|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
17 January 2014 Thought for the Week:
“In Part 1 of this two-part analysis, we considered the relationship of these forces to World Revolution, the integrated human machinery involved, well-expressed in the "Mattoid" syndrome, and the way in which the virus, the spores of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary philosophy, formerly enshrined in Soviet politico-Military Doctrine, are continuing to weave a path through Western society (2). It is worth taking a look at what Paul Kingsworth wrote in the context of the corporate world in the United States under the title “In My Own Words”, in Resurgence, No. 227, November-December, 2004.
Corporations gained the rights of "persons" in a series of controversial court decisions in the Nineteenth Century, in which corporate lawyers successfully, if bizarrely, argued that the constitutional rights which guaranteed the freedom of American citizens applied to American companies too. From then on, there was no looking back. Today, American companies regularly claim constitutional rights to increase their power and evade their responsibilities.
They use the Fourteenth Amendment, to the United States Constitution - written to protect the "life, liberty or property" of freed slaves - to evade laws aimed at protecting people from corporate abuses. They use the Fourth Amendment - the right to be secure from government interference - to avoid inspections of their property. And they use the First Amendment - the right to free speech - to protect corporate donations to political parties, and the funding of political advertisements…”
America now a Classic Fascist State
The United States – a Corporate Gulag controlled by an International Elite
Comment by US Citizen: This may well be one of the most “to the Point” presentations of how our government views us, and how we view them. Those in government are not part of “We The People”……. they have by their actions and words, declared us, the public, to be enemies of the fascists that have overthrown our Constitutional Republic.
Some points made in the video:
Mussolini the father of Corporatism said that Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism – the joining of corporate greed and government power over the people.
WHEN WILL THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE SAY: THUS FAR, BUT NO FURTHER?
by Betty Luks:
He continues: “The court's reasoning went like this. The Australian Constitution is a democratic constitution. A democracy is predicated on the free flow of communication about political issues. Therefore the document is predicated on the existence of some form of freedom to talk about politics - a freedom of political communication…”
Berg has dressed it up as: “… it's about protecting political communication - and political communication alone - from legislative interference.” Read further here....
According to the Museum of Australian Democracy Old Parliament House website:
The Governor-General was authorised to declare a person as a communist and engaged, or likely to engage, in activities prejudicial to Australia’s security and defence. Effectively, such a person could not be employed by the Commonwealth. Furthermore, such a person could not hold office in a labour union or industry vital to Australia’s security and defence.
The Communist Party and several unions launched an immediate challenge in the High Court, former attorney-general in the Curtin and Chifley Labor governments, Dr H.V. Evatt, appearing for the Waterside Workers Federation. On 9 March 1951 the High Court, by a majority of 6 to 1, ruled the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 unconstitutional. In summary, the High Court decided that because Australia was not in a state of war the government did not have the power to proscribe organisations. Moreover, the Act prevented the Communist Party and its members from disproving allegations made against them. The High Court ruled the threat posed by the party did not warrant the imposition of such peremptory legal penalties.
The Menzies government then put the issue to the people via a constitutional referendum on 22 September 1951, seeking to change the constitution to give Parliament the power to ban the Communist Party. For such a change to the Constitution to succeed the referendum had to pass with a double majority, in accordance with Section 128 of the Australian Constitution. This meant that a majority of all electors nationally would have to vote yes, and a majority of states would have to vote yes, for the change to become law…” Source....
LET’S LOOK BACK ON THE 1951 REFERENDUM PROPOSALS
Mr. DeGaris writes:
"(3) In this section, ‘the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950' means the proposed law passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and assented to by the Governor-General on the twentieth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and fifty, being the proposed law en‘titled ‘An Act to provide for the Dissolution of the Australian Communist Party and of other Communist Organisations, to disqualify Communists from holding certain Offices, and for purposes connected there-with‘.
Why is the saving phrase: ‘SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION‘ which limits ALL present powers, omitted from the proposed new section 51A. If the omission is without significance, why make the omission? If the omission has significance, what is the impact on constitutional process?
Paragraph (1) of the proposed new section 51A is neither for nor against Communists or Communism. It seeks power ‘with respect to Communists or Communism.' If one asks: "Is not that so with all powers of legislation?" the layman says:
If adopted, the proposed new section 51A would enable Parliament to ignore paragraph (2), and to rely on paragraph (1), or to use paragraph (2) to the extent of its 'powers' and then to rely on paragraph (1) which would remain an effective power fortified by the preamble in paragraph (2) and the implications of the (a), (b) and (c) clauses of that paragraph.
If the proposed new section 51A is drafted to override limits to the powers of Parliament which invalidated the 1950 Act, its impact is intended to lift the limits as PARLIAMENT may consider necessary or expedient, not only for defence or security of the Commonwealth, but for execution or maintenance of THIS CONSTITUTION as if amended, or of the laws of the Commonwealth including the laws made, re-enacted, amended, or repealed, under the new limitless power if adopted WITH RESPECT TO communists or communism, either for or against undefined 'ists or ‘isms; or WITH RESPECT TO some OTHER matter within the powers of Parliament sought to be brought into the Constitution or invoked by the proposed new section 51A.
The prevailing notion of regular elections rests on sections of the Constitution to which all present powers are subject: but, if adopted, the proposed new section 51A would override any section that Parliament considered to be a limit on its powers sought under the proposed new section 51A.
The proposed new section 51A amounts to assailing limits to all the present powers of Parliament and adding those powers to new powers sought in the proposed new section 51A.
All State Constitutions, all State legislation, current and new, are subject to the Constitution.
HOW THE US 1st AMENDMENT WAS HIGHJACKED BY CORPORATIONS
Just ‘google’ US Corporations and the 1st Amendment and you will come up with many websites dealing with the issue. Here is just one. After reading the following ask yourself - is it not time that Australians insisted our governments governed according to the Commonwealth Constitution and our system of law, based as it was upon English Common Law? (Political parties for the first time ‘got their foot in the door’ of the Constitution when the proposal for Casual Senate Vacancies was passed in the 1977 referendum.)
“The Right to Evade Regulation” by Tim Wu
Had the issue remained subject to a normal democratic process, it would have continued to play out that way—through a gradual, state-by-state debate about whether so-called “prescription confidentiality” laws make for good policy. But IMS Health did not want that kind of fight. Instead, it filed separate suits against the three states that had first cracked down on its business, invoking the First Amendment. The selling of prescription records, the company asserted, is a form of free speech.
For most of U.S. history, such a claim would have been a dead letter in court. But when it comes to the First Amendment, we live in interesting times. In June 2011, the Supreme Court struck down the new data-protection laws, arguing that they discriminated against IMS Health. “The State,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority, “has burdened a form of protected expression. ... This the State cannot do.”
Independent Political Spending by Corporations Shielded by Bill of Rights!
Fred Schauer of the University of Virginia calls such claims “First Amendment opportunism”. Free speech is a cherished American ideal; companies are exploiting that esteem, as he puts it, “to try to accomplish goals that are not so clearly related to speech.”
The co-opting of the First Amendment has happened slowly, but not at all by accident.
OZ PLAIN PACKAGING FEUD DISRUPTS EU-US TRADE TREATY
ABC Radio National: Wednesday 8 January 2014. “Australia's plain packaging stoush with the tobacco industry has created policy ripples in some unexpected places, as members of the European Parliament use the Australian stand-off to argue against a free trade agreement with the United States.
The decision by tobacco giant Philip Morris to take legal action against the Australian government has caught the attention of the European Parliament, which is using the legal wrangle to pour cold water on a trade deal currently under negotiation between the EU and the United States.
Many in Europe are concerned that once the deal is reached, legitimate health and social policies could then attract legal action taken on the part of aggrieved corporations, and opponents are using Australia's clash with Philip Morris as an example of how badly things can go wrong.”
ALL DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR POST-MANDELA’S SOUTH AFRICA
“… These are all unfortunate symptoms of a deep institutional rot that can be traced back to the founding of South Africa's democracy. As in the cases of Chile and Turkey, its transition was guided by a constitutional framework that gave outgoing oligarchs -- in this case, apartheid leaders -- an upper hand in new democratic life.
A complicated institutional arrangement gave outgoing elites veto power over policies that threatened their political and economic interests. Though apartheid leaders have faded into the background, the legacy of their transition bargain with the ANC still haunts South Africa's democracy.
Mandela was fully aware of the tradeoffs implied by the bargain he and the ANC struck with the Apartheid regime. The inequality was by design…” Read further…
HOW FARES RUSSIA’S POST COMMUNISM 'DEMOCRACY'?
Alexander Solzhenitsyn summed up Russia’s situation in 1997: “ Democracy in the unarguable sense of the word means the rule of the people -- that is, a system in which the people are truly in charge of their daily lives and can influence the course of their own historical fate. There is nothing of the sort in Russia today… The authorities operate on a moral imperative: We don't betray our own and we don't uncover their wrongdoing. So the fate of the country is now decided by a stable oligarchy of 150 to 200 people, which includes the nimbler members of the old Communist system's top and middle ranks, plus the nouveaux riches.
This is no tree of state grown up from roots but a dry stake driven into the ground or, as things now stand, an iron rod. The members of this oligarchy combine a lust for power with mercenary calculations. They exhibit no higher goals of serving the country and the people.
It could be said that throughout the last 10 years of frenetic reorganization our Government has not taken a single step unmarked by ineptitude. Worse, our ruling circles have not shown themselves in the least morally superior to the Communists who preceded them. Russia has been exhausted by crime, by the transfer into private hands of billions of dollars' worth of the nation's wealth. Not a single serious crime has been exposed, nor has there been a single public trial. The investigatory and judicial systems are severely limited in both their actions and their resources…
Was it so long ago that we thought there could exist no more absurd and unwieldy bureaucracy than that of the Communist regime? But during the last 10 years, the bureaucracy has doubled and tripled in size, all of it supported at the expense of a nation that is being reduced to beggary.
One was Mr. Gaidar's "liberalizing of prices" in 1992. The lack of any competitive environment meant that monopolistic producers could inflate costs of production while at the same time reducing its volume and the outlays for it. This sort of "reform" quickly began to destroy production and, for much of the population, made consumer goods and many food items prohibitively expensive.
The other action was the frenzied privatization campaign
Russia's economic chaos is made worse by organized crime, which, never nipped in the bud, is constantly stealing the country blind and accumulating enormous new capital. The gap between the rich and the impoverished majority has now assumed proportions unlike anything seen in the West or in pre-revolutionary Russia. Each year, no less than $25 billion flows abroad into private accounts.
The destructive course of events over the last decade has come about because the Government, while ineptly imitating foreign models, has completely disregarded the country's creativity and particular character as well as Russia's centuries-old spiritual and social traditions. Only if those paths are freed up can Russia be delivered from its near-fatal condition.”
TO BEGIN TO UPHOLD AND/OR REGAIN OUR FREEDOMS, OUR RIGHTS
Looks like its ‘Back to Basics’ – how do we know where we want to go till we determine where we came from? In the League of Rights basic course “Social Dynamics” is the foundational statement:
How power should be used involves the question of philosophy. An individual’s philosophy is what be believes, his conception of reality, what he believes about the nature of man, his purpose, his relationship to his fellow man and the Universe. “By their fruits ye shall know them…. It is still impossible to get figs from thistles”…
The development of representative government in the English-speaking world was originally based upon the conception of the individual possessing basic inviolable rights which no government could take away from him. The philosophy underlying this concept is Christian.
The famous English constitutional authority, Sir William Blackstone, pronounced upon Magna Carta as follows: "It protected every individual of the nation in the enjoyment of his life, his liberty, and his property, unless declared forfeited by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
It was also Blackstone who wrote in 1760 that "Herein consists the true excellence of the English Government; that all parts of it form a natural check upon each other." * 2015 marks the 800th year since the signing of Magna Carta by King John at Runnymede. We need to go back to our roots – and fight once more for our basic freedoms!
THE MACHINE STOPS Series
by Arnis Luks
You cannot rebuild a society without understanding what previously worked well. Alfred (called the Great) boasted whereby woman or child could safely travel from one end of his kingdom to the other without fear. If this was so, what did they have that we do not. Faithful dealings amongst people is a good start. In this house we call faithful dealings the social credit of our community.
Recently our family celebrated our Mother’s 80th birthday. Beneath all the greetings and talk we all held the deepest respect for what she had done with her 80 years. Our family is fortunate to have inherited a legacy of understanding of the Christian Faith, what it is and what it should stand for. This did not come from any pulpit but from many years of dedicated study and scholarship to clarify what the church fathers and thinkers of the past had revealed. Mother’s University is life and life more abundant.
OnTarget was first published in 1965 and Father, a regular subscriber to it from these early days held a public meeting at the local hall to hear ED Butler speak on the Soviet military threat in the South Pacific. ED Butler also spoke of the military aid to the Soviet Union set up by the western industrial powers as an orchestrated event. It did not happen by chance but as a result of policy.
My Father’s Tools
We honour those that have gone before, And smoothed the pathway that we tread.
Our factories now are silent, Our children out of work.
Our leaders all, have sold us out, Our Churchmen lost their way.
Thirty Pieces of silver was paid, For the one who spoke of truth.
Where the Spirit of this Great South Land, Who led our fathers on?
Shall we to our sons bequeath Slaves to mammon be?
So in my father’s tools I see, A lesson for us all.
OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR CORI BERNARDI
I wrote the following letter to Senator Cori Bernardi a number of weeks ago. The letter was written on 27th November 2013; I thought five weeks was long enough for a response, but no such response has arrived, so now for the next step.
Senator Cori Bernardi:
I am genuinely intrigued as to what you mean by such words as ‘conservative’ and ‘free enterprise’. It has been my experience over the years that people have various, confusing definitions of such words, or terms, and it has proved nigh on impossible to take part in a meaningful political / philosophical discussion with other interested parties because there is no common definition of terms.
One glaring example of what I am referring to is your term ‘left’ as though only the ‘right’ had concerns for faith, family, flag, freedom and free enterprise! And what of ‘moral relativism’? Are you limiting the question of ‘morals’ to the bedroom, or have you included lying, cheating, stealing, in your idea of ‘morals’?
What do you mean by ‘free enterprise’? Do you not think there would be many folk on the ‘left’ who have a commitment to faith, family, flag, freedom and free enterprise? Sir, are you not indulging in political dialectics when you imply folk on the ‘left’ do not have as much faith and patriotism as you — I presume of the ‘right’?
Finally, your wish to “protect and defend the traditional institutions” reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s advice that we should measure temporal institutions against eternal institutions to see if the temporal institutions don't ‘come up wanting’.
- - Yours sincerely, Betty Luks (Mrs)
Hmmm… an afterthought, maybe Senator Bernardi thinks I should buy his book if I want to find out his definitions of key words… Or, maybe I will simply look at the Liberal Party’s 1949 Statement of Beliefs to get a better idea of the philosophy that first motivated them…BL
We have commenced the new year well. Our very loyal and generous supporters have brought the Fund up to $9, 910.66. Thank you. Please keep the momentum going.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|