24 May 2002. Thought for the Week: "This
comes as no great surprise to those of us who have been following
the developing story of the World Trade Centre attacks with
a properly sceptical mind. Watching George Bush's face, as
he was given the news of the attack (before the impartial
eye of a live television camera), in a schoolroom in Florida,
I was struck by the way his eyes swivelled round to see if
the red light was glowing on the camera (it was). "The look
of guilt that fleeted across his face recalled to my mind
the oral history report by Frances Perkins, Franklin D. Roosevelt's
Labor Secretary, who was by chance a witness of the moment
when he received the phone call reporting the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor. "'Pearl Harbor!?' he exclaimed, as though
he had been expecting it somewhere else. She said she had
only ever seen that look of profound guilt on FDR's face once
From David Irving On Line, May 17th, 2002
THE BUDGET WHAT A TRUSTY, TRUTHFUL
TREASURER WOULD TELL US
by Jeremy Lee
Another Budget: another wave of speculation: another Treasurer's
speech under the media spotlight: and another year in which
the vast majority of Australians are mystified about the portents.
It is now quite within the abilities of the Federal Government
to provide every Australian taxpayer with a well-produced,
simple Balance Sheet for the nation, with adequate clarification
of each statement. Every public company is required to produce
one for the scrutiny of shareholders. Every CEO is also required
to face up to a shareholders' meeting and to feel the heat
over any shortcomings. But Treasurer Costello escapes such
public scrutiny and, if necessary, censure.
As Alan Kohler explained in The Australian
Financial Review (15/3/02):
".... the excellence of the system for the Treasurer is that
he does not have to front a board of directors and, with a
red face, run through the excuses before waiting judgement.
He and his colleagues in Cabinet and in Treasury are entirely
unaccountable, to the point where it seems almost churlish,
even irrelevant, to dwell on the subject of the 2001-02 Budget,
even though the year in question is not even finished.
Perhaps it is best simply to join the
state of constant amnesia, in which the past never exists,
and everyone lives for the moment .....So if Treasurer Costello
was not a party politician with leadership ambitions, and
was simply concerned with presenting a Budget which gave as
accurate a picture as possible to Australians, he might have
said something like this:
"Mr Speaker, Members of Parliament
and Taxpayers of Australia. In presenting this Budget I had
better begin by expressing my disappointment that we will
be forced to increase direct and indirect taxation by almost
$1,000 per taxpayer. This will lift total federal taxation,
direct and indirect, to $157.7 billion or, as near as makes
no difference, an average $8,000 for each man, woman and child
in Australia. Thus, an average two parents and two children
will pay just under $32,000 between them. The increase in
taxation revenue over last year's estimate is 6% about twice
the official inflation rate. Of course, the taxes you pay
to the States, and the rates you pay your local councils are
extra to this.
Why do we need the extra money? Blame it on Osama bin Laden.
The world changed on September 11 and you must pay for those
changes. We must spend more on defence, refugees and border
surveillance. In fact, such costs wiped out last year's budget
surplus and this year we'll have a deficit of $1.2 billion.
The picture ahead is not the brightest. Extra taxation will
have to be absorbed in prices. We are going to have another
blowout in our Current Account Deficit to about $2.4 billion
a month, or $80 million a day, which will be added to our
foreign debt. It's all the fault of the US, which urges free
trade on the rest of us while protecting its own farmers and
industries. We will still have an illusionary growth in Australia,
which we have achieved by altering the Gross Domestic Product
criteria so that ALL forms of activity constructive and
destructive are included. The bush fires in New South Wales
over Christmas, the rising crime rate which requires extra
law enforcement, the legal requirements of the spate of bankruptcies,
and defence and border surveillance are all factored into
Australia's' GDP 'growth' in which we are among the world's
The massive increase in household indebtedness, which has
doubled in the last 15 years, is worrying, and there may be
some pain if interest rates continue to rise. But the growth
in mortgage foreclosures will be added to GDP growth.
The bright side is that our Trading Banks should do even better
than at present. We've paid off a lot of Commonwealth Government
debt by selling national assets into foreign ownership. But
we still need to sell the rest of Telstra. We are confident
the Nationals will see it our way when it comes to the point
Although the Australian Tax Office is one of the biggest institutions
in the country we are allocating an extra $1.5 billion over
5 years about $1 million a day to 'beefing it up' so that
we can catch more tax evaders. Unemployment is an ever-present
problem. Again, we have managed to hide its real extent by
playing with the figures. Our long-term solution is 'work-for-the-dole';
and we'll add another 8,000 to this category this year.
The one area we WON'T be looking at is the approximate $100
million per day increase in Australia's Money Supply. Mr.
John Corzene, formerly of Goldman Sachs, reminded our Prime
Minister in June 1996 that this was 'off limits', being the
preserve of the private banks not to be discussed. Pity.
A few credits instead of debts from this area would help me
become the 'greatest treasurer in the world'; better even
than Paul Keating. But the corporates put a lot of funds into
the Party balance sheet. So I'm certainly not one to buck
Australians will just keep having to pay the bill for their
own National Credit.
All in all, Australia will struggle on this year, with the
rich getting richer while the number of poor rises. Not really
a pretty picture. But you can be assured the Opposition would
be even worse! ....."
WORLD SHORTAGE OF TIMBER
As the environmental stranglehold is
extended throughout the world the latest figures show a growing
global shortage of millable timber. In Australia, under sometimes
hysterical claims of environmental damage, scores of small
sound timber mills with a priceless bank of "know-how" have
been forced to curtail their industries or forced out of business
altogether. The result is that Australia is now a net importer
of milled timber to the tune of $2 billion a year. Like
everywhere else, as the small Australian industries were forced
out, the international 'big boys' have moved in.
The Australian (13/5/02) reported:
" ....While foreign investment in domestic wood processing
is now worth more than $3.7 billion with big players such
as Weyerhaeuser, Carter Holt Harvey and Hancock Timber among
recent arrivals most of this money is used to upgrade plants
rather than build new ones. BIS Shrapnel said this meant Australian
producers could not harvest and process all available sawlogs.
As a result, supplies of softwood would increase faster than
the industry's ability to process them, Mr. Neufeld said.
An increasing number of sawlogs will be left standing or exported
as unprocessed logs, and Australian producers will forfeit
WHO MAKES THE MONEY?
Writing about the huge profits once again
being made by the Trading Banks, Terry McCrann (The Weekend
Australian, 11-12/5/02) responded to an argument put forward
by NAB's chief, Frank Cicutto, that his bank only made a profit
of $1.20 per $100 in assets: " ....As its chief, Frank Cicutto,
pointedly asked: who out there would be happy with a $1,200 return
on a $100,000 investment? "Yes (McCrann went on) but the returns
to shareholders are high. All the banks are earning about 20 per
cent to shareholding capital. But they are only able to do so
because of their unique ability to gear that capital up to $20
of depositor money for every $1 of shareholder capital....." In
other words, $20 of "created credit" for every $1 in shareholder
capital. It's a licence to print money.
INSURING AGAINST ACTS OF GOD
We've heard of some bizarre insurance
claims, such as the young man recently awarded $4 million
for striking his head on a Bondi Beach sandbar. But the following
takes the cake. It comes from the April/May issue of LEADERSHIP
NOW! the official magazine of the Assembly of God church:
"A woman who broke her arm after falling under the power of
God has won $US80,000 from the Long Island, New York church
where she was injured. Sophie Reitan received the money in
a settlement reached last month with Upper Room Tabernacle
Ministries in Dix Hills, reported Newsday. She had sued for
$US4 million after being hurt when she attended a women's
service in September 1997 and went up to the altar to be blessed.
The minister placed his hands on her forehead and she had
a religious bodily experience, causing her to fall backward,
crashing onto the hard-surface floor, said Attorney Andrew
Siben. Reiten needed surgery on her broken left arm ...."
What would, if such arguments are accepted,
be the litigation damages in the event of an earthquake, tornado
or tsunami? Would Moses have hesitated to part the Red Sea
because of possible litigation for "damage to pursuing Egyptian
charioteers? As for the "walls of Jericho" As former High
Court Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs has said: "The right to
sue for personal injury should be abolished because lawyers
had traded their ethical standards for a culture of litigation
..." (The Australian, 15/5/02).
WE MUST OPPOSE GATS
by Peter Davis
No doubt your readers are aware the entire crew of the vessel
"Yarra", tied up at Port Pirie, have been dismissed and the
intention of the Canadian Shipping Lines (CSL) is to employ
a cheaper overseas crew. Later this year the federal Government
intends to ratify the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
This Agreement has already been signed by our Minster for
Foreign Affairs, or Prime Minister, and simply needs the assent
of Parliament to be ratified. Our community needs to know
that what is happening in Port Pirie is a minor example of
what lies in store for Australia.
The consequence of the GATS is that
Multinational companies, like CSL, will have the legal right
to bring in foreign workers and to displace Australian jobs.
Under the Agreement, the free flow of services (jobs) and
capital (money) to the most 'efficient location' will occur.
It is inevitable that in our nation of high pay rates, workers'
compensation, insurance claims, etc., there will be major
inflow of cheap overseas labour displacing thousands of Australian
jobs. It is critical that our people learn of this Agreement
and that we instruct our Federal Members of Parliament to
oppose this Agreement, thus protecting Australian jobs.
Note: Peter Davis is doing his
bit have you instructed your Federal Member of Parliament
to oppose this Agreement?
ANOTHER ISSUE 'COUNTER TERRORISM'
by Geoff Muirden
There are real dangers in the way the budget is receiving attention
in the Parliament and media, and the ALP is the 'hero' for challenging
the budget. All of a sudden they are 'virtuous', making political
capital out of their 'concern for the poor people', etc. Sleight
of hand. This is a diversion of attention away from the 'terror
bills' and the way the ALP tried to sell us out by agreeing to
'amend' them so they are 50 percent Stalinist not one hundred
percent Stalinist, whereas, anyone who had a love for liberty
would reject them as intolerable.
The enemies of freedom have no intention of giving up and during
this 'diversion' are doubtless working out worthless 'amendments'
that will preserve the spirit of the terror bills, which will
be presented as if they were 'acceptable'. This political sideshow
should not numb our concern and awareness of the dangers.
SEPTEMBER 11th LAWMAKERS SEEK HIJACK
Associated Press journalist Ron Fournier,
May 16th, 2002, reveals there are calls for tough inquiries
after the White House admitted President Bush was told a month
before September 11th, "Osama bin Laden's terrorist network
might hijack American airplanes."
White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer
admits, "Some law enforcement agencies were quietly put on
alert last summer based on the information given to Bush during
a regular intelligence briefing while he was on vacation at
his Texas ranch the first week of August." In the article
Fleischer claims general information about the threats, was
passed on to air carriers but admitted the information "did
not include specific and detailed warnings." But, a "spokesman
for the trade group that represents the country's major airlines,
Michael Wascom of the Air Transport Association, said: 'I
am not aware of any warnings or notifications in advance of
September 11th concerning specific security threats to any
of our airlines.' (emphasis added).
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (remember,
he was the politician who received the 'anthrax dusted' letter
through the post), has called on Bush to release to congressional
investigators the entire briefing given him by intelligence
officials, and to release a recently revealed FBI memo from
its Arizona office that warned of suspicious activity by Arabs
at US flight schools.
If information had been acted upon,
outcome may have been different
Mr. Fournier quotes Sen. Richard Shelby, vice chairman of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, as saying on NBC's Today
programme: 'There was a lot of information, I believe and
others believe, if it had been acted on properly we may have
had a different situation on September 11th.' Shelby also
questioned why the White House waited so long to acknowledge
Bush's knowledge of the hijacking threat. According to the
report, Shelby also suggested he may demand that the White
House release the top-secret CIA briefing received by Bush,
and the FBI memo.
A former FAA security chief, Billie Vincent,
has asked why, if law-enforcement agencies had been notified
of a possible hijacking threat, they didn't do more to increase
security. The revelations have "created a politically charged
atmosphere in which every White House statement about pre-September
11th threats was subjected to new scrutiny."
If readers remember, Fleischer, was asked by reporters just
hours after the twin tower attacks whether 'there had been
any warnings that the president knew of'. He replied, 'No
warnings.' Peppered with questions, Mr. Fleischer sought to
play down the development.
BUSH 'SEIZED THE MOMENT' SO DID HOWARD
Whatever happened on that fateful day
in September 2001, there is no doubt George Bush and his cronies
'seized the moment' to activate their plans for an agenda
the American people and the rest of the world have not
been 'briefed on'. The agenda includes shoring up their oil
interests around the Caspian Sea and using the armed services
of the USA, Britain and Australia to do so!
I am reminded of Tim Fischer's (former
National Party politician) comment at the time 'flak-jacket
Johnny' imposed draconian gun legislation on the Australian
people after the Port Arthur massacre. Howard, had "seized
the moment," said Tim. Just as Howard continues 'to seize
the moments', by attempting to impose further draconian legislation
upon the Australian people. Of course, says little Johnny!
It's all part of the on-going 'war on terrorism'!
The reality is something else again.
"The main dynamic of war is capitalism" wrote former international
banking representative Lawrence Dennis in The Dynamics
of War and Revolution. "Capitalism requires incessant
industrial expansion to mop up the excess capital created
by debt-fuelled economies. When the bankers create money out
of thin air, and then lend it at interest, more money must
be created to pay back the loan plus interest. War is just
another means of perpetuating this usurious system.
War Lords of Washington's plans before
The ghastly truth that another US president, F.D. Roosevelt,
also knew America was going to be attacked, and did nothing
about it, will be hard to accept by freedom-loving, patriotic,
Americans. Colonel Curtis Dall, former son-in-law of the USA's
wartime president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was privy to
many of the secret manoeuvres that went on inside the White
House and the State Department at the time.
Colonel Dall stated: "This attack (on
Pearl Harbour) was not only provoked but welcomed by the International
Banking Cartelists and their agents working within the higher
echelon of government within the United States. It was fully
known well in advance with enough notice to have averted
Renowned historian Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes
wrote on the matter
"In reality, the responsibility for the Pearl Harbor surprise
attack, from the Chicago Bridge speech of Roosevelt on October
5, 1937, to the appearance of the Japanese bombers over Pearl
Harbor about 7.55 on December 7, 1941, is crystal clear and
cumulative to all those who know the facts whether or not
they are willing and courageous enough to set them forth...
The path to war is also straight, save for the switch which
began with the economic strangulation of Japan in July, 1941,
when it had become very likely that Hitler could not be provoked
into an act of war in the Atlantic. Throughout, the architect
and maestro of the bellicose design was Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
The September 11th tragedy has all the
earmarks of another set-up
Freedom loving peoples hope and pray there are enough loyal
Americans with the guts and tenacity to continue to search
out the truth of the matter.
Further reading: Economic Democracy
especially the chapter on The Delusions of Super Production
by C.H. Douglas. The Dynamics of War and Revolution
by Lawrence Dennis.
Books available from League book services.
THE MIDDLE EAST ACCORDING TO ROBERT
The following is taken from an interview
by Marc Cooper of the L.A.Weekly. Fisk was interviewed
whilst on tour in the USA.
In your public speeches, you have been suggesting that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict might turn into something as
apocalyptic as the French-Algerian war of four decades ago
a horrendous war that took well over a million lives. Are
things that dark?
I think we already have reached those depths. If you go back
and read the narrative history of the Algerian war, you'll
see it began with isolated acts of sabotage, a few killings
of French settlers, followed invariably by large-scale retaliation
by the French authorities at which point, starting in the
'60s, the Algerians began a campaign against French citizens
in Algiers and Oran with bombs in cinemas and discotheques,
which today translates into pizzerias and nightclubs in Israel.
The French government kept saying it was fighting a war on
terrorism, and the French army went in and erased whole Algerian
villages. Torture became institutionalised, as it has by the
Israeli authorities. Collaborators were killed by Algerian
fighters, just as Arafat does so brazenly now. At the end
of the day, life became insupportable for both sides. At Christmas,
Ariel Sharon called French President Chirac and actually said,
We are like you in Algeria, but "we will stay". And it's quite
revealing that Arafat himself keeps referring to "the peace
of the brave". Whether he knows it or not, that's the phrase
De Gaulle used when he found it necessary to give up Algeria.
For those who have watched this conflict over the years, it
sometimes seems confounding what Ariel Sharon is thinking
strategically. If one accepts the common view that Arafat
has been a reliable and often compliant partner with the Israelis,
what does Sharon think he has to gain by undermining him and
opening the door to the more radical groups like Hamas? Remember
that when Arafat was still regarded as a super terrorist,
before he became a super statesman of course he's reverting
back now to super terrorist remember that the Israelis encouraged
the Hamas to build mosques and social institutions in Gaza.
Hamas and the Israelis had very close relations when the PLO
was still in exile in Tunisia. I can remember being in southern
Lebanon in 1993 reporting on the Hamas, and one of their militants
offered me Shimon Peres' home phone number. That's how close
the relations were! So let's remember that the Israelis do
have direct contact with those they label even more terrorist
than Arafat. In the cowboy version of events, they both hate
each other. In the real world, they maintain contact when
they want to. As to Sharon, I was speaking with [former Palestinian
official] Hanan Ashrawi last week, and she made the very good
point that Sharon never thinks through the ramifications of
what he's going to do, beyond next week or the week after.
That's what we are seeing now. In that regard, Sharon has
many parallels with Arafat. When I had the miserable task
of living under Arafat's awful regime in Beirut for six years,
you could see that Arafat also would get up in the morning
and not have a clue as to what he would be doing three hours
Your critics accuse you of being a mouthpiece for Arafat.
But in your public talks you openly disdain Arafat, calling
him among many other things a preposterous old man.
I'm more than disdainful! More than disdainful. I always regarded
him during his time in Lebanon as being a very cynical and
a very despotic man. Even before he got a chance to run his
own state, he was running 13 different secret police forces.
Torture was employed in his police stations. And so it was
easy to see why the Israelis wanted to use him. He was not
brought into the Oslo process, and he was not encouraged by
the Americans, and his forces were not trained by the CIA
so that he could lead a wonderful, new Arab state. He was
brought in as a colonial governor to do what the Israelis
could no longer do: to control the West Bank and Gaza. His
task was always to control his people. Not to lead his people.
Not to lead a friendly state that would live next to Israel.
His job was to control his people, just like all the other
Arab dictators do usually on our behalf. Remember that the
Arab states we support the Mubaraks of Egypt, the Gulf kingdoms,
the king of Jordan when they do have elections, their leaders
are elected by 98.7 percent of the vote. In Mubarak's case,
0.2 percent more than Saddam! So Arafat fits perfectly into
this lexicon of rule. He's confronted with the choice of either
leading the Palestinian people or being the point man for
So does Arafat now, for his own cynical reasons, encourage
or support the suicide bombings inside Israel as the Israelis
insist he does?
Arafat is a very immoral person, or maybe very amoral. A very
cynical man. I remember when the Tal-al-Zaatar refugee camp
in Beirut had to surrender to Christian forces in the very
brutal Lebanese civil war. They were given permission to surrender
with a cease-fire. But at the last moment, Arafat told his
men to open fire on the Christian forces who were coming to
accept the surrender. I think Arafat wanted more Palestinian
"martyrs" in order to publicize the Palestinian position in
the war. That was in 1976. Believe me that Arafat is not a
changed man. I think that if he ever actually sees a wounded
child, he feels compassion like any other human being. But
he's also a very cynical politician. And he knows that Sharon
was elected to offer security to the Israelis. And Arafat
knows that every suicide bombing, every killing, every death
of a young Israeli, especially inside Israel, is proof that
Sharon's promises are discredited. On the one hand, he can
condemn violence. He can be full of contrition. And in the
basic human sense, he probably means it. But he also knows
very well that every suicide bombing hits at the Sharon policy,
and realizes how that helps him.
Is this current phase the endgame for Arafat? Or his 10th
Actually, both Arafat and Sharon are in danger. Throughout
Arafat's life, the more militarily weak he becomes, the stronger
he becomes politically. Equally, you might say Mr. Sharon
has thrown his entire military at the West Bank, but he is
not achieving the security he promised. Further, one day we
will have to find out what has happened in the Jenin refugee
camp, with the hundreds of corpses some of which disappeared,
some of which appear to have been secretly buried. That will
further damage Sharon. So as he becomes stronger militarily,
he weakens politically. Way back in 1982, Sharon said he was
going to root out terror when 17,500 Arabs were slaughtered
during three months in Lebanon. And here we are again.
I heard some contradictory notions in your talks regarding
the US. I can't tell if you are just plain sarcastic about
the American role in the Middle East, or if you are merely
I'm way past being disappointed. I am very sarcastic. And
deliberately so. A week ago, I wrote in my newspaper that
when Colin Powell goes to Israel and the West Bank, we shall
find out who runs US policy in the Middle East: The White
House? Congress? Or Israel? On an ostensibly urgent mission,
Secretary of State Powell our favourite ex-general wandered
and dawdled around the Mediterranean, popping off to Morocco,
then off to see the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, then he
went to Spain, then he went to Egypt, then he went to Jordan,
and after eight days he finally washed up in Israel. On an
urgent mission! If Washington firefighters turned up that
late, the city would already be in ashes. As Jenin was. It
was generally hinted at on the networks, in the usual coy,
cowardly sort of way, that Powell wanted to give Sharon time
to finish the job, just as he got to finish the job in '82
in such a bloody way. And now Powell arrives and we see the
two sides of the glass. On the one hand, he quite rightly
goes to inspect by helicopter the revolting suicide bombing
in Jerusalem where six Israelis were killed and 80 wounded.
But faced with the Israelis hiding their own activities, where
hundreds [of Palestinians] have been killed, Powell does not
ask to go to Jenin. Why? Because the dead are Palestinians?
Because they are Arabs? Because they are Muslim? Why on earth
doesn't he go to Jenin? Powell is not being evenhanded. American
policy never has been. It's a totally bankrupt policy. No
wonder the Europeans are saying, "For God's sake, we have
to play a role in the Mideast now." ...
LAUNCESTON CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday,
May 29th, in the Max Fry Memorial Hall, Gorge Road, Trevallyn,
commencing at 7.30pm. Principle speaker will be Mrs. Wendy Scurr,
an eye-witness to the Port Arthur massacre. Accompanying speakers
are Mr. Andrew McGregor, former officer Victoria Police, and Mr.
Stewart Beattie, gunsmith from Wagga Wagga, NSW. Speakers will
present new information not discussed before in a public forum.
Admission $5.00, supper is included.
SYDNEY CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB
The next meeting for the Sydney CSC will
be held on Wednesday, May 29th, 2002. The speaker is Mr. Mark
Wilson. Subject: "Europe's Disenchantment with Immigration". A
previous speaker at our Club, Mark Wilson has conveyed a great
knowledge of the political situation in the UK and Europe. Due
to unforeseen circumstances Mr. Leon Gregor, originally listed
for the evening, is unable to attend, but will speak at a later
date this year. The meeting will be held at the Lithuanian Club,
16 East Terrace, Bankstown. There is ample parking at the Club,
situated only 600 metres from the Bankstown Railway Station. The
cost of your attendance is $4.00 per person.
ADELAIDE CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS' CLUB
Guest speaker for Monday, June 3rd, meeting
will be Port Lincoln's Mayor Peter Davis. The title of his address
is "What Big Money is Doing in Port Lincoln". The venue is the
Public Schools' Club, 207 East Terrace (cnr. Carrington), Adelaide.
We encourage our supporters to make every effort to get to the
dinner meeting. Dinner is from 6.30pm, $16.50 for a two-course
meal, served with tea/coffee. The public address commences at
7.30pm. To make bookings by Thursday, May 31st, please phone:
TOOWOOMBA STATE WEEKEND, MAY 25th-26th,
Queensland's State Weekend will take place
Saturday and Sunday, May 25th and 26th, 2002. The theme for the
seminar is "The Unnecessary Tragedy: Suicide". Guest speakers
will be Mrs. Fanita Clark of the White Wreath Association; Mr.
Derek Tuffield of Darling Downs Lifeline; Pastor David Blair of
Toowoomba City Care, and Mrs Betty Luks of Australian League of
Rights. We are pleased to have Mr. Phillip Butler as the guest
speaker for the Dinner on the Saturday evening. We do hope to
see many Queensland supporters at the functions.