Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

20 February 2004. Thought for the Week: "Why of course people don't want war… Naturally… That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Göring quoted in British "On Target" January 2003.


Politicians giving up some of their superannuation perks? Can you believe it? Never!
But why just at this moment in time? It couldn't have anything to do with taking the Free Trade Agreement with America off the front pages of mainline newspapers - could it? Mark Latham's sense of timing couldn't have been better - and Howard's 'flip flop' on pollies' 'super' perks added just the right touch of self-sacrifice on the part of the ruling elite.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been used as an example of how good things are going to be for us. We are being led 'by the nose' to believe NAFTA has benefitted all of the members of that agreement -- America, Canada and Mexico. Well, has it?

Ten million Mexican 'refugees'
If that is so, why have 10 million (yes, 10 million) Mexicans fled their 'utopian' homeland in search of a better life in America? They are, in fact, illegal immigrants. George Bush recently announced he is thinking of granting them amnesty. Yes, 10 million of them.

In Canada
In On Target Vol.37 No 15 (2001) we reported "... another city is under siege of protests against globalism; this time Quebec City, (Canada) where the leaders of 34 nations are assembled to try and expand NAFTA into "The Free Trade Area of the Americas", encompassing 800 million people in nations with a combined $US22 trillion in goods and services ...

Open Letter to America from a Canadian
What was happening in America, was reported by our sister publication the British "On Target," August 2002
The common plight of small, medium, family and organic farmers everywhere also shows that British (and European) farmers are not alone. With the Collaboration of governments, the octopus-like tendrils of Multinational Corporations extend everywhere across national boundaries to enslave and destroy perfectly sound agricultural systems purely for Power and Profit. As in the United Kingdom draconian legislation is being put into place (in the U.S.A.) to 'preserve' the environment. We read that "Farmland in Oregon has been laid waste so that fish can thrive in a lake," The Observer 28th July 2001, and of the confiscation of land, "Federal Government waging war on ranchers, land owners, farmers in America's heartland" and "Property rights - peril in land grab continues", American Free Press, 22nd October 2001.

The New Times carried on reporting the effects of 'Free Trade Agreements," July 2003
"…Much of America's manufacturing has shifted out of the country, first to Mexico after the NAFTA agreement, and now to China. Trying to revive the economy, President Bush's recent $350 billion income tax cut was financed by increased borrowing…"
Will Australian manufacturers --- that's if there are any left - benefit from the 'Free Trade Agreement"? Answer that question yourself!
What about the cane growers, the beef producers and the grain farmers? Well what about them? If they haven't woken up by now they must be in as deep a sleep as was Sleeping Beauty, but I can't see Prince Charming coming to their rescue. They must take up the fight for their futures - and stop believing lying party politicians are going to come to their rescue!

1997: In "What Will We Tell Our Children?" Jeremy Lee warned Australians
The global gulag:
"In the name of 'free-trade' the World Trade Organisation has a mass of regulations and demands for uniformity. One of these is 'compulsory competition' - a self-contradictory expression if ever there was one. One barrier to be crossed is the division of powers in federal systems. Uniform compulsion works best under central direction.

The Hilmer Report and the subsequent Competition Commission are the Australian equivalent of what is being forced on all industrial economies. Section 92 of the Constitution, allowing free trade between the States, is not good enough; the WTO demands uniformity across nations. This has been done with the emergence of a fourth tier of government in Australia, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), where State Premiers are coerced into legislating by uniform direction. With a central government that openly coerces the States through its monopoly of public credit-allocation, the State governments have no option but to obey or be pauperised. Even their obedience is not enough.

In the face of the constitution, and contrary to the expressed will of the people, Canberra is directly enlisting Local Government, through Regional Organisation Councils (R.O.C.s) into national compliance. Increasingly, Councils are being forced to police the global demands of the WTO, through planning, standardisation and environmental programmes at local level. Mutterings by local councillors who find themselves increasingly constricted by centrally-directed programmes in these areas have been muted by turning Council representation from a voluntary service into a paid profession. Councils are amalgamated and corporatised. High-salary CEOs direct paid-Councillors on what is to be done. The answer to local resistance is centralisation through amalgamation.

The role of another international body, the International Union of Local Authorities, (l.U.L.A.) is of increasing importance. The IULA Declaration demands that Local Government be nationally organised and directed. This flies in the face of Australia's constitutional arrangements, which allow the Commonwealth no role in Local Councils."
Australians didn't listen then and are still not listening.


Under the preceding heading, the following advert appeared in the North Queensland Register, 29th January, 2004
You are wrong if you blame Peter Beattie alone for draconian anti-development laws.
Borbidge, Littleproud and Hobbs betrayed Queensland farmers and land holders for money - they agreed to bring in restrictions on your freehold land.
The original Commonwealth-State Natural Heritage Objectives Agreement to enact State Vegetation Laws preventing landholders from developing and maintaining their properties was signed on November 5, 1997 by the Queensland National Party leader, the Hon Rob Borbidge along with Minister for Environment, the Hon Brian Littleproud and Minister for Natural Resources, Howard Hobbs on behalf of Queensland.
Attachment A to this agreement:
Section 3.2 [c] ensures the State will implement:
"Effective measures in place to retain and manage native vegetation including controls on clearing."
Section 3.2[d] "Avoid or limit any further broad-scale clearance of native vegetation…"
Under Priorities: Section 4.2[a] (1) "a prohibition on clearing endangered regional ecosystems."
Section 4.3[b] "work with local government, landholders and the community to develop further mechanisms for the protection of vegetation on freehold land."
The Commonwealth Signatories to the Agreement were:
Signing on behalf of the Commonwealth were Prime Minister The Hon John Howard, Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill and Primary Industries Minister The Hon John Anderson.
Section 5.1[c] states: "No activities that adversely effect the status of ecological communities."
This and other sections will allow Peter Beattie to convert most of our regional forestry to National Park or exclusive reserve status thus preventing sustainable grazing or any human activity.
It is a well accepted fact that the removal of grazing from forestry areas has in the past and will in future impact heavily on the environment resulting in widespread ecological damage caused by wildfires.
One Nation Senator Len Harris has led the battle in defence of graziers and farmers, in fact all land holders, in taking on the Beattie Labor Party's Vegetation Management Act.
Please note the Queensland Parliament cannot change the Common Law of Australia…."

** Queenslanders are invited to obtain a copy of the Commonwealth/State Partnership Agreement by contacting Sen. Len Harris at 1300 638 820


After hearing Mark Latham's response to Kerry O'Brien's question on the 7.30 Report, Thursday 13th February, 2004 as to his motives in calling for reduced superannuation perks for future politicians, you would be justified in thinking Mark has had an 'awakening'. He wasn't in Parliament for the money but thought politicians should serve the Australian people. Wow, that's the first time I have heard a politician say that in many a year!
But the warning lights 'flashed' upon reading his September 2003 'Light on the Hill" Lecture to the party faithful. Preparing to sum up his presentation he said:
"I believe in a stakeholder society in which all Australians are encouraged to save and take an ownership stake in the economy." Does he mean an 'old fashioned' 'free enterprise' economy? No sir: "In economic policy, we believe in competitive capitalism (read Super-debt-capitalism...ed): open and productive markets (read 'free trade'…ed) backed by high levels of public investment in education and training…"

Let's get a better idea of what is a "Stakeholder Society"; the term is heard often these days. Fabian Socialist Race Matthews used the term in the title of his book: "Jobs of Our Own: Building a Stake-Holder Society." A Fabian Socialist Matthews sought to 'forge historical links' with the Belloc/Chesterton Distributist Movement, and the Antigonish Movement in Nova Scotia and the Mondragon Co-Operative Corporation in the Basque region of Spain. But veteran Distributist, and Social Crediter, Anthony Cooney scotched the claim by showing the reader the socialists still wanted to 'rule the roost' - hardly 'free enterprise'. The Distributist Movement is for widespread property ownership, whereas, the Co-Operatives are something else again. The review of Matthews' book appeared in a Heritage Journal edition under the title, "I Fear No Peevish Master". Well worth a read.


A few words upon the principles of the Economic System as it exists today. They can be broadly summarized by an illustration. Imagine a closed box representing the industrial system, a box in which are all the plant, material, craftsmanship, and other factors for Production. Let there be an outlet from the box through which are to appear those final results of production, which alone can justify the undertaking of any production at all - namely, consumable goods in their widest sense of all means of life, material and cultural.
Let us all stand round the box with slips of paper in our hand bearing the injunction: "You must consume less, so that the box can produce more." What does this mean? Obviously, that we must allow as little to come out of the box as possible. But observe - the injunction says that this is to enable the box to produce more. More what, then? Surely not consumable goods, for these are no use inside the box.
Quite right. It is not consumable goods, but more 'capital' goods - more of the above mentioned factors of production - that are to be produced. In other words, we are to stop up the outlet in order to increase the size of the box. And what then?
Well, we can go on to the next step of making use of the increased productive power of the box to draw out of it - a larger supply of consumable goods? By no means, but to increase still more the size and power of the box . And so ad infinitum. Thus, according to the current economic principle do we become "prosperous". From The New Age 1924.


Banking on Empire, J P Morgan Chase
The news is Iraq's banking system is to be controlled by a consortium of foreign corporations, headed up by a bank with a long history of corruption and close co-operation with oppressive regimes.
Iraqi ministries will now be able to borrow billions of dollars to buy much-needed equipment from overseas suppliers, but only by mortgaging the national oil revenues through a bank managed by New York-based multinational JP Morgan Chase.
Hussein al-Uzri, president of the Trade Bank of Iraq, which is managed by JP Morgan Chase, announced last week in Kuwait City, that the bank had raised $2.4 billion in export guarantees for trade between Iraq and foreign companies and governments.
"Those oil revenues will be used to support the Iraq Trade Bank letters of credit," said David Chavern, a senior official with the U.S. Export-Import Bank, when he addressed attendees at a recent briefing organized by Equity International for potential investors in Iraq. "And we will ensure those letters of credit for the U.S. exporter."
The management contract, which is worth $2 million over two-and-a-half years, was awarded to a consortium of thirteen banks representing fourteen countries, led by JP Morgan, last July after a competitive bidding process against four other international consortia.

JP Morgan Chase, which was formed from the merger in December 2000 of one of the world's largest commercial banks, the Chase Manhattan Corporation, and the investment bank J.P. Morgan & Company, declined to comment about its role in the Trade Bank of Iraq.

The Trade Bank of Iraq was formed partially to replace the trade guarantees established by the United Nations oil-for-food programme, imposed on Iraq in 1995 during the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein.
The programme provided a means of controlling Iraq's purchase of humanitarian goods from other countries in exchange for Iraqi petroleum, while prohibiting the purchase of goods that could theoretically be used for military purposes. The oil-for-food program, which in total used $46 billion in Iraqi export earnings, was brought to an end last November.
Unlike the oil-for-food program, the guarantees of the Trade Bank are administered not by an UN agency but by the private sector and its corporate allies in various national governments. The export credits are to provide backing for purchases of raw materials, medical supplies, bulk food imports, fertilizer, and capital equipment. According to al-Uzri, the Trade Bank of Iraq has issued $300 million worth of letters of credit so far.

Shackling the People, through the government, with future debts
"The oil figures are very murky and secretive," said Nomi Prins former investment banker and author of the forthcoming book Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America. "That same oil for which no one has the appropriate...information is being used to collateralize multiple things. You're effectively leveraging oil for which the revenues are non-transparent."

Oiling the wheels
Although it is true that the Occupation Authority and JP Morgan Chase are making it possible for Iraq to trade with the outside world and buy necessities such as food and oil refining equipment despite its bad credit, Prins points out that the situation is more complicated, especially since the "government of Iraq" is not an independent body, but rather an agent of occupation which doesn't necessarily have the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind.
Like the Iraq reconstruction contracts that have favored US companies with political connections, the export credits of the Trade Bank of Iraq favor companies from contributing nations, whether or not their products are cheap or well-made.

U.S. Investments are 'risk free'
Take the case of the US export credit agency that underwrites the Trade Bank of Iraq. Of the $2.4 billion that the Trade Bank of Iraq has secured in export guarantees, the U.S. Export-Import Bank has approved $500 million in letters of credit. The money from the U.S. Ex-Im Bank ensures that the investments of U.S. corporations in Iraq are risk-free. If Iraqi ministries default on any of their payments to US companies, the U.S. Ex-Im Bank will pay in their place. Then the Ex-Im Bank gets its money back from Iraq's Development Fund, the acting budget for Iraq that is 95% made up of oil revenues, which is under the Occupational Authority's control.
Open government advocates have complained that the Iraqi Development Fund lacks transparency and that decisions concerning the fund are not subject to scrutiny or public comment. Thus the U.S. can choose to set the rules to pay itself back but using money from Iraqi oil to do it. Taken from https://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=9848


The following article by Bevan O'Regan, Moama comes from OZNews, March 2003:
Why do farmers and stakeholder groups try and protect their properties when they already own their land?
The Green Movement have engineered, through the University of Melbourne a plan that has made farmers cringe and believe that groups such as the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLAWC) and Departments of Natural Resources have somehow been given authority to challenge property owners of their property rights.
Somehow a new control system, "Collaborative Forestry Management" (CFM) have cleverly pieced together a team of bureaucrats to join with people called "stakeholders" (e.g., CWA, Farmers Groups, Local Government) into believing it to be a legitimate organisation.
In NSW this CFM group is using Acts of Parliament to bluff their way and frighten developers of farms not to develop at all. In NSW it is DLAWC and in other states it is mostly Departments of Natural Resources.
This renamed DLAWC body in NSW is using what they believe is an all conquering Act, "The Native Vegetation and Conservation Act 1997" as the instrument to bludgeon farmers into submission. This Act is flawed many times. For instance, Section 50 says farmers can be forced to incriminate themselves under cross examination by a DLAWC officer.
Utter rubbish!
The law books are dotted with case-laws that say no person can be forced to incriminate themselves. Section 61 says that a bureaucrat of the DLAWC can come onto a property and demand property records, take photographs together with soil and plant samples to be used in evidence against the farmer.
Again, utter rubbish.
The law courts are again dotted with case-law of would be and could be government agents failing to observe the Act of Trespass. A property owner is still King of his castle.
In NSW there is one DLAWC officer for every 18 farmers. These officers are mostly trained at Goulburn's Police Academy. To highlight the lack of understanding, we asked a young female DLAWC officer to explain Schedule 4 of the Act she was quoting from. Her answer was she didn't know!
Schedule 4 is a very important clause. It says, "The provision does not operate to effect in a manner prejudicial to any person the rights of that person existing before the date of the publication". This means the government cannot shift the goal posts.
It also means that Local Government with its planning laws and zoning laws guarantees that the purchaser of land is automatically given property rights. These rights in NSW were set in stone as far back as 1979 with the declaration of the "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979".
What is amazing is that State Planning in 1979 used a Royal Commission into Land Tenure as its basis for continuance of "Property Rights". From the pages of this Royal Commission one reads that by implication of Section 29 of the Magna Carta, the term "existing use rights" and "continuance of use" is the basis for the state's planning.
The use of this 1976 Royal Cormmission which incidentally took 3 years to complete, was implemented in all states as the core document to protect property rights.
It is obvious that we as property owners are being bluffed by "wet behind the ears" university graduates who have been hurriedly pushed into these mushrooming bureaucracies without knowledge of Common Law.
The sad reality is that the people who should be standing up for us such as Local Government and State Parliamentarians are nowhere to be seen. Property owners should shrug off this cringing attitude and the next time they see a bureaucrat driving around in the back paddock, they should take the registration number and report them.
There is a protocol for entering private land. First, a notification by writing and or go directly to the main homestead and report. It is about time that property owners told these bureaucrats who come onto their properties that Local Government issues a zoning certificate. That certificate guarantees your "use right", which then guarantees your right and access to the soil, water and vegetation on your property. These officers who dictate terms other than those of your rights should be told to "move on". They have no right being there.
Australia truly has a rock solid history of property rights dating back to July 1828 when the Common Law of England became domestic law in Australia. What right have quasi-stakeholder groups, orchestrated by an even more quasi-group called the CFM emanating from Melbourne University, have cause for property owners to cringe when they build dams to catch water and clear trees to grow crops. After all, who owns the land?
Tell them to 'move on'!
Not only should property owners tell these CFM stakeholder groups and government officers to "move on", the State Forestry Commission who look after State forests for the Crown should
do likewise.
The State Crown Forests are areas of land set aside by the Crown for use by its people.
The 800 Magna Carta law, mentioned in Sir John Kerr's Royal Commission, clearly states that any person can gather wood for cooking and timber for their houses free of charge and free of royalties. This law is active today, and it came about in the 13th century when the people held a sword to King John's neck and made him create these laws for common people.
Crown state forests should not be made into national parks.
It is quite easy to see these green movement people are not really about saving native pastures or the twin tailed lizards, they are about destroying private property and ownership and state forests.
With the federal government now in control of Native Land Title and the ever increasing national parks, the remaining 13 per cent of freehold land is the final goal of those who motivate this social experiment.
It is interesting to read Ann Williamson's book of how Russia lost their property rights and equate that to our present situation in Australia.
If knowledge be power then let's use that knowledge to inform more of our people of their "rights" and turn around this intolerable situation and inform bureaucrats they are there to serve and not there to dictate. (emphasis added throughout…ed).


Don't believe it can't happen to you: Countryman, W.A. 5th February, 2004
The Government has sold Crown land at enormous profit and now, to pacify the Greens has decided to steal private land to replace it. Yes, it is true, land taken care of for donkey's years by its proper owners is now being taken by the Government under the guise of conservation and later much of the land will be developed by the Government.
It has simply to write out new title deeds and you no longer own your property. Your home or land can be taken for road widening, railways, conservation, defence or any other government whim and you have lost everything by the stroke of a pen. Getting replacement price for your property is impossible. I did not believe that I would live to see the day that this would happen in WA.
It has happened to me and my neighbours. You could be next. Small businesses, market gardens, nurseries and even the family home isn't safe from the tactics of the Government. You can be denied the right to make honest living from your land and find in the houses that you built with your own hands. It is time for the politicians to change the law in order to save what is left of our fragile democracy for our children and our grandchildren. If you wish to change the law and bring back justice for the Aussie battlers, ring your MP and demand a change in policy.
Premier, its time to stop giving out large government grants and pay your debt to the victimised property owners. We have been wanting to be paid off for the past 12 years, some people are still waiting after 20, the stress-related illnesses are horrifying and many people finish up in an early grave! W. Higgleson, Baldivis, W.A.

The Editor
We are reaching the point of no return in the battle to equate the monetary symbol with reality that releases freedom in all its God given generosity. The Howard Government has reached the pits of economic political insanity in its "Free" trade deal. The sight of ships from Australia taking Australian cars, oranges, etc to U.S.A., while ships from U.S.A. transport the same cargo back to Australia, must be the ultimate point of political and economic insanity designed to enslave man to "work" in order that he may not be free. Could man devise a greater waste of God's natural resources to satisfy the small egos of unfaithful politicians, the equivalent of throwing God's gifts back in His face.

We must continue to present the first natural law of truth in economics, to repeat the simple truth that the very first objective in economic activity is to utilise natural resources immediately available to hand for the use of citizens who live in the land God has given them. We do not grow cabbages in our backyard to send to Americans quite capable of growing cabbages in their own backyards, and we encourage all people of all nations to grow their own cabbages in their own backyards. That is a first law of freedom.

We know, and must continue to stress, that right relationship between man, money and the economy - what we might call the Holy Trinity of modern society. In that Trinity there must be complete unity in diversity in which the three entities are not confounded, nor the substance divided. Fundamental to that Holy equation, is if we get the use of that "symbol" we call money wrong everything goes haywire. The "symbol" is the connecting rod between man and reality. We do not worship the "symbol", we worship the reality.

The Howard - Bush partnership is an exercise in worshipping unreality. Because their worship is intimately connected with the exercise of power, the result is chaos between man, the economy and God, another variation of the Holy Trinity. Nearly every sane person with whom I discuss the matter, has no hesitation in agreeing that both Howard and Bush are the servants of a power greater than themselves, the power Christ referred to as mammon, or more colloquially today called money. Christ correctly diagnosed this form of insanity as resulting from the futile attempt to worship both God and money. In their worship of money, Howard and Bush, and all who agree with them, have become the servants of mammon. Why does the Christian Church remain silent on this matter? The truth enunciated above should be preached from every pulpit in every church.

There is a serious and momentous question to answer in this reality. What exactly is the Christian Church? My understanding is that the Church I worship in every Sunday is God's repository of truth. If that is so, why then does it not teach God's truth about the monetary symbol? There is no doubt in my mind, that if it did, it would turn the whole world upside down. In the absence of a more effective mission in life I will continue on from my 81years plus seeking to effect that miracle.
Yours faithfully, Edward Rock.


The SCSC will be held on Thursday 26th February 2004, commencing at 7.30pm. Guest speaker is Mrs Janne Peterson, and her Subject is: "Let's Have Truth in Government". Mrs. Peterson is a prominent member of the Christian Democrat Party (CDP) and her interest is in good education for the young and true representative government.
The venue is the Lithuanian Club, 16 East Terrace, Bankstown; approximately 600m from Bankstown Railway Station. Proceed East along South Terrace, past West Terrace. There are numerous restaurants along South Terrace for an evening meal and a bar service is available at the Lithuanian Club.
Cost of attendance is $4; bring a friend for the first time and the $4 will be waived. A book selection will be available for sale. Ask for a current book list -- now available.


Conservative Speakers' Club, 1st March, 2004. Guest speaker will be Mr. Eric Cummins and the title of his address is: "The Latest Development in the anti-Republican Fight: with particular reference to the Senate Committee Inquiry."
Mr. Cummins has spent 30 years as a journalist, covering politics and the Federal and State Parliaments. He runs his own publishing business and is currently editor of an Australian Monarchist League magazine. Eric always manages to inject his own brand of humour into what can at times be a rather dry field of reporting.
Dinner, $18 per head, from 6.30pm. Public Schools' Club, 207 East Terrace Adelaide.
Please take special note: Dinner bookings to be in by Thursday 26th February, 2004.
Phone: 8395 9826 UP TO AND BEFORE the 23rd. Phone: 8322 8665 AFTER that date.
There will be a wide selection of books, audios and videos for purchase. Come early and browse. Mayo Tape Library will tape the message as usual.


A Conspiracy Called Conservation by Doug Jensen, $14.00 posted
Family Farming A new Economic Vision by Marty Strange $14.00 posted
They Want Your Land $5.00 posted
The Lima Declaration $4.00 posted
© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159