|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
2 March 2007 Thought for the Week:
"There are many counsels and schemes which are being advanced, and which play on fear, allegedly to help people "save their financial skins" at the expense of others--and if they are successful, I suspect that it will be at the expense of losing their souls.
I want to devote my efforts and talents, limited as they may be, to exposing the fallacious nature of the orthodox financial system and to promoting the appropriate corrective measures in the interests of all people. This, to me, means a continuous and accelerated promotion of C. H. Douglas's ideas of Social Credit which become ever more relevant with the passage of time.
When the crisis is sufficiently deepened to cause general alarm to overtake smug complacency, it is of paramount importance that these ideas are widespread so that serious attention may turn to them when 'men are grasping at straws'."
- - Wallace Klinck, Canada February 2007.
AUSTRALIA'S WHEAT AND THE SINGLE DESK POLICY
Effectively, the essential aspects of this debate have now been openly discussed throughout Australia by wheat growers. From Central Queensland to Victoria, from New South Wales through to West Australia the opportunity was given for all growers to attend forums to air opinions for or against AWB's future role.
made about perceived AWB conflicts of interest. Some of these were put forward
in very strong terms. For instance, with such a massive corporate structure as
AWB is now, with large and diverse interests outside of grain marketing, it has
great responsibilities to its shareholders.
However, there have been scant suggestions or thoughts about why the AWB statutory pooling system for selling Australia's wheat was set up in the first place. It was established to protect farmers and induce stability and maximise income. Grain traders were perceived to be having too much sway on what farmers received for their grain and farmers were very unhappy.
§ So, are there acceptable
answers and can they be implemented?
with the first point:
AND NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS
Ian Wilson LL.B:
Good work everybody - a real victory for freedom! Don't go back to sleep!
CATHOLIC CHURCH CONFRONTS BLAIR
In the United Kingdom, the Equality Law, which condemns discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services will come into force next April 1st.
23 January, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, archbishop of Westminster and primate
of the Catholic Church in England and Wales sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony
Blair, and all the members of his government, urging them not to enforce the laws
for Catholic Adoption Agencies.
Archbishop Mario Conti, Vice-President of the Scottish Bishops Conference also wrote to the Prime Minister giving his full support to Cardinal Murphy O'Connor.
The Anglicans Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Church, as well as John Sentamu, Archbishop of York gave their support to the Catholic Church by making the same request to Tony Blair: "In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk."
Blair's 'politically correct' response:
Archbishop Murphy O'Connor
said he was "deeply disappointed" by the Prime Minister's decision not to grant
an exemption to Catholic agencies.
A RELATED MATTERby Betty Luks:
Regarding the recently 'shelved' South Australian "Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill":
The website willyouvisitmeinprison.com (wyvmip) reported that on the 26th October 2006, the SA Labor Government introduced through the Attorney General Michael Atkinson the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill.
Rightly the folk at wyvmip observed that if the bill had been legislated into being:
§ It would have brought in sweeping changes to the way we think and how we act.
§ It would have reduced freedom of speech;
§ It would have broadened the definition of "victimisation" to include "vilification" (and thus make the S.A. laws more draconian than the Victorian legislation);
§ It would have increased the powers of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner and
§ Provided for State sponsored legal action.
Whilst recognising "Western liberal democracy requires a series of civil and political rights in order to function" wyvmip appealed to the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the honourable stand they took.
My view is that the very legislation against which they were appealing was based on the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights!
THE STATE CAN'T SET YOU FREE!
Roger Scruton philosopher, political activist and businessman, wrote of this situation in "The State Can't Set You Free", The Spectator 16 October 2004. He was detailing how the Human Rights Act threatened the ancient liberties of the British people.
"The Human Rights Act has seemed to many to be an innocent adaptation of principles already contained within our common law, and indeed affirmed by Statute once before, in the Bill of Rights of 1689. Seen in this way, the Act is no more than an affirmation of an ancient principle of our jurisdiction, which is that the law exists to protect the individual from oppression, whether that oppression be exerted by criminals, by neighbours or by those in authority.
But this vision of the matter overlooks a profound distinction between common law and civilian jurisdictions, and between the English presumption that you are free until the law forbids you and the Continental presumption that you are free only if the law explicitly says so."
Socialist Planning and Statist Theories
A large and dangerous assumption:
The modern idea of the 'rights
of man' came to the fore in the French Revolution, and Justice came to be administered
by Revolutionary Tribunals (today's Equal Opportunity Commissions?
denied the accused the right to counsel, and which punished people for offences
defined in the same vague and philosophical language which could be interpreted
to mean anything that the prosecutor desired.
The basis of Common
If we concede that the State has these powers over us - we have already conceded the State is our master. We are not free at all! Eric Butler was fond of reminding his listeners: "What the State grants today the State can take away tomorrow!"
I am leading up to is this:
Bringing it closer to home:
of Truth yes - but Truth no longer a Defence:
Truth is no defence already under racial and religious vilification legislation in Australia! Historical Revisionists world wide are already caught in its nightmarish grip - choosing to go to prison rather than acknowledge they do not have the right to freely express their considered views on history.
We can hope the day will come when Christian leaders see the need to rally the troops to fight for the right of all Australians to freedom of speech and expression.
*Christian Philosophy in the Common Law" by Richard O'Sullivan KC. Photocopy available for $9.00 posted from P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley SA 5159
by Betty Luks:
And the reference to banker takes us back to Edward 1's substitution of Italian bankers for Jewish moneylenders. ("History in English Words," by Owen Barfield).
Some snippets from the interview:
like Napoleon of Animal Farm?
It read: "All animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others."
AMERICAN 'DEMOCRACY' SPAWNS GLOBAL EMPIRE
Author Chalmers Johnson writes it is time Americans woke up to the fact:
"With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases spread across each continent, it's time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned a global empire.
There are 737 U.S. Military Bases across the world which he insists equals Global Empire. Source: democracyinaction.org
THE DARK SIDE OF ALI?
by James Reed
Is this the same Ali that called White people "blue-eyed devils", that was an activist in the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam movements and who was buddies with dictators like Idi Amin?
Is this the same Ali who changed his name from "Clay" and who was devoted to the radical Islamism of the Nation of Islam?
Or the Ali that preached the virtues of sexual abstinence whilst being promiscuous?
Yes, Syed says, it is. But Syed says, the cause to which Ali put his dimes has failed: "The 2000 Census was unequivocal regarding the enduring concentration of poverty, drug abuse and criminality among Black Americans.
Is it any wonder that liberal intellectuals discern the rancid whiff of tokenism in the accolades that continue to rain down on the former champion?"
THE ILLUSIONS OF RESEARCH
Jones and Ungerer put it like this:
academics go on to point out that much of ARC funded "research" on terrorism essentially
is along the line that terrorism is all our fault. This research thus pushes the
line that Islam is not a threat to the West.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|