Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

15 January 2010 Thought for the Week:

The statements from government and opposition about Peter Spencer's issues are " to have it settled in courts". This is from the people you voted into government and opposition in our two party preferred political system, who either do not know or do not care, that Peter has been to court 200 times over their land theft during the governments of Liberal and Labor.

They, and their taxpayer funded $200,000 per annum minders, do not mention that the high court has stated, Peter Spencer has a case, it is not a legal matter but that of government to correct the wrong they have engineered.

Listening to both Barnaby Joyce, shadow treasurer, Kevin Humphries MP, NSW Nationals and Barrister Peter King who represents (free of charge) Peter Spencer, (one) reflects that PM Rudd and Tony Abbott are flying on pure arrogance as leaders of the ‘two party preferred’ system and are quite prepared for Peter to die up the tower rather than address the issue - both their parties (were) involved in the THEFT.

Annually, there are some 50 deaths of farmers in Australia from suicide out of desperation of government land theft, carbon theft and unworkable vegetation laws… The Peter Spencer fight to receive compensation for farmers’ stolen assets, along with our stolen democracy needs to be kept up to speed.
- - - Source: SOS-NEWS website.  January 2010

Want to know about a more just ‘social credit’ financial system? View…
THE ISLAND AND THE TREE: https://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm;
THE MONEY MYTH https://www.michaeljournal.org/myth2.htm  


FARMER PETER SPENCER - VICTIM OF WORLD GOVERMENT AGENDA

How galling. The very political parties who approved the legislation permitting the stealing of Peter Spencer’s land are saying he should take his case to the courts! The courts will try the case based on that same legislation which is now LAW! Australians need to wake up. The one-worlders are in positions of power. They must be disabused as to their role and purpose in Parliament.

Peter Spencer’s Hunger Strike against unconstitutional carbon-fuelled actions by the Commonwealth Government…”

On the 1st December 2009, high up on a 300m wind-monitoring tower, farmer Peter Spencer of “Saarahnlee” NSW Australia, commenced an indefinite hunger strike until the Australian government meets his demands. Peter claims that the Government has unconstitutionally stolen 109 million Ha of agricultural land from Australian farmers, being that they have not been compensated for the 22% CO2 reduction - that they, the farmers - have contributed to, in order to meet the U.N. Kyoto emission targets. Peter has been arguing his case for over 10 years through the courts and is now taking his stand to the people, where the true power of a democracy lies.

It is time we all put pen to paper and tell our political representatives to get off their backsides and insist that Rudd and his political hacks repeal the legislation that allows governments to steal the farmers’ lands. Our farmers are not to be sacrificial lambs slaughtered for the altar-scam of global warming. Write today.

You can read Peter’s full story at: https://www.clrg.info/2009/12/peter-spencers-hunger-strike-against-unconstitutional-carbon-fuelled-actions-by-the-government/

Let us be quite sure all Australians know who had a hand in setting Australia up for the New World Order. The beauty of the online On Target archives is that readers can check for themselves what we are saying.

In On Target Vol.40 No.8 5/3//2004:
The Nationals and the ALP forced the Vegetation Management Laws upon the people… “…Under the preceding heading, the following advert appeared in the North Queensland Register, 29th January, 2004. You are wrong if you blame Peter Beattie alone for draconian anti-development laws. BEATTIE HAS JUST SUNK THE BOOT IN FURTHER--- THE QUEENSLAND NATIONALS WERE THE REAL CULPRITS. Borbidge, Littleproud and Hobbs betrayed Queensland farmers and land-holders for money - they agreed to bring in restrictions on your freehold land.

The original Commonwealth-State Natural Heritage Objectives Agreement to enact State Vegetation Laws preventing landholders from developing and maintaining their properties was signed on November 5, 1997 by the Queensland National Party leader, the Hon Rob Borbidge along with Minister for Environment, the Hon Brian Littleproud and Minister for Natural Resources, Howard Hobbs on behalf of Queensland…

The Commonwealth Signatories to the Agreement were:
Signing on behalf of the Commonwealth were Prime Minister The Hon John Howard, Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill and Primary Industries Minister The Hon John Anderson.
Section 5.1[c] states: "No activities that adversely effect the status of ecological communities."
This and other sections will allow Peter Beattie to convert most of our regional forestry to National Park or exclusive reserve status, thus preventing sustainable grazing or any human activity…
Bureaucrats in those departments HAVE been given authority to do those things, and the 'somehow' is legislation - legislation passed pursuant to written Agreements between federal, state, and local governments drawn up at meetings of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). 


Agenda 21 commits Australia to:
The legislation implements the Australian government's commitments under Agenda 21, an international instrument signed by Ros 'Whiteboard' Kelly on behalf of the Nation at the June 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.

Programme for planning and economic management of the entire world:
Agenda 21 is 800 pages long, consists of 40 chapters, and is a comprehensive programme for the planning and management of the economic and social development of the entire world during the twenty-first century. 
Both the major political parties are committed to it.
While a Labor government signed it, the Coalition government registered its commitment to its continued implementation at the Millennium Summit at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 8 September 2000. There, Prime Minister John Howard signed the Millennium Declaration, Article 22 of which states: "We reaffirm our support for the principles of sustainable development, including those set out in Agenda 21, agreed upon at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [Rio 1992]."

Agenda 21:
Information about Agenda 21 and the progress of its implementation by all levels of government in Australia is readily available on the Internet - the websites of COAG, ALGA, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. …regardless of anything said or done in 1979, since the commitment of the Australian government to Agenda 21 in 1992, and the reafffirmation of that commitment in 2000, Agenda 21 and principles of 'sustainability' are now the basis of planning and land use law in Australia at Federal, State and Local government level.


Australia's farmers' property rights are definitely under threat, but farmers are not going to be assisted in defending those rights by misleading explanations as to who and what is behind it, and home-spun theories as to what the law is….”
- - - Signed Graham Strachan, Queensland

Further study: “Globalisation: Demise of the Australian Nation” by Graham Strachan, available from League Book Services. CD: 'Water Report' on CD.


MONCKTON OFFERS PERSONAL BRIEFING FOR PM KEVIN RUDD

The following letter is lengthy, and the science data not for the faint hearted, but we thought it important to reproduce. The good news is that Lord Monckton may be heading for Australia later in the month. Please note what he has to say about governments stealing men’s lands. [Sub-headings added for ease of reading]

A letter from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the PM: 1st January, 2010.
“Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.

Proposed World Government:
Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.

You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship.

Powerful Kommissars of the hated EU:
We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

Carbon Trading – Gigantic Financial Fraud:
You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way….

The questions I address are:
a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and
b) even if there is one, and even if per impossible it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration.

Thus:-
ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –
ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees.

Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

All parties to Copenhagen Accord to report back by end of month:
By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual.
If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.
We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord.

Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –
Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C° –
Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C° =
“Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°

One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve.

Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.

You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.

Never seen so cost-ineffective proposal:
Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.

Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.

Are you personally willing to make sacrifices demanded of the people?
Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated.

There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

Climate change ‘deniers’? Nasty word Mr. Rudd:
You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this:
Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes. Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t.

The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.
‘Casino logic’?

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie
If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer. However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter:

• namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction,
• and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2.

It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.

My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached
All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.

- - - Yours faithfully, VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY


PRINCE CHARLES TRIED TO STOP BLAIR’S WAR

In a report issued by News of the World it is claimed Prince Charles was so convinced the Iraq war was so wrong he actively campaigned against it. The headlines read: Prince thought Tony Blair was wrong on Iraq and mocked him as 'our glorious leader' by Robert Jobson, 3rd January 2010:
https://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/659010/Prince-Charles-tried-to-stop-Iraq-war.html

“Prince Charles was so convinced Tony Blair was WRONG to take Britain to war in Iraq he broke Royal tradition and actively campaigned against the invasion, the News of the World can reveal. Behind closed doors, the heir to the throne voiced his fears to senior politicians and mounted a staunch anti-war crusade in which he:

• ATTACKED the then prime minister's stance, mockingly calling him "our glorious leader".
• BLAMED American president George W Bush for action he believed to be misguided after reviewing secret intelligence.
• WARNED the war would only stir up more serious trouble in the region.
• ACCUSED western leaders of failing to deal with what he feels is the real cause of Islamic unrest - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our extraordinary revelations - from the most impeccable inside sources - are certain to pile pressure on former premier Blair as he prepares to give evidence to the Chilcott inquiry into the war. And they come as ex-PM Sir John Major twisted the knife yesterday, accusing Blair's handling of the 2003 invasion of damaging trust in the UK political system more than the expenses scandal.

The question was asked of the readers: WAS CHARLES RIGHT TO INTERFERE?
"The suspicion arises that this was more about regime change than about weapons of mass destruction," he added.
Charles' vocal opposition to the war could well land him in controversy too - caught in the crossfire of those who denounce him for "unconstitutional meddling" and supporters who praise his principled stands on issues such as the environment. There are likely to be calls for any exchanges between Charles and Blair - or his advisors - to be released to the Chilcot inquiry. And experts point out that both men came to their opposite views after seeing the SAME documentary evidence prepared before the conflict.

In the lengthy run-up to war, Charles - who will be Commander-in-Chief of Britain's armed forces if he becomes King - pressed repeatedly for a rethink of the decision to invade Iraq. He also made visits to Arab countries and voiced his growing concern to global political figures hoping they could influence the debate. He believed it would be a disaster to send in our troops and he was proved right…

But the prince's communications secretary Paddy Harverson recently told BBC Radio 4:
"Quite often ministers ask to meet him because they're keen to hear his views. He has a unique perspective and a deep understanding of his country. . . he's been getting state papers for over 40 years, he's been meeting with Prime Ministers for over 40 years. . . and the issues he has raised he cares deeply about."

Asked about today's revelations, Mr Harverson said: "It's impossible to give any kind of response to this story because it's entirely speculative."


LETTER IN THE PRESS

The Editor, Shepparton News 1st January 2010:
Dear Sir,
As we start the second decade of the 21st Century it is a good time to look back on the last ten years and see if we can make any improvements to better our lot. The 1st decade was plagued by wars and financial manipulation on a scale never before seen in human history and I am sure the ordinary political voter never approved of their involvement in these events.
Some years ago a man of some perception described politics as “crystallized history” and another said, “You can be sure if anything happens in politics then somebody made it happen”. This has now been well illustrated by the admission of former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair in an interview on the 14th December 2009 “that he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public”. The WMD were never found!
This is deception of the worst kind… to deliberately mislead the Parliament and involve a country in war for the benefit of whom? Australia’s own former Prime Minister, John Howard, strutted the world stage in support of this same war and it no doubt cost the Australian taxpayer $billions. Now it is a “war on climate change” and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is using the same tactics of deception to impose taxation increases at home and sell Australia out to an oligarchy dominated by despots in the United Nations.
This can only happen when our constitutional rights are abused or ignored by elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats as they seek to impose their idea of utopia on us, instead of allowing us to find our own “dreamtime” in the best country on Earth.
Sir, what can your readers do for a change to the better? For starters, regard your democratic right to vote as sacred! Do not vote for the “lesser of the evils” offered but closely examine the credentials of every candidate before making your choice.
While it may sound negative, I believe it would be better to withhold your vote than give the incumbent a legitimacy they do not deserve. We can make a difference, so let us make a start together to win Australia back from the megalomaniacs for our descendants. You will have a chance to prove your point later in the year so start thinking about it now.

--- Louis Cook, Numurkah Victoria

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159