|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 May 2008 Thought for the Week:
theme of the history of the English-speaking world can be written around the persistent
attempts to evolve a Constitution which would prevent Governments or any other
groups from having too much power over individuals. Because of their Christian
philosophy and innate spirit of individualism, our forefathers worked and gave
their lives to limit the powers of Governments and to guarantee the individual
fundamental rights which were inviolate.
JOHN HOWARD : AN ASIAN PUPPET
by James Reed
Peter Wilkinson in "The Howard Legacy" (2007) has written the book that I wish I had. He shows that the Howard government's policy of selecting skilled Asian, predominately Chinese immigrants, has effectively selected Asians of higher cognitive ability and is changing the demographic nature of our elites, the professional and management classes.
Chinese are in the majority in most of the important scientific and medical fields in the Australian education system and are an overall majority at the University of New South Wales. However, it is not just the best and brightest that get degrees. Many international students (= Asians) often are given degrees and passes when they should fail because failing these students affects financial viability.
Conceded a pass, international students then get residency and jobs that Australian-Australian students could have got. Australian-Australians who passed stringent exams at that! The universities have become corrupted because government-funding policies have directed them this way.
Readers who do
not fear a Chinese takeover of Australia from within should ponder these words
by Michael Backman in "Asian Eclipse: Exposing the Dark Side of Business in Asia"
(2001): "The overseas Chinese are the most successful minority group the world
has ever seen. Much of what happens in Asia occurs because this group makes it
[they] have been far more successful in their domination of many of Asia's
economies than the Jews ever were in Europe." For that reason alone you need to
read Peter Wilkinson's excellent book urgently!
How many Australian-Australians watched with interest and alarm the highly organised
'invasion' of Canberra by the pro-Chinese Chinese, to ensure no disturbances of
the Olympic torch run? Not too many concerns about the human rights of the Tibetan
ZIMBABWEANS BEQUEATH US THEIR SORROWS
A letter to the
West from the beleaguered folk in Zimbabwe follows.
"I reckon that these are the
last days of TKM and ZPF. The darkest hour is always before dawn. We are all terrified
at what they are going to destroy next
I mean they are actually ploughing down
brick and mortar houses and one white family with twin boys of 10 had no chance
of salvaging anything when100 riot police came in with AK47's and bulldozers and
demolished their beautiful house - 5 bedrooms and pine ceilings - because it was
"too close to the airport", so we are feeling extremely insecure right now.
I am one. I cannot do everything, ---but I can do something.. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do. - Edward Everett Hale
Readers: Please phone or email your local politician calling for him to make protest on your behalf to the government of Zimbabwe, plus urge world leaders to put pressure on Mugabe to resign. British politicians have called for an arms embargo to Zimbabwe.
MALCOLM'S MATE MUGABE
by James Reed
Colebatch says that until the recent elections Fraser never publicly criticised the Mugabe regime. However he has continued to moralise and preach to Australians on various politically correct topics. So that seems to me to be a logical problem of consistency of the sharpest kind for Malcolm.
Fraser responded to Colebatch (The Australian
17/4/08 p.14). He claims that he did not criticise the Mugabe regime because it
may have put certain people at risk when disturbances occurred in Zimbabwe. And,
"initially Mugabe started reasonably well."
The story is instructive. The elites never admit error because what happens, if it suits the agenda it is never error, and never wrong.
THE PRICE OF INSECURITY
Ian Wilson LL.B.
The West responded to the "war on terror" on the home front by the introduction of anti-terrorist legislation. In the past five years the Australian parliament has manufactured 37 pieces of anti-terrorist legislation. So much that it is difficult to keep track of it all. Now there is an excellent critical guide to the Australian legislation changes by two University of New South Wales academics, Andrew Lynch and George Williams: "What Price Security? Taking Stock of Australia's Anti-Terror Laws" (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney 2006).
This book is relatively cheap and very clearly written so that it can be easily understood by the general public. The authors take a very balanced view of the "war on terror". They accept that there is a terrorist threat, but quote Prime Minister Robert Menzies who said when introducing national security legislation in 1939: "the greatest tragedy that could overcome a country would be for it to fight a successful war in defence of liberty and to lose its own liberty in the process." (p.12)
This however seems precisely what has occurred:
In my opinion the definition of "terrorist act" is already absurdly broad and could be used by governments to essentially 'nail' anyone, or any organisation, critical of the status quo. Some elements of our multicultural society are so sensitive that any criticism is an "intimidation". Division 101 offences by individuals include "ancillary offences" such as possessing a thing or collecting or making a document "connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act." Maximum penalties for these offences range between ten and twenty five years imprisonment.
The authors note that these offences significantly extend the traditional scope of criminal liability to very early stages of an act. This is the "precautionary principle" in action, to stop people even before they have a definite plan. The authors note that the laws are so wide that it "is conceivable that people who are simply foolish or careless might find themselves being prosecuted." (p.10) A person who merely downloads a document on bomb or gun making could be caught as a "terrorist."
ASIO was given new power not "out of place in General Pinochet's Chile" (p.33). The laws allow people to be held and questioned by ASIO for up to 48 hours and it is an offence to reveal "operational information" about detention. ASIO, among other things can intercept the telecommunications of innocent people if this will "assist the organisation in carrying out its function of obtaining intelligence relating to security." Even USA law does not allow the secret detention of non-suspect citizens. (pp.39-40)
In other papers I have
dealt with the threat that the terrorism laws pose to freedom of speech. Lynch
and Williams present an excellent discussion of this. Writer Frank Moorhouse ("The
Trouble With Paradise" Griffith Review 14) has also written cogent material on
the "War on Free Speech." (The Weekend Australian 4-5/11/06, p.22)
HERE COME MORE CHINESE
by James Reed
the 1960s under Mao the Tyrant, China's fertility rate was 5.8 babies per woman
of child-bearing age. No doubt now, as China sets its sights on world conquest,
more footsloggers will be needed. There will be a need for "living space."
Our elites will gladly swap our lives for a few handfuls of silver, or china.
WHAT A SUMMIT SET UP
Bolt summarised the make up of Rudd's 20/20 Summit in an article in the Herald
JESSE OWENS AND THE NONSENSE ABOUT THE 1936 OLYMPICSby Peter Ewer
When the subject of black athlete Jesse Owens comes up, the papers typically say that his winning performance at the 1936 Olympics made mockery of Hitler's theory of "Aryan racial superiority."
This claim was made, for example, in The Advertiser 12/4/08 p.60. It should be recalled that the Berlin 1936 Nazi Olympics was won not by the multiracial US with its Black and Jewish athletes - but by Nazi Germany. The medal win was an 89 - 56 margin over the United States.
In other words the US was thrashed. But all we hear about is how good just one athlete was. Imagine if Owens had lost Imagine.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE - KEV'S VISION AND AN EMPTY FLASK?
by James Reed
Go to it
boys and girls
"get him," as I used to say to my dog Budd, when I was a kid.
Aahh, Budd, what memories!
THE PRINCE VISITS INJURED COLLEAGUE
Prince Harry was reunited with one of the injured servicemen who shared his return flight from his tour of duty in Afghanistan. Marine Ben McBean, 21, lost an arm and a leg when a mine exploded during a patrol in the country. He was flown back to the UK for medical treatment at the same time as the Prince was forced to return home.
Prince Harry and Prince William visited Headley Court Rehabilitation Centre in Surrey where Marine McBean is now being treated. They met injured servicemen and women and gave their support to a planned ceremony in the city of London to support the troops. The younger prince also met Marine Mark Ormrod, with whom he trained before deploying to Afghanistan.
The 24-year-old, who lost an arm and both his legs when he stepped on a mine during a routine foot patrol, says that the prince recognised him from their time in training together. He said: "They're quite down to earth which you wouldn't really expect. They asked me all about my family and my injury."
princes are royal patrons of the City Salute Appeal, launched in March this year
to celebrate and support the UK's armed forces and their families. The appeal
will culminate in an open-air event on the steps of St Paul's on 7 May 2008.
THE MAYOR'S REMARKS
Mayor Ken Grundy had the following to say on the Summit outcome, 22/4/08:
The call to prevent duplication between the States and Federal government has arisen since Canberra has gradually absorbed more from the States. Will the answer return power to the States in a move to decentralize or will Canberra seize control? Any review of federalism will involve local government as well as the States. Will the outcome of this review be controlled by restricted terms of reference or will the terms be wide?
Thinking of the review, I am reminded of the agendas within local government looking into the sustainability of this tier of government. Of course we are sustainable! We are sustainable provided the powers above us have the will to ensure that we are. Those powers, in this case the States, must allocate sufficient finance to supplement our rate income to enable us to achieve the wishes of our constituents as well as the numerous compliant regulations imposed upon us. It really is as simple as that!
However, I do acknowledge the difficulty in achieving the result. In the end, the question is: Does that will exist and if not, how may we be influential? The underlying factor driving the problems we face is a lack of finance. It pressures local government to amalgamate and it forces the States to yield power to the Federal government.
These moves of centralization build bigger bureaucracies which consume any predicted savings and also transfer decision making away from the people. The financial problem can be solved. Until it is solved, we will continue on the road of more 20 / 20 conferences and more centralization.
LETTER TO THE PRESSAn Innocent Mistake: To the Editor, Daily News South Tweed Heads. 20/4/08
For some unknown reason, perhaps an innocent mistake, I was not invited to the 20/20 Summit being held this weekend at Canberra. But had I been invited I would have been able to suggest a really novel way of transmitting our ideas on how Australia should be run and it goes something like this.
We could have a Constitution which puts limits on the Government to enact laws which are contrary to the well-being of the sovereign people of Australia.
We could have a meeting place called the House of Representatives, where the Members of Parliament gather to debate the wishes of their constituents.
These Representatives could find out the wishes and ideas of their Constituents by holding public meetings throughout their electorate and re-present those ideas and wishes to parliament, where after much debate the best of these ideas can be agreed upon and their decision passed on to the Senate, where each State of Australia has an equal opportunity to check that their State is not unfairly disadvantaged by the Bill and when passed by the Senate the new law is passed on to the Governor-General who is our Head of State and a representative of the Queen - who has been trained from birth to have no part in politics and conveys this important qualification to any Governor-General whom she appoints (at the recommendation of the Prime Minister who is chairman of the House of Representatives).
The Governor-General then studies the proposed new Law to check that it is not detrimental to the well-being of the people of Australia, and, if he is satisfied then signs the new Bill into Law.
Now isn't that a great idea? And we could call it the Constitutional Democratic Monarchy System. I am quite sure that my idea would be a winner and make Australia the great country she once was!
- - Yours sincerely, Ted Paterson, Kingscliff NSW.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|