states that "political Islam", aggressive, totalitarian"
in the "blink of the political eye" has undergone "widespread social
mobilisation," across the world. Goldhagen says about this problem:
Islam is on the march in the three loci of politics: the street, the halls of
power, and the field of battle. Its largest targets are both domestic (to suppress
freedom and dissent within Islamic countries; Sharia is already becoming the rule
in Gaza) and international (to spread its sway and impose orthodoxy abroad). While
its international power is still circumscribed, political Islam's ambitions are
extensive, violent, and frightening - with its members sensing its growing potential
A Sunni Muslim cleric, having helped organise anti-cartoon protests in his hometown
and in Beirut, explained the protests' significance : "The way I see it,
the war [with the West] has already started." We have been warned.
Is the Australian Constitution a Failed
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
sub-editor of the freedom movement publication The Strategy (April 2006)
has concluded that the Australian Constitution is a "failed document". As an alternative
The Strategy has presented a draft "Charter of Governance" and a draft
"Charter of Liberties". Both documents are based upon a legal philosophy (jurisprudence)
of natural law, resting upon a foundation of God's law.
is the Australian Constitution a failed document?
One argument given by
Harrison is that the power elites have been able to manipulate the Constitution.
The High Court from its very beginnings moved to centralise power in Canberra
and support internationalism. This is all true. However it is more an argument
against the High Court and the treachery of lawyers than it is against the Constitution.
legal document is "lawyer proof" - whatever drafting is made treachery and sophistry
will find a way of perverting it. On this issue, given that the age of great wise
men and women with the wisdom to engineer society in accordance with truth, justice
and goodness has passed - we should be sceptical of any proposed Bill of Rights
because it is likely to have hidden "viruses" within it.
But Victoria has
a proposed Bill of Rights, for example, where even the viruses are not so well
hidden. Half of the document relates to rights of criminals, making this a criminal's
Bill of Rights. Section 8 (1) gives every person a right to life which can't be
arbitrarily deprived, but the next section qualifies this right saying that it
only applies to a person from the time they are born, thus legitimating abortion.
But it is all arbitrary: no rights one minute before birth, rights
one minute after. How can the journey down the birth canal confer human rights?
The Charter of Governance doesn't embody such
new class politically correct values, and does exhibit an attempt to make a Christian
document. But the fundamental problem of the treachery of lawyers still remains.
Intrinsic to systems with a written Constitution which limits the power of parliament
is the granting of the power of interpretation of the Constitution to an elite
unelected group : High court judges.
If these judges have a political agenda
- which the High Court has had as Harrison rightly observes - then interpretation
of the Charter of Governance would be at the mercy of these essentially undemocratic
Consider proposition 8 of the Charter of Governance:
"Federal Parliament ought to be held frequently." How frequently? We are not told.
Proposition 11 says : "No law whatsoever shall be made to grant advantage
to non-citizens or foreign entities over Australian citizens." It is far from
clear what "grant advantage" means and the High Court will decide its meaning.
it goes for almost everything drafted in the Charter of Governance. Watch its
freedoms get washed away. I myself believe that the Australian Constitution, produced
as a contract between the six existing colonies, was limited by not recognising
two basic rights that the American Constitution did : the right of freedom of
speech and to bear arms.
But looking at the American situation we see that
these rights have been qualified and whittled away by judicial interpretation.
These rights are obstacles that have slowed the lawyers down, but which have not
stopped them. The problem which we face is that we are now ruled by an alien new
class committed to internationalist ideals and ideologies. They have won "the
long march" through the institutions. The criminals and insane now rule the asylum.
This problem of real politics is the one which must be addressed before debating
matters of constitutional change.