It is worth recalling that John Howard's Science, Engineering and
Innovation Council said in a report that the federal government should remove
(the few remaining) immigration barriers to allow "the best" Chinese and Indian
students to remain in Australia. (The Australian 14 June 2006, p.31)
can ride "on the coat tails" of the magical, fantastic, exciting, booming Asian
giants of India and China but only if universities can capture god-like Indian
and Chinese students - and that requires producing world-class infrastructures.
At present Australia does not attract the top Chinese and Indian students.
why bother - if Australians have to build "world-class infrastructure" why not
train our own students to do better than the Indian and Chinese students? How
about a bit of pride in our own kind for a change!
that? Oh - I'm sorry - for a moment I forgot that "our government" is not a government
for us, but a government to eliminate us, in serving the tyrannical
orientalist, new world order.
CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS - TREASON!
in The Mail on Sunday, United Kingdom. 4/11/2007
How will we be able
to look our grandchildren in the face when they ask what did you do to stop Britain's
taken over by a foreign power - and that includes even you Lady Thatcher This
is too frightening and too important to ignore any longer. If we don't want to
become a neglected outstation of the European Superstate, stripped of our nationhood,
powerless to decide who lives here, controlled by laws we don't make and can't
change, ruled by a government we cannot throw out, we have rather a short time
in which to do something about it. You may think none of this matters to you,
but the trouble is that it does, whether you think so or not.
European Union is interested in you, your liberty and your money, even if you
don't care about it. Its decisions affect your life, even if you don't realise
they do. When I point out that local councils are changing rubbish collections
because of EU laws, people don't believe me. They rightly think it ridiculous
that such things should be affected by what is supposed to be a partnership. But
A huge number of our laws have been
drawn up in Brussels and hurried through Parliament without anybody really understanding
what they were doing. A lot of us still don't even grasp why it is that we can
no longer have nice blue British passports.
also don't grasp why they have to queue for ages to get back into the country
after a holiday. They aren't paying attention.
That passport you have isn't
British. It's European. It gives you no more right to enter this country than
a Lithuanian. The border you are crossing is the border of the EU, not Britain.
If the Government set up a special channel
for UK passport holders it would be breaking EU law. There is no longer any such
thing as a British passport. This has another grim meaning. We cannot control
two thirds of the immigration now revolutionising this country because it comes
from EU states. British people have a way of ignoring the Continent then finding
out just in time that what happens there matters - Dunkirk being the most recent
example of this complacent folly.
We probably won't get another Dunkirk to
warn us. By the time it is clear to everyone what has happened, it will be far
Look at the row we are having, a
rather lukewarm row in my view, about the European Constitution, dressed up as
the Treaty of Lisbon but still what it always was -the official foundation document
of the European Superstate. At first it looks as if there are two sides, those
for a referendum, and those against.
But what use would a referendum be? Who
seriously believes that if Britain said 'No', the EU would say, 'Oh, sorry to
have troubled you with our silly, over-ambitious idea. We'll give it up for good'.
No, they would threaten and suborn the British
Government into holding the vote again. Or they would have yet another summit
in which the thing would be adjusted a tiny bit and presented as if it were new.
Or they would say: 'Very well then, if you don't like it why not leave?'
Brown might hold a referendum on the very subject. At this point we would badly
need a major political figure to stand up and say: 'Yes please let's leave'. He
could add: 'After all, if Norway and Switzerland can cope outside, we certainly
And I defy anyone to tell me one single way in which this country has
benefited from its long entanglement with this horrible organisation.' But this
will not happen.
Our entire political elite,
in all parties, love the EU, not because it is good or the country, but because
it is good for them. They love its regular service of gravy trains, carrying off
failed Ministers off to a life of high salaries, big expenses and huge pensions,
plus an almost total absence of responsibility. They don't mind at all that it
deprives them of the power to do very much.
They are, for the most part, short
of ideas and lazy, and happy to be able to pass the buck to Brussels while enjoying
their pay and perks. Note, specially, the behaviour of the Tory Party. People
sometimes ask why I call them 'useless'.
here's an example. You get a lot of something called "Euroscepticism" from Tories.
It's a stupid word and it describes a worthless thing. They act as if they are
against the EU grabbing our power and money, and talk sternly about how they disapprove.
But David Cameron, William Hague and Malcolm Rifkin are clear that if the Lisbon
Treaty is ratified, that will be that.
In the (highly unlikely) event of them
coming to power, they won't hold a referendum because, oh dear, it will be too
late. In doing this, they are part of a great tradition.
first sought British entry to the Common Market in 1962.
Then Ted Heath succeeded
in getting it, ramming our membership through Parliament with characteristic ruthlessness
and sacrificing Britain's fisheries industry [and I would add space programme]
for his ambition.
When in 1975, Harold Wilson held a referendum [3 years too
late] on staying in, Margaret Thatcher campaigned vigorously for Britain to remain
in the Market, sporting a jumper bearing flags of member states. When she came
to office, she pushed through the Single European Act, a huge surrender of British
vetoes. Then she was bludgeoned by Cabinet colleagues into entering the Exchange
By the end of her premiership, she had begun to realise what
was at stake. But it was precisely because of this that the Tory Party then threw
her out of office.
John Major then went on to browbeat his MPs into voting
for the Maastricht Treaty. Yet another huge surrender of independence.
Cameron represents a firm return to the Europhile days before Lady Thatcher's
When it comes to action, the Tory party will continue to support
the EU because they have been committed to it since the sixties, and cannot admit
that it was a mistake. But they also recognise how unpopular it is, which is why
they pretend to be hostile and invented Euroscepticism" to console disgruntled
voters. The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to unscramble.
advice is not to be diverted by campaigns for a referendum that will get us nowhere.
It is to consider very carefully, whether you will be able to look your children
and grandchildren in the face when, 20 years hence, they ask: What did you do
to stop your country being taken over by a foreign power?" [and I would add not
a very pleasant bunch of politicians either].
promises: I shall continue, week by week, to suggest ways in which you might
be able to ensure that you that they never need to ask that question.
by Brian Simpson
Rudd era of darkness dawns, expect a somewhat sleepy politically correct class
of intellectuals to turn up the heat and pour out black-arm-band history books
by the crate load, as happened in the Keating era. Hot from the UNSW Press is
"Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia" by John Fitzgerald.
argument is that the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act was racist and a product
of Social Darwinism because the Chinese were committed to freedom, equality and
"Australian values." The "big white lie" was that Australia needed to be "White"
or maintain cultural continuity with Britain to maintain "Australian values."
So, if unlimited Chinese migration was permitted,
we would have had freedom, equality and fraternal solidarity? Nonsense! We would
have had a colony of China!
hasn't reinforced "Australian values," it has destroyed them. "Big White Lie"
doesn't come to grips with realistic fears by other Asian nations about Chinese
colonialism, being very much a book in the genre of "great White guilt."
months back Professor Andrew Fraser wrote an essay critiquing another "White Australia
Guilt" book and I think his refutation also applies to this one.
real "big White lie" is the common philosophical thread to all of these sorts
of books: that race doesn't matter. Race does matter and it is races that make
cultures and values, not the other way round.
LETTERS IN THE PRESS
OWNERS PAY ATTENTION!
Property Rights - trees are only large plants:
Editor, Queensland Country Life, 8/11/07:
the Private Native Forestry Code of Practice is another example of a try-on to
see if the public will react to more actions of a police state by appointed, not
elected, DNR officers.
People need to understand that freehold land is free
to the holder and is guaranteed by the sovereignty of the Crown. Trees that grow
on your land are not sacred as a cow in India; they are the same as a lettuce
plant, a tomato plant or a plant of wheat. Trees are bigger, that is all. Farmers
who have mature trees to harvest should sharpen their saws and fell them. As I
said, forestry is a permitted use under the classification of agriculture.
advice to all owners of freehold land, including town blocks, to keep nosy DNR
officers in their place, is to place a trespass notice on your gate to say:
by invitation only, with reference to the High Court decision of Dillon v Plenty
Australia can well do without wet-behind-the-ears do-gooders who
peddle uneducated tripe, only to scare honest landowners of their property rights.
Property rights to use land as an owner wishes were guaranteed at the day
of purchase by each local council when the planning officer of that council issued
a 149 certificate.
That 149 certificate in this case of forestry use legally
gives the owner of freehold land the right to harvest the trees the same as a
crop of tomatoes.
As a shire councillor for 25 consecutive years, I find it
hard to believe that the councils have not, through the shires' association, stepped
in and told the DNR to butt out of sovereign areas of which they have no jurisdiction.
- - Cr. Bevan O'Regan, Narrabri NSW.
note: Bevan O'Regan's DVD "Your Property Under Attack," ($20.00 posted) is a must
What the League of Rights has continually
warned of has now come to pass. Political parties are not going to save you from
You must join with like-minded Australians and fight for your
own rights! Your freehold property rights are under grave attack, and Bevan O'Regan
The Advertiser, Adelaide 8/11/07
I refer to the report regarding Family
First preferencing in New South Wales, (6/11/07). I would like to clarify that
under the preferencing system, every party is required to preference all other
political parties including those that do not share similar policies. The only
decision to be made is in which order those preferences are directed to other
I can therefore assure people that Family First directs its preferences
to other, like-minded parties with similar policies first and then, after that,
to parties where we have little in common.
The simple truth is that in SA,
Family First has directed its preferences to Nick Xenophon first, ahead of all
other realistic contenders.
In return, Mr. Xenophon has directed 50 per cent
of his preferences to Family First.
In NSW, Family First gave our 7th and
8th preferences to the Liberty and Democracy Party.
- - Dennis Hood, MLC
What Humbug! The following
appeared recently in the Sydney Morning Herald:
The past week clearly
shows just how hypocritical the major political parties really are. When Peter
Andren, the independent member for Calare, was in Parliament both parties considered
him a problem and a troublemaker.
The Speaker never allowed him to ask questions
in question time and his private members bills didn't see the light of day.
that he is dead, both sides applaud his free spirit and the clear thinking he
brought to the House of Representatives.
- - Keith Hardie, Caringbah
LETTERS TO THE PRESS
Rights: Letters to the Editor, Queensland Country Life:
in reply to the Queensland Country Life article headed "Agforce pulls the
What a pathetic and gutless response by those producer funded
organizations to open warfare against producers and their legitimate rights to
earn a living from their farms.
Water meters have only one purpose which is
the foundation for charging farmers (money) for farmers' own water, traditionally
you can't sell water if you don't know (meter) how much water is used. Mr Kenny,
raise your sights, we will not tolerate meters on any bore, or water source, including
Those who have been conned into installing meters already
might be excused for thinking that was a reversible mistake. Refer to I & C.M.
McLeod v Chief Executive NR&M heard in the Land Court on 25 March, 2003.
can only recommend at minimum, censure, but more appropriately, departure from
the mentioned organizations and joining something alternative that does work FOR
The Qld Opposition are just as pathetic. Mr Turnbull clearly doesn't
know his real law, yes of course landowners have an absolute right to stock and
domestic water, as well as, without exception, an absolute right to irrigation
Likewise, and without bureaucratic fees and fines or water meters or
any other illegal extortion tactics (currently employed by the water Gestapo).
And Mr Turnbull's closing remarks are a load of codswallop fully reflecting
his impediment gained at university, lacking in practical experience and commonsense,
as well as designed to fool those who are lacking in knowledge of real law.
am I not surprised?
- - Ian McLeod, Maryvale, Qld..
interest rates: To the Editor, Daily News, South Tweed Heads. 7/11/07
Can some great mathematician out there please explain to we simple folk exactly
how, by increasing bank interest rates, inflation is lowered or curbed when the
most inflationary aspect of our economy is bank interest?
Another puzzle is
how higher interest rates will help the struggling farmers who are already drowning
in debt to the banks but our 'leader' says that because of the drought it is reasonable
that interest rates rise even further. What are we missing in these statements
'from on high'?
Banks spend countless millions to entice us to borrow from
them and transfer nearly all that we owe to them by way of a mortgage and in return
punch a few computer keys to create a line of credit out of thin air and then
have the gall to charge more than ¼ per cent interest, which would give them ample
income to pay their expenses and make a good profit.
Then to add insult to
injury they alter the original contract with the borrower by progressively increasing
their already exorbitant interest to the huge detriment of the borrower and their
ears are deaf to the please of mercy from the distraught borrower.
is going on, our leaders are praising the good job the banks are doing to curb
inflation because they are terrified to get out of favour with the banks, to whom
they have handed supreme power over the nation.
- - Yours sincerely, Ted
Paterson, Kingscliff NSW.