|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
1 May 2009 Thought for the Week:
Austin Texas, Wake Up Call: Texas Governor backs resolution affirming sovereignty. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.” Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."
A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government. It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed. ... Developing...
-- Drudge Report, 14 April, 2009
BIKIES TODAY, SOCIAL CREDITERS TOMORROW?
by James Reed
Brisbane barrister Mark Legrand saw the anti-bikie laws as 'obnoxious '. 'It is obnoxious in a democratic society governed by the rule of law to declare a person guilty because of his or her associations and without a trial on a specific charge of wrong doing. (The Australian, 1/4/09, p.8) I can 't argue with that.
Le Grand says that if the government was serious about stopping crime they would introduce laws cutting the money trail and confiscating assets from the crimes. However, in my opinion, governments have never done this, especially with the Mafia, which has been in this country since the 1930s. The Taxation Department, if serious, could investigate income/asset matching in many Griffith estates, but does not do so.
Behind the anti-bikie laws lies yet another assault on our freedom. A few years down the track, these laws will be used against any group that the Establishment doesn 't like. And it won 't be the socialists and environmentalists.
OUR 'NOBLE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND THE DRUGMAKERS
by James Reed
One may at first shake, think 'shame on the drug companies for doing this. But the doctors fall over themselves to jet off to seaside locations to be wined and dined in posh hotels. They may not have dancing girls on tap today, but the doctors have a good time and they get fully beefed up about the latest drugs to try out on you and me. If that is not a good reason for taking charge of one 's own health, nothing is.
A good book for young mothers-to-be to check out is: 'The Final Pollution by Robert Anderson $30.00 plus postage. It is dealing with the question of 'vaccination or not?
DEATH OF DEMOCRACY: BIRTH OF POST-WHITE CARGO CULT
by James Reed
Obama followed him in incompetency. If he knew the speech, all thirty five words of it, he should have turned from Roberts and said it. Instead he spoke over Roberts. Both men looked like idiots. It was a symbolic act, heralding in the decline and fall of the American Political and Legal systems. In any case, the Establishment was worried about a Constitutional challenge because of this botch-up and had the Oath repeated in the White House as an 'abundance of caution '.
Obama also said 'Forty-four American presidents have now taken the presidential Oath ', however Americans number presidents by terms of office served consecutively, so in fact only forty three presidents have taken the Oath. Writers in the Australian media were falling over themselves seeing Obama as a gifted writer not seen since Lincoln. It certainly shows how low the bundle of talent is.
Let us take one issue race. That should be a strong ground for Barack as he devotes one whole book to the wonder of his white mom coupling (then divorcing) his African father. Obama says that 'people of colour in the US are '90% of the way to equality '.
Back to the closing prayer of Obama 's inauguration. This was by Joseph Lowery. The prayer contained such gems as asking that 'black will not be asked to get in back and 'when white will embrace what is right '. An anti-white racist prayer at a presidential inauguration. Guess the future. You don 't have to.
The League has for sale an excellent book by Webster Griffin Tarpley, 'Obama: The Postmodern Coup, ($59.95 plus postage) which says: 'Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power.
Tarpley 's book in my opinion is better and more hard hitting than two other more 'popular critiques of Obama: Jerome Corse, 'The Obama Nation (Threshold, 2008) and David Freddoso, 'The Case Against Barack Obama (Regnery, 2008)
THE TRAGEDY OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
by Brian Simpson
The late Professor Garrett Hardin was one of the few ecological philosophers or environmentalists from 'the right '. He opposed foreign aid to the Third World and opposed migration to the United States and the West. He was to a degree a critic of multiculturalism.
The key to his thought lies in the idea of the tragedy of the commons and Hardin set out his general argument in a paper entitled 'The Tragedy of the Commons (Science, vol. 162, 1968, pp. 1243 1248). This paper has given the Left much heartache. Hardin argued that in a hypothetical 'commons ', selfish individuals aim to maximise utility/their use. The individual benefits from increased use of the commons, but also degrades the commons by some degree. The individual gets the advantages but everyone shares the disadvantages. Thus the individuals all increase use of the 'commons until it is degraded and disaster faces all. 'Commons include the atmosphere, oceans, river, fish stocks and so on.
The argument seems to be one directed against either non-ownership of the commons or the freedom of individuals that potentially conflicts with the philosophy of us social credit. But in an insightful book, 'Ethics for a Finite World (Fulcrum Publishing, 2005) US philosopher Herschel Elliott, generalises and systematises Hardin 's argument. It is not explicitly an argument against free enterprise as such.
Nor is the argument necessarily about actual commons open to trivial historical refutation by examples of managed commons. The argument is a thought experiment, which shows, in Elliott 's opinion, the incoherence of cosmopolitan ethics. In Elliott 's view it is not self-interest which produces ecological collapse but merely the exploitation of a finite ecosystem by increasing demands, mainly through population growth. An increased growth in the use of resources in a finite ecosystem leads to depletion and ultimately collapse.
These considerations show, Elliot argues, that moral systems can be criticised and refuted by empirical considerations. In particular the idea of the tragedy of the commons offers a powerful argument against immigration:
'Any nation that does not limit immigration loses its ability to make its own cultural/moral experiment. Its failure to curtail immigration would prevent it from choosing to use its lands and natural resources to support a minimal population at a high standard of living and a maximum quality of life. In effect, uncontrolled immigration allows nations whose experiments have failed to overload the world lifeboat to cause it to founder. (pp. 117 118)
Elliott has done a service in advancing what is in effect an environmentalist critique of environmentalism, hoisting greenies by their own petard.
DR. FREDRICK TOBEN FOUND 'GUILTY '
The Age reports (16/4/09): 'Holocaust revisionist Fredrick Toben has been found guilty of criminal contempt after defying orders to stop publishing racist material on his Adelaide Institute website. In a judgment in the Federal Court on Thursday, Justice Bruce Lander said Dr Toben's conduct had been wilful and he had steadfastly refused to comply with the law.
"The courts have held, but his conduct shows he does not accept that the freedom of speech citizens of this country enjoy does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin," Justice Lander said. "It is conduct that amounts to criminal contempt."
Dr Toben had pleaded not guilty to 28 counts of contempt arising from allegations from former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Jeremy Jones. Mr Jones first lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in 1996 and later applied to the Federal Court to uphold its ruling, which it did in 2002. But in hearings last year, counsel for Mr Jones, Robin Margo SC, told the court Dr Toben had defied its orders for six years.
Mr Margo said the Adelaide Institute website was still publishing, (in July 2008), "virulent anti-semitic material", including that there were no death gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp and that the holocaust was "the world's filthiest blood libel". He urged the court to fine Dr Toben, or impose a period of imprisonment if he could not pay. After handing down his judgment, Justice Lander adjourned the case to take submissions on penalty.
The federal court ruling came after Dr Toben fled Britain in November last year when a German authorities' bid to have him extradited to face charges of Holocaust denial failed. The 64-year-old had been arrested a month earlier at Heathrow Airport on a European warrant but a British court later ruled it invalid because it did not provide enough detail.
German authorities vowed to continue their attempts to have Dr Toben arrested in other countries. 'Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and offenders can face up to five years in jail.
A MEMBER OF A SUPERIOR NATION NO MORE?
by Betty Luks
And this includes his right to try to determine for himself - truth and fact from lies and propaganda on what really happened in the Nazi camps under the Hitler regime during World War II. Common laws prohibiting libel and defamation ensured the individual 's rights to safeguard his good name and honour. But to claim that all discussion about historical events are outside of public discussion is 'beyond the pale '. There must be freedom to openly discuss such matters.
While the former premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, does not mention the verboten subject of 'the Holocaust he does caution Australians to consider the consequences if the Human Rights Commission recommends 'religious vilification legislation.
Traditional concept of Freedom:
"The common Englishman understands this perfectly. If you notice, you will never hear him coming into the courts clamouring for 'justice'; what he wants is 'my rights,' and he will claim them against all comers, including, and indeed, most of all, against the government.
And, let us be clear about this, he claims them, not as an Englishman, the member of a superior race, but as an English subject, the member of a superior nation. He will, except at moments when his natural balance is disturbed by spy scares, or by an excessively high rate of unemployment, claim them just as fiercely for the naturalised stranger in his midst. If a person is an English citizen he 'did ought to have' his English rights as an individual."
She argues that this conception is the practical expedient established when the many peoples from which the Englishman is descended, "the Angles and Saxons, Danes, various kinds of British Celt and probably some people with traces of Roman descent..." were thrown together within the limits of an island.
It wasn't until these had worried out a workable policy of leaving each other alone that the 'characteristic Englishry' was produced:
Compare this with the notion of "liberty" insinuated by the fraternity of "planners" which was well expressed by the Rev. Sidney M. Berry in the "Sunday Times" of October 1941(?):
TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL IF LEFT TO ITSELF
Religion laws don't have a prayer in a country with robust common sense - says Bob Carr:
'This week we have heard about an increasing international trend to prosecute religious issues in the courts. In Britain cases are being brought under laws such as the Religious Hatred Act, which makes it a crime to "stir up" "religious hatred". British police have even warned that insulting Scientology would be treated as a crime. Such legislation may soon be heading to a statute book near you.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is finalising a report almost certain to recommend legislation on religion - on freedom of religion or religious vilification - that would mean similar prosecutions being launched under national law. Why do we need this?
So why are we even having this debate? The commission says on its website - it's because of "an increased presence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other religious communities". This is an extraordinary statement; it undermines the need for any change in the law. If Australia were a nightmare realm of vilification and persecution, a dystopia of religious angst, I doubt that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews would settle here in growing numbers. The growth of these communities is proof positive Australia enjoys freedom of religion.
Another reason nominated by the commission for its inquiry is "the shift away from mainstream Christianity, and the rise of Pentacostalism". To which I say, "So what?" Or, as the former US president Thomas Jefferson said when petitioned by a group of Methodists to stem the rising number of Baptists in newly minted America, "What business is it of government?" Why should this matter be even brought under the purview of a government-funded inquiry?
If you suspect someone's on a mission to agitate non-existent problems to find a bigger role for himself, contemplate another reason the commission gives for having this inquiry. It says it wants to assess the effect of Commonwealth and state laws on the "war on terror".
In fact, the Australian responses to September 11 and Bali were restrained, given the scale of the losses and the provocative hatred behind the attacks. Straight after September 11, I visited an Islamic school in western Sydney to make a plea for tolerance. Kerry Chikarovski, the then Opposition leader, rang me urging protection for Islamic women wearing the hijab. Peter Beattie attended a Brisbane mosque. John Howard met Islamic clerics. The same spirit prevailed after Bali.
Calma might ask himself whether a temporarily strained climate would have been improved by a raft of prosecutions for vilification. Victoria has a religious vilification statute and in 2004 two evangelical pastors were prosecuted for remarks they made in a seminar about Islam.
Anticipating this objection, the Human Rights Commission hints it would only recommend civil penalties. This is bogus. Say that under new laws an Islamic group opted to bring proceedings against a prominent evangelical Christian for comments about Islam. And suppose a court imposed a fine. What would happen if that person said he wouldn't pay the fine? Put him in jail?
Australia's treaty obligations oblige us to sign up for this brave new world of religious lawsuits, the commission is arguing. On these pages this week, Jonathan Turley noted that Saudi Arabia was a leading supporter of a new international ban on religious defamation.
Meanwhile, I stick with Jefferson, who said, "it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." After all, "Truth is great and will prevail if left to itself".
To the Editor of The Australian, 19th April 2009
- - Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic
GAITA ON GENOCIDE
by Brian Simpson
Gaita, along with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity report Bringing Them Home, disputes the idea that 'genocide involves mass murder. The UN Convention also accepts that attempts to destroy in whole or in part a racial or ethnic group is also genocide.
This is an argument with some plausibility but follow through the consequences. The report Children on the APY Lands by Judge Ted Mullighan documents terrible sexual abuse of Aboriginal children by Aboriginals , about 14% of all children. This has occurred because of community breakdown, neglect and political policies of separatism.
This should be genocide by Gaita 's criteria I think, plausibly. And who is responsible? The intellectual class. So the guilt of genocide must fall on our chattering class.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|