A PARLIAMENT OF SPIVS...

David Flint in his Opinion Column article (below) headlines his commentary with the above heading. Professor Flint is referring to the scandalous behaviour of certain British MPs who got caught with their sticky fingers inside the national ‘Bikky Tin’.

The Times, UK 16/5/09 reported:
“David Chaytor has become the second Labour MP to admit claiming thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money for interest on a non-existent mortgage, it emerged last night. The MP for Bury North will pay back £13,000 claimed on expenses after telling The Daily Telegraph that he had made an “unforgivable error” by continuing to submit monthly claims for £1,175 for months after the loan was paid off.

He is likely to receive the same treatment as Elliot Morley, a former minister, who has been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party after admitting claiming £16,000 for a non-existent mortgage. Lawyers have said that there is a good case for a criminal investigation. Mr Chaytor is also alleged to have changed his designation of his second home four times since 2004, allowing him to claim expenses on five properties. He blamed “changing and complex family circumstances” for the multiple moves, and said that “family stress” had prevented him from paying attention to his financial affairs.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, was reported to have charged £1,851 for an antique rug imported from New York. The MP for Manchester Gorton allegedly submitted a claim for £8,865 for a television, and was paid £15,329 of a £28,834 bill for improvements to a London flat after telling Commons authorities he was “living in a slum”.
Tam Dalyell, who retired as an MP in 2005, submitted a claim for £18,000 for bookcases two months before retiring as an MP in 2005. He said last night that he was “extremely relaxed” about his claims.

Gordon Brown required his Justice Minister to step down yesterday after an investigation of his expenses disclosed he may have breached the ministerial code. Shahid Malik became the latest casualty of the week-long revelations after it appeared that he had failed to declare that he was benefiting from a subsidised rent.
Mr Malik has moved aside from his post pending an inquiry by Sir Philip Mawer, the ministerial watchdog. Mr Brown has asked Sir Philip, his official adviser on ministerial interests, to investigate the claims as quickly as possible.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said that MPs from all parties had made unjustifiable expenses claims and politicians must display leadership for Parliament to regain the trust of the people.

Mr Brown’s spokesman emphasised that Mr Malik was expected to return to office if he was cleared and said that no replacement was being appointed. There is no suggestion that Mr Malik broke parliamentary rules on expenses but it is his conduct as a minister that is under scrutiny. He was alleged to have claimed the maximum amount allowable - £66,827 over three years - on his second home in London but obtained a discounted rent of £100 a week on his main family home in his Dewsbury constituency, which he paid out of his own pocket. Mr Malik has described the claim about his rent as a “fabrication”.

But Mr Brown’s spokesman said that it had to be investigated because, if true, it would represent a “potential financial benefit” that had not been part of Mr Malik’s ministerial declaration and “this could represent a breach of the ministerial code”.
The allegation comes amid a rising tide of public anger at MPs from all parties, with the former police chief Ray Mallon, now the Independent Mayor of Middlesbrough, making a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police…”

DAVID FLINT in the Opinion Column wrote:
“In the middle of what we are told is the biggest global financial crisis since the depression, the Federal Parliament has agreed to increase the politicians' electoral allowance by 17%. (The MP is under no obligation to return any surplus to the Treasury.)

A fortune is being spent in Africa to acquire votes for a temporary Security Council seat, and massive funds spent on overseas travel, with some say the ultimate aim of making our leader the UN Secretary General. (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 15/5/2009)

By releasing the ministers' record travel bill just for last winter while the Treasurer was delivering the budget, the government hoped to escape scrutiny. (This tactic proved far too clever; it ensured the story appeared on the front page of the nation's highest circulating newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph (17/5/2009).)

In addition the vast sums extracted from the taxpayers to pay for campaigns to secure the re-election of our politicians have been increased. And although the Treasurer has decreed that our children will now have to work until they are 67, our politicians remain eligible for their generous, mainly taxpayer funded pensions even before middle age.

Notwithstanding this, the heading “Parliament of spivs; prince of good sense” is not about our Federal Parliament. However it is about our Prince. He is the Prince, readers may recall, whose succession our republican politicians now believe will be the silver bullet which will finally deliver into their grasping hands a politicians’ republic.

Contempt for politicians unrivalled in living memory...
This heading is in fact from two consecutive editorials in The Spectator (16/5/2009). They are not about our trusty and well beloved Federal Parliament. They are about her dear mother, the mother of all parliaments, who sadly in old age has sunk into the depths of depravity.

As The Spectator says, the expenses scandal means that the British nation now beholds Parliament with a collective contempt unrivalled in living memory. Harsh words indeed, but entirely appropriate. We need, says the editor, a modern-day Trollope to do justice to this wave of revulsion, triggered by the remarkable revelations in the London Daily Telegraph.
“Gilbert Burnet, the great ecclesiastical and political historian of his time, wrote of the corrupt MPs elected in 1710 that “this is the worst Parliament I ever saw.”
It was not always like this. Thirty years ago, Lady Thatcher decided she did not like the colour of the walls at 10 Downing Street, and ordered it redecorated. But as Fraser Nelson says, she paid for this herself.

How different it is now. As the editor rightly observes, the Palace of Westminster is home not to an ancient institution but to a disgraced rabble of second-rate spivs who have dishonoured the public trust as flagrantly as they have raided the public purse.

This has extended even to the once venerable House of Lords, an institution so debauched by Mr. Blair in his alleged constitutional reforms and by some of the appointments he made. How wise our Founding Fathers were when they removed the ultimate control of the Australian constitution from the politicians and vested it in the people.

Not every part of our constitution is faltering...
But says The Spectator, at a moment of such alarming disconnection between the political class and the electorate, “it is cheering to be reminded that not every part of our constitution is faltering, or at odds with the grain of public opinion.”
The editorial refers to a recent visit by the Prince of Wales to the Royal Institute of British Architects. This was 25 years after his famous description of the proposed National Gallery extension as a “monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.”

As The Spectator observes:
The Prince was mocked as a fogey and a reactionary. Some unethical journalists have long tried to reinforce this caricature. “But his cry from the heart against the vandalism wrought by modern architecture proved to be the act of a popular tribune — not least because it reflected common sense as opposed to Corbusian delusion,” says the editor.From Australia you would think The Royal Institute has more reason than its Australian counterpart to change its name, or to engage in the uncomfortable and indeed impossible practice of trying to walk on both sides of the street as the Australian one does so badly. (“The Royal Australian Institute of Architects has a bet each way,” 30 August 2008) But it has not. The Royal Institute of British Architects it is and The Royal Institute of British Architects it will remain.

The constitutional monarchy in good health...
And as The Spectator says, the Prince came to The Royal Institute in the spirit of friendship rather than to gloat, but - quite rightly - stood his ground. (A video of his speech is embedded on the ACM site.) He remains implacably opposed to the “brutal destruction” of so many British townscapes and the way in which “much of the urban realm [became] ...de-personalised and defaced.”

This was a spirited and sensible intervention by the Prince, observed The Spectator.
“With Parliament effectively AWOL as it sorts out its affairs, it is good to know that our constitutional monarchy is still in such good health.” This is an opinion with which the great majority of rank and file Australians will heartily concur. The republicans who think his succession will deliver them their politicians' republic have yet another moment of truth to endure.”

Further reading: “The People’s Prince” with a foreword by Sir Walter Crocker. It is a compilation of a number of Prince Charles’ major speeches. Price $12.00 plus postage. Would make a delightful gift for that young person who wants to further understand our future king.

CHINESE TAKEAWAY - BRAVO SENATORS XENOPHON AND JOYCE!

According to The Sunday Mail 10/5/09, Senator Nick Xenophon and Nationals’ Senator Barnaby Joyce have joined forces to mount a campaign to block Chinese investment in the mining giant Rio Tinto.
Go to it folk and get behind our patriotic and loyal Australian Senators!

View the Senators' campaign video on:
https://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25454059-5006301,00.html

WHAT IF DICK PRATT WAS AN ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN?

by Betty Luks
Australian Jewish businessman/billionaire Dick Pratt is no longer with us. Pratt’s long-term mistress was granted one hour to say goodbye to him before he ‘checked out of the great hotel of life’ (The Advertiser, 30/4/09, p.7). What, only one mistress? For a billionaire, one would not have been surprised to find a dozen!

And then there was the funeral, attended by a glum looking Bob Hawke and John Howard. Howard looked the part in his Jewish skullcap. Yes, John Howard supported the move to have the billionaire renominated to Australia’s highest honour - The Order of Australia. Howard said: ‘There was never a good reason for him to have lost it in the first place’. (The Advertiser, 1/5/09, p.1)

Now let me see if I follow this. Pratt handed back the AO last year, because he feared that he would have been stripped of it after criminal charges were made against him for giving false and misleading evidence to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

These charges were never answered but were withdrawn a day before Pratt’s death. According to the eulogy by Sam Lipski (The Australian, 1/5/09, p.12) “Richard was cast in a play that should never have been produced". The legal drama was “unjustly conceived”.
So, does this mean that Pratt was utterly innocent of price fixing? Why then did the ACCC press ahead with the criminal proceedings, stopping only when death claimed Pratt?

The answer seems to be, according to the papers, that Pratt and the ACCC’s Graeme Samuel had a personal dispute (The Australian, 30/4/09, p.6). But so what? Public prosecutions are controlled by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, not the ACCC, and they are not pressed lightly, without at least a prima facie case.
Although four key documents tendered as evidence by the ACCC were not allowed by the Federal Court, the prosecution withdrew charges against Pratt for ill health, rather than evidential reasons. We do not know what other evidence they had against Pratt. Pratt had already been fined a small $36 million in the civil price-fixing case.

Dick Pratt should not be given another Order of Australia. The civil price-fixing case alone indicates that he is not worthy of posthumously holding this award. He should be treated just like any other rich Australian who blotted his copy-book. Otherwise… that would be discrimination - wouldn’t it?

THE IMMIGRATION SCAM CONTINUES

by Brian Simpson
Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy, “Migrant Accounts – High Number, Poor Outcomes,” People and Place, Vol.16, 2008, is yet another article documenting yet another migrant ‘scam’. The largest occupational category of migrants getting permanent residence under the skilled visa subclass is – accountants.

Most of these accountants are former overseas students, primarily Asian, who want to live in Australia, but lack the English language skills to be able to practice as accountants. As Birrell and Healy put it “Many overseas student graduates emerge from their university training in Australia with English skills scarcely better than those they started with” (p. 14).

The article does not explore why the skilled visa scene is such a sham and a scam. Clearly it is not about meeting skills shortfalls in Australia – which should in any case be met by training young Australians. My view is that it is a racist project to Asianise Australia at a more rapid rate than the public, the dispossessed majority, might tolerate.

It is a program designed to make the shady, mysterious players of the New World Order, even more happy and contented as they stare out of their high-rise offices to the suffering streets below.  

THE WORLD 'S TROUBLES HAVE MADE THEIR WAY TO AUSTRALIA

The world's troubles have made their way to Australia ... again says radio personality Alan Jones. Radio 2GB May 2009:

“Well, questions will be raised again about the age-old chestnut, Australia's immigration policy. Two young Sri Lankan men have been hospitalised after an attack at their Westmead home. The thought of anyone being treated after an attack for acid burns, broken limbs and possible stab wounds is beyond the comprehension of most civilised people. These are two young men well known within the Sri Lankan community. Their attackers are believed to be Tamils.

But the attack was part of what police described as an unprecedented 24 hours of violence starting with brawls at Parramatta Park, Westmead railway station and a Wentworthville supermarket.
Today we learn that 55 men stranded since last Thursday on a boat in Banda Aceh, the provincial capital and largest city of Aceh, Indonesia, located on the island of Sumatra, confirmed they were Tamil Tigers on their way to Australia to seek political asylum.

Now all of this derives from the proclaimed ending of the 37-year war in Sri Lanka between the Tamil Tigers and successive Sri Lankan Governments. The Tamil Tigers are a militant organisation based in northern Sri Lanka, and since 1976 they've waged a violent secessionist campaign that seeks to create an independent Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka.
This had evolved into the Sri Lankan civil war, one of the longest running armed conflicts in Asia. The Tamil Tigers are regarded as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries. They claim to be fighting to protect the country's Tamil minority from discrimination at the hands of successive Sri Lankan majority Governments that have ruled the country since independence. And they do have support outside Sri Lanka.

But by all reports following long and fierce confrontations and a concerted military offensive by the Sri Lankan Government, the President of Sri Lanka declared a military victory over the Tamil Tigers three days ago after 26 years of conflict… So back to Parramatta and Sri Lankan supporters began celebrating the victory at Parramatta Park.

They were apparently approached by Tamil supporters and violence followed. They moved on to the Westmead railway station and there are reports by Tamil supporters that they saw Sri Lankan supporters or Sinhalese as they're called, waiting near Westmead railway station brandishing baseball bats and golf clubs. The Tamils say they called for support and all hell broke loose.
One Sinhalese victim didn't wish to be named, but said he was with a group of about 15 friends and his car was attacked by a group of Tamil Tigers supporters. They fled to the Aldi supermarket at Wentworthville and another brawl broke out.

Now the Tamil Tigers are widely regarded around the world as having committed atrocities against civilians, carrying out the assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians like Rajiv Gandhi, pioneering the use of suicide bombing and the use of women in suicide attacks.
The Tamils were protesting in front of Canberra's British and American embassies yesterday, and now two men in hospital and police believe as many as five broke into their home about midnight on Sunday night. A 28 year old student at the University of Sydney apparently survived by hiding under a bed.

The Daily Telegraph is right today when it says the world's troubles have made their way to Australia ... again. Which prompts the question, how slack are our immigration policies? Australians are sick of their country becoming a dumping ground for the troubles of others.”

IS INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE REALLY P.C.?

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The headline reads: “Racism Pales as Couples Inter-marry” (The Australian 6/4/09, p.5). According to this article: “Most Aboriginal men and women now inter-marry with other Australians but the practice is highly dependent on whether they live in capital cities or remote areas, as well as their education and income.” Eight out of ten Aboriginal people living in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane are marrying outside of their race.

Let’s get to the point: early 19th and 20th century eugenic policies were based on the idea that the Aboriginal race would be ‘bred out’. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity report Bringing Them Home held that the ‘Stolen Generation’ of generally mixed race white/Aboriginal children were subjected to ‘genocide’ because of an implicit eugenicist attempt to blend them into the white population.

Generally speaking, theorists from the right have rejected this idea but here I will run with it. I think there is some merit in this idea. It is said that because of inter-racial couplings that the Aboriginal population is growing. But is it really?
Certainly the mixed race child may be politically classified as ‘Aboriginal’ and may have some Aboriginal racial characteristics but these children are mixed race, not Aboriginal in fact.
And if these children mate with whites, their children will look even less Aboriginal. Continue this process and one has as effectively eliminated the Aboriginal race as readily as the 19th century racist eugenists envisaged. Only this time it has been done by politically correct means. There is however little difference because the effect is still the same. Aborigines as we know them will disappear.

Thus it has been shown that political correctivism can lead to racial genocide by the “Bringing Them Home” definition. Aboriginals as we know them will disappear just as effectively from this leftist method of racial dissolution as they would from deliberate eugenic policies.
In a situation where there is a large host population of a particular race and a much smaller ethnic population of another different race, high rates of inter-racial marriage will lead to the ultimate extinction of the smaller race.
Even if this practice is not based on policy considerations, it still constitutes ‘racial genocide’. It is by definition a ‘racist’ practice, even if non-intentional.
The Australian Aborigines are a great and noble people. To suppose in the future that the Aboriginal race could have white skin and fair hair is in my opinion an absurdity - and a great tragedy. But that is exactly what the intellectual elite, with their pompous sense of moral rightness suppose.

THERE GOES NEW ZEALAND! THERE GOES AUSTRALIA!

by James Reed
The New Zealand Geographic Board has discovered that the existing English names of the North and South Islands of New Zealand had never been adopted in law. Instantly Maori nationalists began pressuring for the South Island to be called ‘Te Wai Pounamu’ (place of greenstone) and the North Island as ‘Te Ska a Maui’ (the fish of Maui).

The Mayor of the North Island City of Wanganui said: “These people on the Geographic Board are cultural zealots. It is political correctness of the worst kind. Unthinking, unfeeling and completely immune from any heritage that is not Maori.”
Now should we laugh at this? Although the word ‘Australia’ appears in our Constitution, why for Aboriginal activists, should that make the name of this continent ‘official’? Perhaps the use of ‘Australia’ was just a convenient term of art, waiting to be replaced by the appropriate Aboriginal (or perhaps Chinese) name. After all, our people have let their race be demographically replaced, so should we really be worrying about names in this late stage of the game?

Refugees continue to enter Australia in “Camp of the Straights”* style because of our policy of Asianisation. Lip service is given to the issue of border control whilst the immigration tap floods Australia with migrants. Decades of political correctness from both the cultural left and economic rationalist right has ended Anglo-Australia’s capacity to resist its own demographic displacement.

Leigh Dayton (“Move Over, It’s Getting Crowded” The Australian 22/4/09, p.36) tells us that “unchecked population growth threatens the planet and humanity itself.” But then she goes on to say that if we end policies like baby bonuses we won’t have to close the door to refugees and migrants. Yet if we are facing an environmental crisis caused by unchecked population growth, then that’s precisely what we need to do. It means that we need to adopt lifeboat ethics. Only the chains of political correctness prevent one from reaching such a conclusion.

* A few copies of ‘The Camp of the Saints’ by Jean Raspail are still available at $28.00 plus postage. It is a haunting and prophetic vision of Western Civilisation overrun by burgeoning Third World populations.

ISRAEL 'S NUCLEAR 'AMBIGUITY

by Peter Ewer
A US Official has called for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). For 40 years the US has towed the line and refrained from pressuring Israel to sign.
Thus Israel was able to accumulate an arsenal of 200 bombs and as detailed in the book by Seymour M. Hersh “The Sampson Option: Israel, America and the Bomb” (Faber and Faber, 1991) and pressure the US into militarily backing it. Otherwise off goes the nuclear firecrackers and Europe cops the fallout - and that would be bad for business.

Now the Obama administration is taking seriously Iran’s complaint that there is a nuclear double-standard towards Israel. If all this comes to pass, will American Jewry still support Barrack Hussein Obama? Or will it be time for a fundamental rethink?