|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
4 April 2003. Thought for the Week: "The plight of humanity is of its own making. It is the inevitable outcome of a progressive violation of the Canon - of shutting off the outward, fear-dominated Mind from Reality. The resulting conflict in the sphere of human affairs is fundamentally a conflict between the spiritual concept of Life and the 'materialistic' concept of Life - between the power of faith and the forces generated by fear - between the power of God and the forces of Mammon - between Christ and the anti-Christ Upon the outcome of the conflict there can be no doubt Put in another form, the havoc being wreaked upon the material world around us by the unleashed forces of evil - of destruction - is merely evidence of the self-annihilation of those forces and the materialistic concept they engender, viewed in terms of time and space "
"Faith, Power and Action" by L.D. Byrne 1946
PRESIDENT HOWARD STEPS OUT OF LINEPrime Minister John Howard has had no compunction about playing the monarchy card when it suited him. But he has increasingly by-passed the Constitution and adopted a presidential role. When it comes to war, attitudes in the electorate ebb and flow with the state of the battle. There is a strong tendency to the "footy-game' psychology when our troops are in action. Objectivity about the rights and wrongs of war tend to give way to the subjectivity of backing "our team". Knowledge of this fact is understood by politicians, who exploit the "footy-game" tendency to further their ambitions. This was clearly the case with the Tampa election, where a lagging government surfed back to victory on the waves of exploitation involved in refugee and Timor issues.
There are now three 'triggers' allowing for a double-dissolution of parliament, able to be exploited at any time.
If the widespread anti-war sentiments
are seen to be muted by watching our servicemen in action, the Coalition
may well opt for another election on the issues of defence and the Iraqi
war. This is a major gamble. Any setback in Iraq may swing the electorate
back to its anti-war stance. There is bound to be a short period of
war euphoria in which a successful election could be staged and the
Coalition returned again. But there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
Any number of crises could change the scene - the price of petrol at
the bowser, any further deterioration on the stock exchange, Australian
casualties on the battle-field etc.
At one point Howard publicly proclaimed
that the final decision to commit Australian troops into war was his
alone. He modified this later by saying it would be made "by the Cabinet".
There was no reference to Parliament as a whole, or to Australia's Head
of State the Governor-General, who is also Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Services. In other words, if Mr Howard's position is to be taken
as serious, a paid minister of the Crown, together with a dozen fellow-ministers
he has hand-picked from the ranks of his own party, have taken unto
themselves the right to put their nation into a war situation in the
Northern hemisphere, with all the hazards involved - added financial
debt and taxes, the risk to the lives of servicemen and women, and the
feelings of Australians.
There was absolutely no representative check on the Executive. It was a law unto itself. Magnanimously, Howard allowed a parliamentary debate in which hundreds of Labor, National and Liberal members spoke with passion. But he allowed no vote, and made it clear he did not feel himself bound in any way to the views of Parliament as a whole. He and his cabinet coterie would decide - and that was that.
WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY?
If there is one thing made absolutely clear in Australia's Constitution, it is that neither Prime Minister nor Cabinet are "head of Australia". There is no mention of either in the Constitution. Who, then, is responsible for Australia's defence?
On this matter, the Constitution
is quire clear:
The word "Parliament" means much
more than the Prime Minister, his Cabinet or his party. It means the
combined gathering of ALL the representatives of the Australian people,
in parliament assembled.
The Prime Minister should have tabled before his colleagues a Bill or Act outlining the need for war in defence of Australia, and moving that Australian troops be committed to war. Proper room for the Parliament to debate the Bill should have been provided, before a final vote was taken in support or opposition to the Bill. Two things should then have happened. The Bill should have been sent to the Governor-General for his assent; and the Prime Minister should have announced to the nation that the full Parliament had given its assent to the Bill, and that Australia was now at war:
Section 61 (the Constitution): "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."
Neither John Howard nor his cabinet colleagues are owners of "executive power" in Australia. In fact, they are employees in office at the Governor-General's pleasure:
Section 64: "The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth".
In other words, Government ministers are appointed, paid officers of the Crown, holding their positions at the Governor-General's pleasure. They are certainly not put in a position where they can by-pass the Parliament or the Constitution. It seems clear from the foregoing that the actions of Mr Howard and such of his cabinet colleagues who accept personal responsibility for their actions have been both unconstitutional and illegal.
FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY OUTLINES PRINCIPLE
Robin Cook, former British Foreign
Secretary, resigned in protest at Blair's war decision. In his resignation
speech he acknowledged that Parliament had at least been consulted.
The British Parliament could have
voted to stop the commitment of troops. The Australian Parliament could
not. Commenting on this difference, Laura Tingle Australian Financial
Review, 21/3/03) said:
The term "fawning supporters" in the Coalition is, if anything, an understatement. Not one Liberal or National has been man enough to stand for what the Constitution lays out. They have remained, silent and speechless, in their electorates. Each has a personal duty to speak out fearlessly against the misuse of power by the executive. Each has been derelict in this duty. Parliament has, in consequence, suffered further corruption.
WHAT COULD, AND SHOULD, HAVE HAPPENED?
In the face of the massive anti-war demonstrations in Australia - unprecedented before the outbreak of war - every member of parliament, no matter what party, should have conducted his own poll in his own electorate, by advertisements in each paper, seeking the views of all voters. He should have announced the results for publication, together with a statement of his own position. He should have reminded his voters as to what the Constitution says about the making of decisions about defence - that it is a parliamentary decision, not an executive one. In other words, he should have held himself accountable for a decision that would affect the lives and safety of fellow Australians, instead of hiding behind the skirts of a rampaging "rogue prime minister".
And the Governor-General?
Section 68 (constitution): "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative".
No - President Howard is not the Commander in Chief; and Australians should be made aware of the fact.
If true parliamentary representation is to be regained in Australia, it will need enormous effort and initiative in the electorate itself. The "footy-game" approach must be renounced, and constitutional integrity re-established. How great the forthcoming crisis must be before this happens is anyone's guess.
D'MARKRAZIESSouth Australia's Labor Premier Mike Rann and Attorney-General Michael Atkinson have announced changes in the law for the crime of trespass, now euphemistically referred to as 'home invasion'. Instead of the law treating the criminal as the victim, it is hoped the householder will be given back his right to defend that which is rightfully his. The intention is, I think, for the law to once again recognise the citizen's right to protect his own self and property. In this case, it could be summed up as the householder's right to life, liberty and property. Property, meaning that which is proper to him, to enjoy, to possess, to do with as he sees fit.
Hopefully, a South Australian's home is once again going to be 'his castle'- and all that implies.
I might be considered a little old-fashioned but I think those rights are also rights the Iraqi people posses - or should. But just as the 'do-gooders' call the criminal act of trespass 'home invasions' so the 'coalition of the willing' (countries all claiming to be d'markrazies) are basing their invasion of a sovereign nation-state on the euphemistic term, 'pre-emptive strike'.
C.H. Douglas wrote of their kind
in Development of World Dominion, 1946:
WELCOME TO THE WORLD WAR ORDER
America's 'takeover': That
great icon of 'truth at all costs' and 'fearless reporting', The
Australian newspaper, fudged the news that Americans are waking
up to the fact they have been taken over by a Jewish cabal which surrounds
and directs George Bush. Consider Andrew Sullivan's article, 17th March,
Quite! But those with the power
and influence, no matter from which side of politics they come, are
herding the American people in the same direction! The tactics of those
forces using America for their own ends are the same as used elsewhere.
Zionist control of Bush Administration
On February 19, 1998, in an "Open
Letter to the President," the neoconservative (neocons) Committee for
Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed "a comprehensive political and
military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." The letter
In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network and already demanding war with Iraq. Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney (Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.).
At the time, President Clinton would only go so far as to support the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated $97 million dollars for training and military equipment for the Iraqi opposition.
The NEOCONSThe 'new conservatives' would fill the key positions involving defense and foreign policy. On Rumsfeld's staff are Wolfowitz and Feith. On Cheney's staff, the principal neoconservatives include Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. And Cheney himself, with his long-time neocon connections and views, has played a significant role in shaping "Bush" foreign policy.
Thanks to the ABC's Four Corners
program "American Dreamers" 9/3/03 and SBS's Cutting Edge
11/3/03, what we have written can be backed up. Both programmes dealt
with the Zionist control of George Bush and his Administration.
Where does Australia fit into the picture? "Jewish donors were among the biggest corporate and individual contributors to party political funds in 2001 and 2002, the Australian Electoral Commission revealed in its political donations return released last week," revealed the Australian Jewish News 14th February, 2003. "Westfield shopping mall developer Frank Lowy topped the list of Jewish donations with $624,200 - $311,900 to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and $312, 300 to the Liberals." Other prominent Jews listed as having contributed to party political funds are: Harry Triguboff, Richard Pratt and Isador Magid. The wealth and influence of these people have helped politicians to achieve their political ambitions.
And then - surprise, surprise! Like Shakespeare's Shylock they start demanding their pound of flesh.
Just as Jewish Dr. Kosmin expressed
his concern that Ivor Benson "offered the new (Rhodesian) Government
a coherent radical rightwing policy which would suit both their internal
and external problems," (in other words offer coherent political answers
to seemingly insurmountable problems) so Australian Jewry is still concerned
Pauline Hanson might 'return' and be a rallying point for traditional
"Hanson has previously described
reconciliation as a 'failed concept' that should be 'abandoned'. She
has also called for Australia's immigration policy to be 'radically
reviewed' and for 'multiculturalism' to be 'abolished', writes Bernard
All 'politically correct' policies referred to are designed to fragment and weaken us as a people, as a nation. Yet Dr. Gardner would have us believe the policies are really meant to do the opposite: "We need politicians guided by values of cohesiveness and harmony, not by the politics of division."
Howard's linksThanks to the Internet and correspondents scattered around the planet with access to publications such as the Melbourne Age, UK Guardian, Washington Post, the Jerusalem Post etc, it is not hard to build up a solid picture.
Zionist Frank Lowy, Westfield shopping mall magnate has a deep connection with Israel. It is reported, he fought in a crack commando brigade during Israel's War of Independence and is one of Australia's donors to the United Israel Appeal, a Zionist charity that resettles Russian and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. It is said Lowy is Australia's second richest man, his holdings being scattered round the world. According to the London Sunday Times, 14th April 2002, he planned to invest £30 million in property and the media in Israel.
Australian PM John Howard, invited to meet with world Jewish and Zionist leaders on a trip to New York, was given Israel's highest honour for "Community Service". In response to the award, Howard said: "I am particularly delighted to be here today, and I thank the American Jewish Committee for its generous welcome and for the honour it has paid me... I am, as your president has said, somebody who is an unapologetic and longstanding friend of Israel and of the Jewish community, particularly in Australia. And I particularly thank the good offices of my friend, Colin Rubenstein, and others that have made it possible. My friends, it's a great pleasure to be here today. And I hope, in a small way, it makes a contribution to further strengthening the links between our three great nations, Australia, the United States and the State of Israel."
What of the United Kingdom and Tony Blair?"Lord Michael Levy, a highly influential Zionist, is one of the most important fundraisers for the Labour Party, he is Tony Blair's closest associate and also unofficial envoy to the Middle East. Lord Levy is listed as President of Jewish Care; Governor 1990-95, Jewish Free Schools.
Amidst scandals involving payments made to Lord Levy by Australian Zionist shopping mall magnate Frank Lowy, The Age, Melbourne back-grounded his career, as both Blair's and Labour's chief fundraiser and as a 'cultural arbiter' of the music industry in Britain. Lord Levy received over £250,000 over 3 years from Zionist Frank Lowy who is seeking to expand in Britain.
Just as it was said in 1977 it must be restated - distinctions must be made"In all this," wrote the Social Credit Secretariat, a distinction must be made. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. There are gentiles who consciously pursue Zionist objectives Thus Zionism, in essence, like Arianism, is an ideology. And ideologies manifest in a way quite analogous to instincts. Just as the sexual instinct gives rise to a pattern of behaviour, so does an ideology. The objective of the sexual instinct manifests in mating, the objective of Arianism, or Zionism, manifests in centralisation of power. Instinct and ideology are more inclusive - go back further in the past - than race, and race becomes a tool of ideology."
WHERE IS THE PRESENT PHASE OF 'WORLD WAR' LEADING?If history is anything to go by, Americans will one day come to the realisation, just as the English did after the WWII phase of this battle, having done their duty by this Inner Power, in their weakened state, they will fade from view as a world power. Fanciful thinking? I don't think so.
The situation in which America now finds herself was explained in On Target Vol.39, No.7, 28th February 2003. "Behind all this rhetoric is one of the most desperate gambles in history - an attempt by the US to stave off an imminent collapse and a shift in financial hegemony from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve to the European Central Bank and the EU..."
"As we have revealed in recent editions of On Target, the US has been living off massive trade deficits for many years. Its debt structure is frightening and the destruction of its industrial base even more so. It is diverting more and more of its remaining industrial capacity to armaments and military capacity."
Compare America's present parlous state with that of Britain's experiences in early 1940
"When the British declared war on Germany and went to America's financiers for help she was told "she could get 'assistance' on terms. The terms were payment in cash and provide your own transport "In order to buy inferior materials at outrageous prices, Great Britain had to strip herself of upwards of £2,000,000,000 of overseas investments. Some of these investments were taken over directly by Khun, Loeb and Co Great Britain handed over her designs and manufacturing processes, and built, at her own expense, factories in America which added greatly to America's industrial strength."
In the Melbourne Herald 2nd February, 1940 the following article appeared
"Although he personally favours
the Allied cause, Mr. Henry Morgenthau, junior, is driving extremely
hard bargains with the Allies
The Allies are sometimes forced to pay
double the real price of the goods."(Eric Butler "The International
General Ludendorff wrote in 1931, "The Coming War"
"The majority of the English do
not realise that, having done their duty by the inner Jewish circle,
they have now got to disappear as a world Power."
The last has not been heard of China
Just after WWII, (is it really nearly sixty years ago?) Eric Butler wrote that "as a result of the Pacific War, China is being 'developed' and 'modernised' by huge loans from Jewish financiers in America, working in close collaboration with their financial allies, the Soong family, which was educated in America There is little doubt that China, with her teeming millions and largely unexploited resources, is ideal for the Jewish-inspired planners to build up into a powerful force in world affairs. The last has not been heard of China."
At the Melbourne World Economic
Forum in September 2000, On Target (20/10/00) carried a press
report on the remarks of Mr David Tang, Shanghai Tung chairman, who
was unusually frank about the implications of free trade. He told those
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|