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

7 December 2012 Thought for the Week:


When the shearing sheds are silent and the stock camps fallen quiet
When the gidgee coals no longer glow across the outback night
And the bush is forced to hang a sign, 'gone broke and won't be back'
And spirits fear to find a way beyond the beaten track
When harvesters stand derelict upon the wind-swept plains
And brave hearts pin their hopes no more on chance of loving rains
When a hundred outback settlements are ghost towns overnight
When we've lost the drive and heart we had to once more see us right
When 'Pioneer' means a stereo and 'Digger' some backhoe
And the 'Outback' is behind the house, there's nowhere else to go
And 'Anzac' is a biscuit brand and probably foreign owned
And education really means brainwashed and neatly cloned
When you have to bake a loaf of bread to make a decent crust
And our heritage once enshrined in gold is crumbling to dust
And old folk pay their camping fees on land for which they fought
And fishing is a great escape; this is until you're caught
When you see our kids with Yankee caps and resentment in their eyes
And the soaring crime and hopeless hearts is no longer a surprise
When the name of RM Williams is a yuppie clothing brand
Not a product of our heritage that grew up off the land
When offering a hand makes people think you'll amputate
And two dogs meeting in the street is what you call a 'Mate'
When 'Political Correctness' has replaced all common sense
When you're forced to see it their way, there's no sitting on the fence
Yes, one day you might find yourself an outcast in this land
Perhaps your heart will tell you then, 'I should have made a stand'
Just go and ask the farmers that should remove all doubt
Then join the swelling ranks who say, 'Don't sell Australia out'

- - Thanks to an unknown Author. Weep for us Dorothea McKellar.  


Dr. Amy McGrath has, out of her own pocket, had a book published which compiles much of the Fabian Socialists’ real history and agenda – and she is offering the book free to those who want to read it and pass it on to friends and neighbours.

The book is titled: “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: Fabian Communists Wage Secret War on the West”.
The details explain: “This book will be issued free of charge in the public interest. If postage is involved, a donation for the cost will be welcome.
Apply to Tower House Publications, P.O. Box 39, Brighton le Sands, Sydney NSW 2216. Enquiries to Australia 02 9599 7915.

The back cover of the book features a photo of the Fabian Society’s 1884 window with the following description:
“In the shared home of Sidney Webb and G.B. Shaw, Webb plays the ‘wolf’ with his hammer on high to smash the earth on his anvil while his ‘sheep’ worship below. Now they herd us all into the trap of one world Communist government when they will fulfil the Fabian dream as wolves destroying our civilization through an almighty United Nations”.

I would like to add Ivor Benson’s words to this summary:
“Solzhenitsyn was correct when he said that the real evil is Socialism, not Communism, which is no more than a by-product of it. Painful experience has taught millions of people what Socialism means, nowhere more so than in the Soviet Union and East Europe. But their experience teaches little or nothing to those who have not had the experience, or have experienced it only in an attenuated form... If we don't know what happened, we cannot know what to do…”

Australian artist Pro Hart: Going back a number of years, through a mutual contact, Australian artist Pro Hart sent a photo of the painting “Fabians” to Eric Butler. I believe the photo would still be among the Butler papers. You can see a photo of the painting here… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-28/pro-hart-painting-titled-fabians/1718168  

If you haven’t done so, do read “Russia 1917-1918: A Key to the Riddle of An Age of Conflict” www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p323_Benson.html  

** Eric D. Butler presented a paper of "The Fabian Idea Throughout History" and the DVD is available from Heritage Book Services $10.00 + postage.


Hansard, House of Representatives Date Monday, 26 November 2012

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:42): In recommending the bill to the House, I have just come back from a tour of the Murray-Darling area. To see what this place has done to the Murray-Darling would make any patriotic Australian blush with embarrassment and shame. It should make every member of this place feel utterly ashamed of themselves.
At Mildura, we were told that 85 shops in the town have closed. I drove around the vineyards and the orchards and I felt one in 10 were closed down and was informed that the figure was much closer to one in five. In Griffith, they said 120 shops were closed. I do not know if this is true or not, but these are the things that were being told to me. There most certainly seemed to be many shops closed.
In Deniliquin, we were told that there were normally 60 or 70 houses for sale; there are now 155 houses registered for sale.
This place has destroyed the economic base of all inland New South Wales. This place has destroyed the economic base of Northern Victoria and south- eastern South Australia. This place has not destroyed Queensland, because Queensland's Murray-Darling allocation is mostly Cubbie Station. No, this place has kept all the water intact at Cubbie Station and handed it all over to a foreign corporation, when there were other bidders in Australia.
What the government should have done was to break up Cubbie Station into 10 or 12 civilised sizes where there would be owner- operators instead of fly-ins from the coast. Most of Cubbie Station is done by fly-in work out of Brisbane, in the main. But instead of doing that they sold it as one big heap, and they sold it to a foreign corporation.
The allegations in this case are very interesting because they are similar to the allegations in the case concerning-and it is not sub judice at the present, so I can speak up-the South Johnstone sugar mill, which was sold. Two mills smaller than it had been sold for over $130 million. We are talking about a mill worth $150 million. It was sold for $2 million because the people that are liquidators are people who are corruptible to a point of being illegal and should be committed to jail. This is happening again, again and again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Leigh ): The honourable member for Kennedy is reminded that particular allegations against individuals are best pursued through a substantive motion.

Mr KATTER: I have not made any allegations against any individuals. I have made general remarks concerning liquidators.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am simply reminding the honourable member of the standing orders.

Mr KATTER: I take the Deputy Speaker's comments. In this case it has been sold to foreigners. In the last five weeks the biggest farm in Australia, Cubbie Station, has been sold to foreigners-the biggest water licence. It has not been bought by the government for environmental flows. It has been sold to foreigners -the biggest water licence. This place sold the biggest fishing licence in Australia.
Only through the actions of my colleague from Hobart here beside me, seconding this resolution-on other issues completely, environmental issues -was the decision reversed. But the government had already made the decision to sell.
I came back from Tasmania, where another 20 per cent of their second biggest industry-and it is one of their only two industries-the timber industry, has been chopped away, leaving the economy of Tasmania almost a basket case because of the actions of this government. So they have wrecked an area-not this government, mainly the last government, actually; but this government most certainly have been up to their eyeballs in it-leaving an area stretching throughout all of New South Wales.
Two-thirds of New South Wales: gone. Two-thirds of Victoria: gone. One quarter of South Australia: gone, destroyed by government action.
And now of the 20 per cent of what is left of poor little Tasmania, half of it has been given to some subcommittee of UNESCO over in New York. All human activity on half of Tasmania is controlled by a UNESCO subcommittee. I know, because north Queensland suffers the same fate, so I speak with authority.
But let me go over it. The biggest farm: sold. The biggest water licence: sold. The biggest fishing licence: sold. The biggest dairying area in Australia: sold. The 10th biggest cattle station in area in Australia: sold. The daddy of them all, the big, grand, colossal Santa Claus of all destructive decisions is the Ord.
Here is one of the great achievements of the Australian people - to bring irrigation and development into the north- west, the most outback and most unpopulated part of Australia. It is a great dream of all Australians. The second stage could have been put up as 1,000-hectare farms.
The government of Western Australia or the government of Australia could have put up ethanol to give us something that we could grow there - they could have done that. They continually refused. This government is the only governments in the world that does not have biofuels by law in petrol tanks. People die when you have not got oxygenated petrol in their petrol tanks. That is why they put biofuels and ethanol in their petrol tanks. We are the only country on earth not to do that.
The Chinese will not buy ethanol off Australia. Now that they are producing ethanol in Australia, they will buy it from their own operation in Australia. But they were given a huge area-some 20,000 hectares, an area bigger than Cubbie Station. It carries a $600 million subsidy with it.
The government will not subsidise Australian farmers; they will not give us a cent. The Liberal Party will not and the Labor Party will not. They will not give Australian farmers a single cent. And yet they will deliver to a foreign corporation a $600 million subsidy.
The Ord dam was built by the taxpayers of Australia. The delivery channels, which cost as much as the dam, were built with Australian taxpayers' money. And yet the government has taken it upon itself to sell them.
If they had given us ethanol and they had given us 15 or 20 1,000 hectare farms you would have been killed in the rush. But the ALP believes in corporate farming, the biggest disaster in agriculture in Australian history. The Liberal Party believes in corporate farming even more. That means that it has to be a corporation; we could not possibly have an owner operator! The only farms in Australia that operate at a profit are the owner- operator farms.
Every corporate farm in this country, to my knowledge, have gone broke, not once but again and again. Collie farm has gone broke six times. The two big mango farms have gone broke four times. Then there is the disaster in grapes and wine. I do not have to tell anyone in this place about Great Southern. All the cattle stations- (Time expired) Bill read a first time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Leigh): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr Patrick Secker MHR: Dear Patrick
I have just read in the Weekly Times that Bob Katter MHR has moved a Private Member's Bill to prevent the Treasurer from selling Cubbie Station to any corporation with foreign interests.
Can I presume your support for his Bill, based on the community feeling in your electorate and beyond? I commend you in anticipation.
Sincerely, Ken Grundy (Naracoorte, South Australia).

From: Secker, Patrick (MP) To: k grundy
You cannot presume my support to overturn a decision that has already been made.
That is a recipe for sovereign risk and is not in the national interest.
It may be politically popular to take up this cause but the horse has bolted!
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Cubbie Station Sent from my iPad  


by J. D. Heyes
(Natural News) We don't hear much about civil rights violations in uber-socialist Canada, but every now and then the leaders and institutions of our frosty neighbour to the north (like the elected leaders of our own country) tend to forget that, at their core, human beings trend towards liberty and freedom over state-mandated oppression.
In what some legal experts are calling a "watershed case" involving freedom of expression as it pertains to homosexuality, a Canadian court handed down a decision recently that some say may give hope to religious liberty advocates in the United States because it is a decision they believe could impact similar cases here.

Over the course of a decade, the case was bandied about in the courts. It involved a Canadian pastor, Stephen Boissoin, who wrote letters to the editor of a local newspaper expressing his religious viewpoints on homosexuality and especially his perception that the behaviour was being promoted in public schools.

His letters were reported by a University of Calgary professor to the Alberta Human Rights Commission as hate speech. The commission agreed and proceeded to fine Boissoin $5,000, while prohibiting him from expressing further his views on homosexuality. Finally; however, a Canadian court sided with the principle that what constitutes freedom of expression on one end of the political spectrum thereby constitutes free expression on the other end. 'Public expression should not be censored just because it's not universally popular' "Matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behaviour, are topics for discussion in the public forum. Freedom of speech does not just protect polite speech," said Alberta Appeals Court Justice Clifton O'Brien in his ruling.

The Scottsdale, Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, which defended Boissoin, applauded the ruling, saying the court "got it exactly right" on the key points at issue. "Christians and other people of faith should not be fined or jailed for expressing their political or religious beliefs. There is no place for thought control in a free and democratic society," said Gerald Chipeur, an ADF-allied attorney who served as counsel in the lawsuit. ADF said in what appears to be a final victory for the pastor, Alberta's highest court has upheld and affirmed Boissoin's right to express what are his own religious views publicly - just like those who have viewpoints opposed to his.

"Public expression should not be censored simply because the views expressed are unpopular," read an ADF blog post Nov. 2.
"... This legal victory has great significance for religious expression. As American courts look more frequently to international jurisprudence for guidance, this victory for freedom of expression has important implications for preserving and promoting religious freedom in America."
Added Chipeur, a Canadian attorney, "This was a watershed case, very important, in terms of freedom of expression and religious liberty. Going forward, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for religious or political debate to be found in breach of Alberta's current human rights laws. The tools of censorship should not be available to prohibit freedom of religious expression in Canada. The court rightly found that this type of religious speech is not 'hate' speech,'" he continued.

The law is questioned as well: The three justices of the Alberta court panel said in their ruling that "Boissoin and others have the freedom to think ... that homosexuality is sinful and morally wrong ... (and) they have the right to express that thought to others." In addition to affirming the pastor's rights, the court went on to question Alberta's "hate speech" law. "Of particular concern in the area of human rights law is the lack of clarity that will cast a chill on the exercise of the fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression and religion," the court said.

"This legal victory has great significance for religious expression," said ADF, in a statement. "As American courts look more frequently to international jurisprudence for guidance, this victory for freedom of expression has important implications for preserving and promoting religious freedom in America."

Actually, American courts need not look further than the U.S. Constitution, from which they attain their powers, to rule that voicing an opinion based on a legitimate religious belief is neither "hate speech" nor a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees that right.
Various Sources: https://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/ : https://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=39165 : http://blog.speakupmovement.org


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
The ALP (Australian Locust Party) has now ensured that discrimination cases will be easier to launch and less costly. This has been done by reconstructing the system so that the burden of guilt now rests with those being sued. (The Australian 20 November 2012, p.1) All that is needed now is for the complainant to establish a mere prima facie case and then the legal burden of proof shifts to those being sued. It is a complete inversion of the common law system as we know it.

To make matters even worse there has also been the elimination of costs for those alleging discrimination. The flood gates are now open. As legal writer Chris Merritt puts it in summing up: “The government’s plan to rewrite anti-discrimination law is like money in the bank for the undeserving”.

Employers will be forced to pay “go away” money. Worse, all of this is part of a strategy to consolidate Australia’s discrimination laws from five Acts down to one. The Racial Discrimination Act will be part of the new – let’s call it Tyranny Act – which by law will presume guilt. Not even the shadow of free speech will remain.

The cost of business of this potential flood in discrimination cases will be enormous and big business has already ‘slammed’ the changes. (The Australian 21 November 2012, p.6) But even money is weak before the tidal wave of political correctness.  


by James Reed
Good morning class. Today for English 101 we are going to look critically at a newspaper article. I, your teacher for the day am filling in for Ms Snozzgrass, who is doing a course on assertiveness. The article which I have selected is “Chinese Deal Sweetens Ord Valley Future”, The Weekend Australian 17-18 November 2012, p.1. This is a front page article about the arrival of Chinese corporate farming in the Ord River scheme.

In particular, Chinese corporation Shanghai Zhongfu has won the right to lease the land, dirt cheap. The Australian taxpayers – your parents – put up $517 million for infrastructure, and this firm gets to develop the land for sugar growing, for China of course. Now class, pay attention because this concerns your future. The Australian features a farmer in its large colour-photograph. The farmer is said to have “no animosity or xenophobia” towards the Chinese firm. Lovely for him! And better yet, he is the son of German immigrant farmers. The farmer is said to be “excited” and with not a hint of apprehension”. What is all of this about children? You tell me.

Class, for this lesson I want you to think critically about the message being promoted by The Australian here. What does it say about their values and ideology? Why do you think no opponent of the Chinese venture is cited? Is this balanced journalism? Ms Snozzgrass, whom I understand is a radical lesbian with a Chinese partner, will be back tomorrow. You have this lesson to say what you feel. I don’t care about political correctness. Here is your one chance at high school to speak your mind. Don’t waste this opportunity. You have thirty minutes left – Good Luck!  


by Betty Luks
The ALoR and its supporters have always been interested in and concerned for the soil and the environment, so, when I read Senator Barnaby Joyce’s press release on the Murray River Basin Plan and his narrow approach to the wholeness of the matter I got riled. He wrote: “I think it is widely noted, however, that a plan negotiated with the Coalition is better than a plan negotiated with the Greens. The Greens have clearly shown that they have a preference for animals and plants over people”.

Get that dear reader?
“The Coalition has a better plan because they are caring more for people whereas The Greens prefer animals and plants!” Not one of the parties’ spokesmen/ women have brought up that big, big, elephant standing in the corner of all the party rooms in Canberra - financial debt!
Farmers are forced to rape (yes rape, not reap) their soils in order to remain financially viable, but who - along with us all - also need plants and animals to survive! Barnaby, your typical party political slant on what is really a very serious issue is so, so wrong because it is ‘one-sided’ and omits important facts.

On 18 October, 2012, the Associated Press reported
“A massive dust storm swirling reddish-brown clouds over northern Oklahoma triggered a multi-vehicle accident along a major interstate… forcing police to shut down the heavily traveled roadway amid near blackout conditions.” Farmers in the region had recently plowed fields to plant winter wheat. The bare soil—desiccated by the relentless drought that smothered nearly two-thirds of the continental United States during the summer and still persists over the Great Plains—was easily lifted by the passing strong winds, darkening skies from southern Nebraska, through Kansas, and into Oklahoma.

The article continued: “Observers could not help but harken back to the 1930s Dust Bowl that ultimately covered 100 million acres in western Kansas, the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles, northeastern New Mexico, and southeastern Colorado. Yet when asked if that was the direction the region was headed, Oklahoma’s Secretary of Agriculture Jim Reese was unequivocal: “That will never happen again”. Oh Yeah? It’s happening all across the world.  


The Permaculture Research Institute have placed on the internet a telling video of the 1930s Dust Bowl storms with the following explanation:
“In the early decades of the twentieth century, earnest settlers of the semi-arid Plains, along with opportunistic “suitcase farmers” out to make a quick dollar, plowed under millions of acres of native prairie grass. Assured that “rain follows the plow,” and lured by government incentives, railroad promises, and hopes of carving out a place for their families, these farmers embraced the newly available tractors, powerful plows, and mechanized harvesters to turn over the sod that had long sustained Native American tribes and millions of bison.

The plowing began during years of rain, and early harvests were good. High wheat prices, buoyed by demand and government guarantees during the First World War, encouraged ever more land to be turned over. But then the Great Depression hit. The price of wheat collapsed and fields were abandoned. When the drought arrived in the early 1930s, the soils blew, their fertility stolen by the relentless wind. Stripped of its living carpet, freed from the intricate matrix of perennial prairie grass roots, the earth took flight.

Clouds as tall as mountains and black as night rolled over the land. Regular dust storms pummeled the homesteaders; the big ones drew notice when they clouded the sun in New York City and Washington, DC, even sullying ships hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic. Dunes formed and spread, burying railroad tracks, fences, and cars. “Dust pneumonia” claimed lives, often those of children. People fled the land in droves…”

Here is a Youtube documentary:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM3ZHMBhP2k. See for yourself the filmed records of those dust storms - and then ask yourself, “has not the time long passed when we let party politicians divide and rule us?” 


Geoffrey Dobbs, biologist, philosopher and social crediter wrote of the 1930s in “On Planning the Earth”, published in 1951.
The book has been put up on the League Blog (https://alor.org/blog/index.php) for all to read. It not only explains why the terrible dust storms occurred but what were the political, economic and financial reasons why.

As usual, it reveals the betrayal of the people by their leaders, but also goes into much detail of the background to the first Atom Bomb, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the centralisation of electrical power and the Grid system, and much else. I would think the book may prove of great interest to our American readers.

He finishes the book with these words of encouragement (remember written over sixty years ago)
“The momentum towards centralisation is so great that there are sure to be many more retreats and disappointments before the corner is turned. But that is no reason for letting things go. It will never stop of itself, except, indeed, through the prolonged effect of wholesale disaster and catastrophe; but to rely upon that is suicidal.

So long as there was room for honest doubt, the Planners were rightly given the benefit of it, and resistance was necessarily sporadic, and limited to special cases, supposed to be blemishes in an otherwise wholesome policy for the good of mankind. But there is no longer room for honest doubt. The evils which beset and threaten us are not mere blemishes, they are, part of a consistent policy; and those who consciously support that policy must either call evil good, or deny that it exists, which amounts to saying that good and evil are one.

For those who cannot do either of these things the path is clear; confusion and bewilderment are left behind. It is not that the whole world is mad, but that certain men are bad; not merely weak and liable to fall into error like the rest of humanity, but corrupted by power in their purpose and philosophy. It may well be said that they have been offered all the kingdoms of the earth, and have not jibbed at the price. The road to hell is not paved with good intentions, but with 'good' intentions, which are just the opposite.

This can be at first a frightening and unwelcome conclusion, but it is infinitely preferable to the conclusion that appalling evils can arise from good policies, or the hypocritical pretence of all bullies and tyrants that it is those who resist their will and their aggression who are responsible for the evil results which follow. To share in these is to destroy one's own integrity.

The prospect of opposing such a concentration of evil power is somewhat intimidating, particularly when it is realised that it holds control of finance, upon which depends, in large measure, our access to bread and butter and the other things we need. But fortunately there are, at least in the Western Hemisphere, counterbalancing powers which so far have protected us. Our survival depends upon their survival, and their survival depends upon us…”  Read further here...


by Betty Luks
It comes as a bit of a shock when ones realises just how the system is working – and ‘worked’. I knew that the mainline church I attend was in deep trouble; I had caught a radio news snippet - of 40 local churches, 20 were near to collapse and 20 were ‘struggling’. So, just how does the ecclesiastical hierarchy keep on top of the overheads and financial obligations of such a top-heavy organisation?

Yes, at the local level the loyal, the genuine, the faithful, hold trading tables and fetes and give as generously as they are able, to help supplement the financial shortfall for their own church’s running expenses, but the organisation itself is top heavy – surely investments, etc., don’t cover all running costs and expenses? I must say I did wonder. So, when I read the following report from an American group it made me wonder still more. While this is about the American scene, Australians need to ask: is it a similar situation here in Australia? Do mainline churches also receive such huge funds from government sources and have they become in fact simply an arm of government?

Is The Refugee Racket Helping Pay For The Catholic Church’s Child Abuse Settlements?
By Thomas Allen, 28 November, 2012: https://www.vdare.com/articles/is-the-refugee-racket-helping-pay-for-the-catholic-church-s-child-abuse-settlements
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB] is the largest “refugee” resettlement agency by far. USCCB resettles about quarter of the refugees that the U.S. receives each year. [Migration and Refugee Services United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011 Annual Report PDF, Introduction by José H. Gomez Archbishop of Los Angeles] https://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/

The total number of refugees resettled by all American “refugee contractors” in 2011:
56,424, down from 74,654 the previous year. Unfortunately, the drop in numbers was temporary—caused by the need to re-vamp clearance procedures after the fingerprints of two Iraqi refugees were found on exploded I.E.D.s in Iraq. The pair was also trying to supply al Qaeda in Iraq with cash, guns and Stinger missiles from their new Kentucky home.) [2 Iraqi refugees indicted on terrorism charges in Kentucky, Courier-Journal, May 31, 2011] 2011 revenue for Migration and Refugee Services, USCCB’s refugee contracting arm: $72.1 million. Where does this staggering sum come from? A recent GAO report, Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program, July 12, 2012, offered an explanation of the dynamic:

“Participating organizations are expected to combine PRM [the Population, Resettlement and Migration Bureau of the U.S. State Dept.]’s financial assistance with existing and projected private resources for the provision of reception and placement services.” But in fact USCCB independently raises only about 2% (two percent) of its $72.1 million total revenues. The rest comes from contracts, grants and earnings from federal programs. [Federal funds account for nearly 93% of USCCB’s migration/refugee budget, Catholic World News, August 29, 2012]

And that 2% contribution goes mostly into various forms of lobbying for a larger refugee program. On the ground, at the local level, USCCB runs its program through Catholic Charities, a network of affiliates around the country. So can we assume that, at the local level, “existing and projected private resources for the provision of reception and placement services” spring up to leverage the government dollars with their own efforts? Afraid not! The only thing that multiplies: the need for more taxpayer funding.

As the July 2012 GAO Report observes:
One state refugee coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease. “Affiliate funding” does not mean voluntary donations. This is not charity. The USCCB and its Catholic Charities affiliate assist refugees only when paid by the U.S. government. And in many cases, there is no need even to pretend to show that money obtained from government sources was spent on government purposes—like, say, helping refugees. For instance, in 2011 USCCB earned $3.7 million from commissions on the interest-free travel loans made by the US government to refugees. USCCB actually hires collection agencies to ensure that refugees repay these loans. There is no requirement to show how any of the money generated from this federal program is spent.

An example of refugee racket economics:
For one of its several refugee programs, USCCB receives from the taxpayer $1,825 for each refugee (including children) that it resettles. Only $1,000 of that $1,825 needs to be shown to have been spent on the individual refugee. Of course, considering the challenges of resettlement, both of these might seem to be relatively small amounts—until you realize that the agency’s contractual engagement with the refugee ends 30 to 90 days after arrival. The refugee is eligible for all forms of federal (and often state) welfare 30 days after arrival.
Even volunteer time and donated items given by local community members turns into money for USCCB. It imputes a dollar value to all volunteer activity and gives the bill to the feds under the misnamed Federal Matching Grant program.

My question: has the USCCB’s rapaciousness have anything to do with the fact that, in addition to an annual report for its federal refugee contracting arm, it must publish an Annual Report on the Implementation of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” [PDF] a catalogue of the steps it is taking in the wake of settlements following pederast priest sex scandals?...

The worst may have passed, but USCCB still faces ongoing outlays directly related to the scandal that will be well in excess of $100 million per year. And incidents, involving refugees, continue to occur. [Catholic Charities of Houston worker accused of sexually assaulting refugee boy, Friends of Refugees Blog, August 25, 2011]
Nevertheless, this is the same organization that went ballistic when it lost a federal contract to aid “victims of labour and sex trafficking” which had brought in 19 million or $6,800 per client over five and a half years. [USCCB seeks answers to why plan to help trafficking victims was denied, by Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service, December 13, 2011].
(Although most publicity is given to the sex trafficking and the minors aided by the fraud-prone anti-trafficking legislation, with its refugee-like privileges and payouts, the large majority of cases involve “labour” trafficking. Only 3.8% of USCCB’s “trafficking” caseload consisted of minors.)

Is the refugee program helping the Catholic hierarchy keep the red ink at bay—and paying executive salaries well into the six figures at local affiliates around the country wherever Catholic Charities is imposing refugees? Thomas Allen describes himself as a recovering refugee worker.  


by Ian Wilson LL.B.
In his extraordinarily challenging “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse” (Cambridge University Press 2010), Professor Steven D. Smith cites legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron (“Public Reason and ‘Justification’”, J. Law. Phil & Culture 1, 2007) who has this to say about the quality of reasoning of the US Supreme Court:

“The alleged reason-giving advantage associated with courts is a sham. What courts call “giving reasons” is an attempt to connect the decision they are facing with some piece of abstract and ill-thought-through eighteenth-century prose. Or it is an attempt to construct desperate analogies between the present decision they face and other decisions that happen to have come before them (in which they were engaged in similar contortions)…
And all the time, the real issues at stake in the good-faith disagreement… gets pushed back to the margins. They usually take up a paragraph or two of the twenty pages or more devoted to an opinion, and even then the issues are seldom addressed directly”. (p.10)

Professor Smith himself is equally as sceptical and says: “The Supreme Court’s agenda often prompts the justices to pronounce upon not only the narrow legal but also the prudential and moral dimensions of matters such as abortion, the “right to die”, and affirmative action. And the resulting opinions can be ponderous and intimidating (to non-lawyers and students, anyway). But the actual quality of reasoning is almost invariably thin, conclusory, and disappointing. Assigned to write an essay on a similar issue for a freshman English course, a thoughtful student could usually produce something that, although of course lacking in authority and gravitas, would be as searching in its substance’. (p.9)

I agree with this assessment, at least applied to my jurisdiction of Australia, the highest court being the High Court of Australia. Many of its important judgements are, at least for the majority decision, lacking in rational justification. Why is this so? The reason is politics, pure and simple. Law is not a form of abstract reasoning like mathematics, devoid of political significance, but rather, it is the slave of politics. Some evidence, please!

James Allan and Nicholas Aroney, “An Uncommon Court: How the High Court of Australia Has Undermined Australian Federalism”, Sydney Law Review, vol.30, 2008, pp.245-294, is my first exhibit. This paper looks at High Court of Australia cases from its inception to the Work Choices case (New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR1).

They remark that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution would never have imagined that the States would have become so “emasculated” and dependent on Commonwealth funding. (p.246) Case by case, the High Court of Australia has worked to undermine States’ rights. Their ruling belief has been in the virtues of centralism and the concentration of power. The High Court of Australia has just as consistently supported politically correct values, in Mabo, but also in case after case of immigration reviews. Thus in Plaintiff M47 (2012 v Director General of Security [20120] HcA 46, the majority of the High Court held invalid a regulation which prevented the grant of a protection visa to a “refugee” if ASIO had assessed the “refugee” to be a security risk. Don’t ask how they came up with this one!

Then there is feminism and here the High Court really outdoes itself. In Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457, it was held to be unconscionable for a farmer in sound mind to transfer his land to his nephew, with forgiveness of debt being a substantial part of the price, to keep his farm from being broken up by his four daughters. The Court found a strong emotional dependence and attachment to the nephew, which placed him at a disadvantage, so that it was unconscionable for the nephew to retain the farm! No, that is not what is going on. What was concluded was that a man can’t decide what to do with his own property. The daughters must get their share even if that which he spent his whole life working for is lost. The case is at the utter tragic level.

Along the same lines we have Magill v Magill [2006] HCA SL. Here the High Court in its wisdom rejected a man’s action for the tort (civil wrongdoing) of deceit in paternity fraud. Mr. Magill found out after separation that two of his three children were not genetically his.
His case was for damages for personal injury (anxiety and depression) arising from fraudulent representations and financial losses. The Court was of the opinion that no action for deceit could lie for representations about paternity between spouses because it was not the role of the Court to intrude into this domain of personal relationships. Three members of the majority held this unargued for view, but another three members held that the tort of deceit did exist in marriage, but only in “exceptional” circumstances that were not detailed. This is all nonsense because the entire relationship of marriage is “commercial”. While section 120 of the Family Law Act 1975 abolishes damages for adultery, the issue here is one of fraudulently having children supported.

But the real concern is political correctness – there is so much paternity fraud by cheating women (women know definitely who are their children, while men do not, thus making this a “women’s issue”) that the fear of the floodgates being opened runs through the judgement. If the opposite decision, I believe the right one, was held, the cry of outrage from feminists would never end. To be continued…  


Shepparton News and Numurkah Leader, 28/11/2012:
Dear Sir,
Please permit me a comment related to the ‘Banksia Financials’ collapse. The collapse of Banksia was always possible, as it is with any financial institution, because it is part of a financial system that preys on all who have intercourse with it; intercourse is the proper word!
The workings of the ‘orthodox’ financial system require debt, bankruptcy and increased taxes just to keep it going and this is because all finance coming into the system is ‘injected’ as a debt created by the banks and there is never enough finance available to satisfy full repayment of the debt incurred.
Accompanying the debt and taxes is erosion of the value of the ‘nation’s currency’ by the evils of ‘compounding financial inflation’. That’s right… any cost increase is added to the previous price! It is important to understand this phenomenon because its effects can be closely correlated to family breakdown and suicides.
If we accept the foregoing then nobody can live with ‘peace of mind’ because we are all personally vulnerable to the likely effects of the system.
The importance of access to adequate finance in a modern society is akin to a ‘licence to live’ so it is appropriate to ask “why do we have personal poverty in this modern age?” It is part of a policy! Who’s policy? Is it the Commonwealth Government Treasurer, Wayne Swan, or perhaps the unelected Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens or is it somebody else?
Inflation erodes the value of savings hurting those on fixed incomes; it is used as an excuse to increase council rates and charges, likewise the operating costs of public utilities which are then passed onto consumers without negotiation or argument.
Dear Reader, if your dollar is not stretching as far as it did twelve months ago then perhaps you should closely consider the foregoing and then decide if you will ‘vote for more’ next time you attend a polling booth.
If you have not suffered enough then it is your ‘God given right’ to suffer some more! What will you do?

- - Louis Cook, Numurkah Victoria  


We would like to remind our readers and supporters that the small hard-working staff, plus the volunteers, will be taking their well-earned break during the traditional Christmas/ New Year period. The Melbourne ‘Hub’ will be closed from Friday 14th December 2012 and reopening Monday 7th January, 2013!

Now is the time to get your Christmas gifts for your loved ones - ones that will prove to be of real value. The Prince of Wales’ book “Harmony” is one such book. $40.00 + $10.00 postage.  


Have you downloaded your copy yet? We urge you to start doing your bit. Make use of this worthwhile campaign. The details are here… or from K Grundy, Box 177, Naracoorte SA 5271  

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