PROFESSOR FLINT – WE AREN’T TRULY 'INDEPENDENT’

by Betty Luks

The Hon. King O’Malley, who had maintained a keen interest in Australian politics over the years, was stirred by what he saw as yet another attempt to emasculate his beloved Bank. Although over 80 years of age, King O’Malley vigorously entered the 1939 ‘Save The Commonwealth Bank Campaign’, publishing a little booklet in which he demonstrated that he was still capable of the type of language for which he was famous during his campaign to have the Bank established. He wrote, “I trust that good and patriotic Australians will swear by the altar of their gods, the tombs of their Ancestors and the cradles of their children, that they will never vote for Parliamentary candidates whose secret mission is to destroy the Commonwealth Bank ... and whose brains, if extracted, dried and placed in the quill of a cocksparrow and blown into the eye of a bee, would not even make him blink”.

- - “The Story of the Commonwealth Bank” by Institute of Economic Democracy

Professor David Flint of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy recently took to task the new Tasmanian Senator Lisa Singh (Lab) for claiming Australia is not truly independent. “New Senator affirms allegiance, declares Australia not truly independent”: "...we still, in my view, have a way to go in fully declaring ourselves as the architect of our own destiny. As a former state convenor of the Australian Republican Movement, I hope that in my time in this place Australia becomes a truly independent nation with our own head of state."
As is to be expected, being a Labor senator the good lady wants Australia to become a centralised republic thus radically altering our tripartite governmental system of a Constitutional Monarchy:

For me the key words are: “architect of our own destiny”. How can either Labor’s Senator Lisa Singh or ACM’s Professor David Flint claim we Australians are not/are ‘architects of our own destiny’ whilst our financial system is controlled by international financiers and bankers? Surely a nation’s financial system should be based on the belief it is a social institution and not the plaything of private financiers and bankers? Professor Flint posted “a photo of the Federal Labour Party MPs elected to the Australian House of Representatives and Australian Senate at the inaugural 1901 election” which included that colourful character King O'Malley.

King O’Malley’s background and the battles he fought on behalf of the Australian people should be closely studied and taken to heart. King O’Malley fought to wrest the dominance of the creation of credit out of the hands of the banks and financiers by the setting up the original Commonwealth Bank. When the Commonwealth Constitution was drafted and accepted by the Australian people, the power of financial credit was left in the hands of the banks, which was operated between themselves largely through the chequeing system (another form of IOUs). By 1934 L.C. Jauncey Ph.D. referred to the Commonwealth Bank as “Australia’s Government Bank” in his book of the same name. But, sadly, as King O’Malley warned against it, the Australian people did vote for “Parliamentary candidates whose secret mission [was] to destroy the Commonwealth Bank ... and whose brains, if extracted, dried and placed in the quill of a cocksparrow and blown into the eye of a bee, would not even make him blink” with the result we are caught up in a financial-debt straight-jacket which is slowly strangling all community and family life to death in this nation.

*Purchase a hard copy of “The Story of the Commonwealth Bank” by D.J. Amos from Heritage Book Services $10.00 + postage.
** The latest High Court decision on Gillard’s Australia/Malaysia ‘swap’ of illegals highlights further the fact that the Australian people are NOT independent.

On Target Vol18No49. 7 December 1982: “As the international crisis deepens, the constant theme is being advanced that the only hope for mankind is planning on a global scale. Talk of "reforming" the international banking system, and the increasing promotion of the New International Economic Order, are all part of the Big Idea.
Australians should carefully note that not only Prime Minister Fraser and associates like Mr. Andrew Peacock are keen supporters of the Big Idea, but that it is also endorsed by both Mr. Bill Hayden and Mr. Bob Hawke, although the lure of support from some of Australia's threatened secondary industries has resulted in the ALP suggesting that these industries are entitled to some protection against foreign imports".  

TOTSCHED: DEATH BY SILENCE

by James Reed
The Albrechtsen article mentioned an article by Shelly Gare, “Death by Silence in Writers’ Combat Zone”, Quadrant Online, August 4, 2010. The German word “totschweig-taktic” means death by silence and is one of the ways the new class elite, especially in the media and academia, neutralise those who oppose them.

Works are allowed to go down the memory hole. But this is also done to people, so effectively, that the ranks of academia in Australia have been largely pruned of critics of immigration and multiculturalism. This is statistically significant with the complete absence of critics that it can only be because of a program of “intellectual genocide”. 

THE LEFT PLAYS THE “POLITICS OF FEAR”

by Peter Ewer
Political fallout from the Breivik Norway massacre was not long in coming. The Left went through Breivik’s raving manifesto and pointed their claws at those references within it they did not like. An editorial in The Australian, July 30-31, 2011, p.15, hit back and said “A debate on multiculturalism is entirely legitimate.” Well, when is this likely to occur?

Reading further in the editorial we find: “This newspaper has always supported Australia’s open-migration policies.” In other words, there will be no debate. But really “debate” is just talk while the policy of open-migration ever continues. The fact of the matter is that people in the West are not and have never been, given a say about immigration.  

KEVIN RUDD & DEATH OF WEST: NEED MORE THAN A NEW HEART-VALVE

by James Reed
Kev 07 Rudd, “Don’t Believe Rumours of the West’s Death”, The Australian, August 1, 2011, p.14, recently delivered the Magna Carta lecture in Adelaide. At first I was astonished that someone who did so much in such a short time to Asianise Australia would have a good word to say about the Magna Carta, but Rudd did: “The Magna Carta represents all that is finest in the continuing values that bind the peoples of Britain and Australia, other places of the common law world and to those of the family of democracies that lie beyond the common law world as well. This is not a heritage lightly to be discarded”. Agreed.

Nevertheless the heritage of the West is being threatened because the people who created that heritage are being displaced. For the likes of Rudd, cultures are independent of races: Australia would still be “Australia’ if 100% Chinese. This is a fallacy, a fateful fallacy. It is races or peoples who create cultures. Cultures die with racial death. The West dies when White people die as a race. Mass immigration and multicultural diversity is hastening these death throes.

Further reading: The Cultivation of History by Hewlett Edwards...

THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN THE NAME OF “BEAUTY”

by James Reed
Here in Melbourne there was a US-style beauty contest where young female children were all done up in make-up. Child beauty contests, I believe, are a form of child abuse equal to the sexualising of children, usually young girls in commercials. In my opinion it is obvious that that “making up” with cosmetics is to make the young female attractive by looking like an adult female.

And there is something wrong here. It is qualitatively different from forcing one’s child to do extra study on maths or take tennis lessons. The tragedy of JonBenet Ramsey, a child beauty queen found strangled in her home, with a paedophile a likely suspect, is a chilling image of where all this can lead.  

BLACK SUPERMAN SAVES TRUTH, DEBT AND THE AMERICAN WAY

by Peter Ewer
It was all so predictable: the Republicans would talk tough about not letting Obamarama write cheques, but before the fateful hour they struck a deal: go ahead and spend, the USA can collapse another day. But the eurozone is in crisis and even media scribblers fear the European Union’s demise.

In Australia the capitalists have experienced the weakest retail growth since 1962. During early August, 2011, Australian stocks slumped, washing away $30 billion in value, just like that. One has to laugh if this is what life is supposed to be about. It is only cosmically fitting for a system as absurd as this one to flop over with its belly split open.  

WE ARE BEING FORCED FED A LIE!

There are some excellent articles coming out about the truth of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide (or CO2). The following taken from http://galileomovement.com.au/blog/ is one such article:

What is this Carbon Tax all about? by Michelle Tesoriero …and nothing but the truth Firstly let’s get our terms factual and truthful i.e. to state exactly what is and what the propaganda really means. The term, “carbon tax’ is not factual and it is not truthful. Why?
Carbon is contained in all living things on earth. You have carbon inside you, so does your pet cat, dog, bird, horse, the plants in your garden, including weeds, the trees, the farms that grow the food we put on our table, the rivers, Sydney Harbour, the oceans of the world. I think I’ve communicated my factual and truthful point.

Ok. So if we tax carbon we are taxing life itself. Sounds inhumane doesn’t it? So do those that invented this notion and those that vehemently support this sound like folk you would like to invite for dinner… or perhaps try your luck dining at theirs? Your place or theirs I’d say the odds would be they’d take umbrage to you having the temerity and audacity to live, to cook the food that was grown by the farmers that was prepared and cooked and served for a pleasant evening all because you are a Carbon Carrier.
Now they wouldn’t dare to admit they are Carbon Carriers. After all, carbon is present in all living things on earth. So, what do they classify themselves? Mmmm…perhaps aliens or inanimate objects?

Ok. Now if it is all about emissions; don’t worry I’ll keep it clean. I shall not delve into being a carbon copy of the dishonourables emitting toxicity in OUR parliaments as they spew their hostile and poisonous unintelligible gases into the atmosphere; our atmosphere. They are the real polluters. I’d class myself as a Carbon Carrier and a long term friend of CO2. I actually know lots of folk who are friends with CO2. The trees out the front of my house have indicated they NEED CO2. I’d say they are perfect candidates as friends of CO2. Perhaps this could be the catalyst for a new political party, “Friends Of CO2”

Next thing: So if we Carbon Carriers exhale, that is an emission so the logical conclusion is the plan to tax us. Sounds inhumane don’t you think? Anything else that contains carbon that is emitting it into the atmosphere shall also be taxed. Your pets, livestock, the oceans, yes the BIG POLLUTERS the oceans as they have in dissolved form 50 times the CO2 in the earth’s ENTIRE atmosphere! Wow, they sure do have a head start on us! And that is BEFORE it hits the atmosphere. So the oceans are not only Carbon Carriers, they are Carbon Dioxide Hoarders as well. The plants don’t even get a look in because they NEED CO2.

They will be classified as Carbon Thieves. Ah, then this is where the Carbon Cops enter the world stage. They will redistribute the wealth so the Carbon Hoarders ‘n’ Carriers don’t give away the CO2 to those that really need it! The Carbon Cops will decide it is better at a price that they see fit, an undefined price at that. All friends of CO2 will be pursued whether they produced, stored or used this “pollutant”. Doesn’t it sound similar to a philosophy of control of market forces? Will the creators of this madness be able to measure each person’s boundary line of carbon dioxide “trafficking”? Sounds to me more like guilty by association.
Yes we will definitely need the Carbon Cops to tax the Carbon Traffickers. Perhaps the reason the dishonourables of parliament displayed such toxicity toward the truckies?

So what is this Carbon Dioxide Tax all about? No matter how unjust, they are after their unjust share. Sounds like the flourishing bureaucracies of the past that continue to spawn and feed off citizens in the guise of helping yet at the same time not delivering to those in real need. They aim to create an interdependent market on their unjust terms. So, what is this Carbon Dioxide Tax all about? Carbon Carriers, Carbon Hoarders, Carbon Thieves and Carbon Cops. Sounds like an upcoming Hollywood movie. There would be a sequel or two in that. The possibilities are limitless. It would be hilarious if it were not true.
The truth is the cash crop is limitless and there is a booming bureaucracy awaiting those that are the strongest proponents of this unjust tax. It will be touted as a job boom, another brave stimulus package that Australia leads the charge. It will be the government line that espouses that we are leading the world. To what, I ask? Wind back our standard of living for no good reason?

We Are Being Forced-Fed a LIE! More to the point have we been led to this situation or pushed? That is a discussion for another time. The truth is we are being forced fed a lie. The weather patterns are NOT controlled by humans. Carbon and carbon dioxide are NOT pollutants. That is the truth and nothing but the truth. Our dishonourable politicians have been relying on the lies to scare people who would ask to be taxed to “save the planet”. Liar, upon liar upon liar. These are our present three tiers of government.

So, what is this Carbon Dioxide Tax all about? It’s about money. It’s about a new currency. It’s about control. It’s about depriving people a modern way of life. To be dragged into Post modernism – a philosophy that tears down everything that’s modern. It is the age we are living in NOW. Sounds like a brutal world to me.
In the Modern Age there were visionaries who dared to discover science and were persecuted and silenced because they stood up for truth. That’s what we are doing right now with the Galileo Movement. We strive to bring ethical, logical, intelligent, pollution-free thinking. That is one thing that those in OUR parliamentarians are incapable of delivering – the truth and nothing but the truth.  

Listen to Vaclav Klaus speaking at the National Press Club here…

Listen to Jeremy Lee explain the way global finance binds us all in a web of debt here...

CANADA’S BATTLING BARRISTER REPLIES

In a recent OT edition (https://alor.org/Volume47/Vol47No30.htm) we reported on Canadian barrister Douglas Christie, who is battling prostrate cancer and asked those who wished to do so, to send their best wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery.
One couple received the following reply from Doug and we thought our readers would like to read it too:

“I received your beautiful card and good wishes for my health. I pray also that God may use me as He sees fit to do the things He wants me to in the interests of Truth, Justice and Freedom. He has given me a blessed and full life with many good friends and a lovely family. For this my only response must be in all things “Thy Will Be Done”.

- - With sincere thanks, Douglas Christie. August 10/2011  

THE SAGA OF THE AGEING PMs: THE LEFT AND NATIVE TITLE

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Exhibit A: Mal Fraser’s memoirs. Greg Sheridan (The Australian, 26/5/2011, p.12) set the ball rolling by saying that these are “the most error-riddled, factually unreliable, tendentious, consistently nasty and overall disgraceful political memoirs I have ever read.” The memoirs won the NSW Premier’s Literary Award but Sheridan believes that the awards should be abolished because in their nonfiction section they “promote ideological conformity”.
The Fraser book, he alleges, is full of errors such as erroneously claiming that he won four elections when he won three. Further, Fraser has fashioned himself to be a man of the Left in recent times, or at least out of office. Fraser has responded (The Australian, May 27, 2011, p.15) but never addressed Sheridan’s key criticisms.

Exhibit B: Paul Keating delivered the annual Lowitja O’Donoghue Oration at the University of Adelaide on May 31, 2011. What could Keating do to win the on-going battle of political correctness of the ageing PM set? Lamenting that only 121 native title determinations had concluded from 1,300 lodged claims in 15 years the Native Title Act has operated.
Keating put out this gem. Reverse the onus of proof so that Aboriginal claimants are no longer required to prove a continuous association with their land! Make objectors to native title claims show that a continuous attachment no longer exists! \

Before we jump up and down at Keating, in an extract of his speech (The Australian, June 1, 2011, p.16) Keating quotes the Chief Justice Robert French as coming up with this idea. Keating says: “Chief Justice Robert French had some helpful things to say in Adelaide in July 2008. He highlighted the beneficial purpose that the act seeks to confer on Aboriginal and Islander people. He suggested that some change in the act as it relates to onus of proof could facilitate a presumption of continuity of connection by claimants and continuity since sovereignty.
Such a presumption, he said, would enable the parties, if it were not to be challenged, to disregard a substantial interruption of continuity of acknowledgement and observance of traditional laws and customs.” It seems that amendments “encapsulating some of these proposals have been put before the parliament.”

Reversing the onus of proof will of course make it extremely difficult to defeat any native title claim. An explosion of claims will occur, including claims for entire cities. I suggest that the very first claim be made against Keating’s house.  

SAYING NO TO SHARIA LAW

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Tim Spigelman is NSW Chief Justice no more, having retired at the age of 65. But before moving into his new career he said that there was no place for Sharia law in our legal system. The division between church and state is a fundamental part of our law which the introduction of Sharia law was at odds with (The Australian, June 2, 2011, p.9)

The present push for the introduction of Sharia law in Australia, following on from Julia Gillard’s re-embracing of multiculturalism, is by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president. Good stuff Mr Spigelman – I forgive you for being a “political staffer and senior bureaucrat in the Whitlam government.”  

THE LAW AND ETHICS OF FACE COVERING

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
A letter I received by a reader asked me to comment on the face covering issue and civil liberties. First, the law. NSW is to have new laws with a maximum penalty of 12 months gaol or a $5500 fine for failure to remove burka face coverings. The laws arise in the context of the case of a Sydney woman, mother of seven, who falsely accused a policeman of trying to rip off her veil. The woman was at trial sentenced to six months gaol but on appeal it was held that the woman in the black burka who filed the claim at the Campbelltown police station could not be proved to be the accused. Hence the conviction was overturned on a technicality.

France has a total ban on the burka, hijab and niqab in public places because these are symbols of the oppression of women. Yes, from a liberal perspective. But I do not agree on such a banning because it arbitrarily ceases on only one aspect of a cultural phenomenon. If multicultural societies are to be created, then why single just that out? The need for removing face coverings for police identification though is a different question. On public policy grounds, not feminist political correctness grounds, this is justified. If necessary a female police officer can do the examination. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is nothing in the Koran that recludes the removal of facial coverings for police identification.