October 2007 Thought for the Week:
Shaky Foundations: The things
readiest to be done, those which lie, not at the door but on the very table, of
a man's mind, are not merely in general the most neglected, but even by the thoughtful
man, the oftenest left alone, the oftenest postponed
Truth is one, and
he who does the truth in the small thing is of the truth; he who will do it only
in a great thing, who postpones the small thing near him to the great farther
from him, is not of the truth."
- - From "George MacDonald:
An Anthology," by C.S. Lewis 1946
THE 'PRIVATISATION' OF OUR WATER
Readers of On Target need to direct their attention to
an important book about the American people's experience of the 'privatising'
(or corporatising) of their water supplies. The book is a must for all Australians
so they can understand what they are in for (whichever political party gains power
in the coming federal elections) unless they can forget their differences and
The book is valued at $AUS42
but has a thousand dollars worth of information in it. It takes examples of "Globalisation
of water" from about ten U.S. cities, where turning their city water problems
over to corporations, ended in disaster after great rate hikes. Every lesson we
need to learn is in this book.
part for League activists in the battle to save our water is how we must mobilise
grass roots organisations to have any effect.
The other key is the local newspaper;
it makes or breaks the campaign battle.
see the first problem as being able to correctly define the "ownership" of water,
which for a start would go something like this: Nobody owns fresh water, it is
available to all as an essential for life and each person, or persons, or any
organisation is the custodian of any fresh water as it passes through their safe
Just as the Queen does not own the
billions of dollars worth of property and art that has been donated to the nation
over a thousand years. Her Majesty is the custodian, responsible to care for it,
keep it in good condition and then pass it on to those who follow after. The national
heritage is not to sell to help the poor and enrich the rich.
purchased my copy of the book from Dymocks and these are the details:- Title is
"Thirst," by Alan Snitow, Deborah Kaufman and Michael Fox, published by John Wiley
& Sons, San Francisco - www.josseybass.com ISBN 978-0-7879-8458-8
THE SCAM IS WORKING - SYDNEY WATER BILLS
We are to believe that when a utility,
such as a Water utility, reduces its services to the public, the costs go up!
Australians will be paying more, much more, for far less services, under the great
and grand 'privatisation' scams than when their government authority provided
Clare Masters of the Daily
Telegraph reported, 18/9/07:
"Household water bills in Sydney are
set to spike by $100 next year and will increase more with Sydney Water claiming
they will be in the poor house without the price rise. Sydney Water executives
claim the corporation is out of pocket more than $20 million due to water policing
patrols from extended water restrictions and predict the cost of the desalination
plant will place them further in the red.
rises mean a 33 per cent increase to a typical household bill over the four years,
rising from about $820 in 2007-08 to $920 in 2008-09 to $1095 in 2011-12.
spokesman for Sydney Water yesterday told the Daily Telegraph without the
extra funds the conglomerate (a group of diverse companies run as a single organisation
will be forced to get a bank loan or go hat in hand to the NSW Treasury to ask
for more money. The rises are part of Sydney Water's submission to the Independent
Pricing and Regulatory Tribunals (IPART's) review.
"The other reason for
the price rise is to improve Sydney Water's financial position. Due to the drought,
among other things, water sales have been $380 million less than IPART projected,"
Sydney Water's managing director, Dr Kerry Schott said. Sydney Water's submission
claims the "longest drought in 100 years" coupled with water saving schemes, increased
operating costs and borrowings means that it is not sustainable without more price
frequently heard that the cities take roughly 8 per cent of Australia's water
supply. This leaves 92 per cent we don't know or hear about. Australia, I am told
produces enough food to feed 80 million people. We are a population of only 20
million - give or take a couple of million.
have a question:
How much of Australia's precious water is not only used
in the growing of this food for 60 million people around the world, but how much
of our precious water supply forms part of that exported food, wine, etc?
did we lose sight of the fact that the system exists to serve the people not the
people the system?
If we as a nation have provided ourselves with enough food,
clothing and shelter why on earth are we allowing the system to force us to produce
more and more to be exported - at our own cost and to our own detriment?
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATION BATTLE
John Brett continues
have just finished e-mailing 160 Queensland Local Government Councils on the "Rule
of Law", a specimen of one which is attached:
THE RULE OF LAW - TO ALL QUEENSLAND SHIRE COUNCILLORS:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Having contacted a number of Councils who had indicated resistance to forced
amalgamation, there has been some very disconcerting feedback coming from Councillors
who hold that it is now Law, and Council's must comply.
One of the cornerstones
of Australia's Constitutional foundations is what is called "The Rule of Law",
the alternative to which is "The Rule of Men". (Or women!)
The "Rule of Law"
is simply man-made laws, that those living by them have collectively agreed to.
The "Rule of Men" is simply laws imposed on all without the accord or authority
of those who have to abide by them.
The genius of Australia's founding Constitutional
architects was how, for the first time in history, they successfully separated
Power from Authority, which has delivered to Australia the long period of stability
not enjoyed by any other nation. We stand as the most successful nation in history.
The Constitution allowed Power to be exercised by the elected executive, on
the Authority of our Representatives in Parliament assembled. While Parliaments
were given the power, AUTHORITY to use that power remained with the ELECTORS.
(Through their 'Representative'.) While it is obvious to most, that this is not
working as intended at Parliamentary level, it was working very well and efficiently
at Local Government level.
In this case of forced amalgamation, the Premier
did not take his authority from our representatives in Parliament assembled, he
took his authority from a group of selected men, on a very high public salary,
knowing as any normal person knows they would not deliver what they were not paid
That infamous "Commission", mocks the "Rule Of Law" like it has
never been mocked before and could be the precedent for worse offences to occur.
If Local Government cannot, by way of the ballot box stop this blatant abuse
of the Rule of law, we don't deserve to retain this passport to freedom, given
so generously by those who went before us.
I would like to remind Councillors
that dictatorship, by definition, is when one person or group of persons, posses
both Power and Authority in their custody and become the sole executors of both.
With this explanation, I hope your Council goes to the Authority of your Electors
by way of the Ballot Box. Otherwise you stand condemned the same as the [now former]
Premier, for abandoning the Rule of Law.
If you fail, we will go the same
way as those European countries that also abandoned the Rule of Law, rendering
our experience useless.
But worse is the handing of this failure to the next
generation, a failure not given to us.
Please pass this on to any Councillor
or Council whom you feel might act in our best interests.
- - Yours sincerely,
John Brett, 37 Palmer Drive, Highfields Queensland 4352.
WHAT PETER GOERS WOULDN'T LET ANDREW
I just happened to switch on to Peter
Goers (ABC Radio, Adelaide) last Monday night when he had Andrew Bolt as his guest.
The discussion which had become quite heated, was on 'global warming' and Al Gore's
movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
Must admit I did enjoy the heated exchange.
It seems Andrew Bolt, in his Herald Sun column had taken Gore to task for
the downright untruths in his movie and the fact that he had vested financial
interests in promoting 'global warming'.
Goers didn't want to hear this - nor did he want his listeners to hear it - hence
the heated exchange; Goers 'bagging' and 'gagging' Bolt and trying to lead the
discussion away from that hot topic. Finally, Bolt hung up on Goers well before
the end of the scheduled programme.
following article which comes from Canada is along the same lines as Andrew Bolt's
Global warming? Look
at the numbers, by Lorne Gunter National Post 13/8/2007:
enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10
hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common
refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming
hysteria: It's been really hot lately -- abnormally hot -- so we all need to be
afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true.
data error 'quietly' corrected by NASA:
Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute
for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming
claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming
alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures
seem warmer than they really were.
A little less than a decade ago, the
U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate
the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher
Steve McIntyre, that is. McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like
belief in climate catastrophe.
In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick,
McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures
for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.
The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But
McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate
To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed
out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections. Still, the pro-warmers
who dominate the Goddard Institute almost certainly recognized the impacts these
changes would have on the global-warming debate, because they made no formal announcement
of their recalculations.
Changes are minor
but impact on rhetoric are huge:
In many cases, the changes are statistically
minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is
huge. The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just
second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only
three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the
natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel
burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread
over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its
recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
since the correction became a hot topic on blogs, the pro-warmers have tried to
downplay its significance, insisting, for example, that the alterations merely
amount to "very minor rearrangements in the various rankings."
It's true the
changes aren't dramatic. But the optics are. Imagine if the shoe were on the other
foot. Imagine the shrieking of the warmers if we had previously thought that hot
years were scattered throughout the past 130 years, but after a correction the
warmest years could be seen to be concentrated in the past decade.
would insist the revised data proved their case. They would blitz every news organization
and talk show. They would demand to be allowed to indoctrinate school children
on the evils of cars and factories. So they shouldn't be permitted to brush aside
this new data, which makes their claims harder to prove.
Ten years ago, warmers
found a similarly small error in the temperature data collected by weather satellites.
The satellites were a thorn in their sides because while the warmers were insisting
the Earth was getting hotter, the satellites showed it was in fact cooling ever
Then the warmers discovered that the scientists who maintained
the orbiting thermometers had failed to account for orbital decay, the almost
infinitesimally small downward drift of the "birds" every year. When the effects
of drift were added into the observations, the cooling was found to be just 0.01
degree per decade rather than the 0.04 degrees previously claimed.
this basis, the warmers now insisted then that even the satellites were somehow
in agreement with their theory.
the current NASA changes are only for data collected in the United States. But
available surface temperature readings cover only half the planet even today.
Before the Second World War, they covered less than a quarter. So U.S. readings
for a period that goes as far back as 1880 are among the most reliable there are.
Perhaps we will have uncontrollable warming in the future, but it likely hasn't
RUDD AND HIS PUSH FOR A REPUBLIC
Flint's Opinion Column:
"Republic referendum in 2010: shock London
announcement: It has been announced - in London - that another referendum to turn
Australia into a republic is to be held within three years, probably in 2010.
The shock announcement was made on behalf of the Leader of HM's Loyal Australian
Opposition, Mr. Kevin Rudd.
Mr.Rudd was described
in the announcement not only as a republican, but for the first time, as a "staunch
republican." (We are not sure whether this is a more radical form of republican
than the hitherto preferred affectation, the "passionate " republican. We are
also unaware when Mr. Rudd's republicanism was in fact staunched, but we suspect
it was later than the Liberal Deputy Leader Mr. Costello's adoption of republicanism,
probably as some form of brand differentiation from the Prime Minister he has
been so keen to succeed.)
In a dramatic reversion
to the "cultural cringe," Mr Rudd informed neither the Australian people nor the
Australian media first, but chose to make the announcement in the respected London
newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.
The report, by Nicholas Squires, said
the "full weight" of the Rudd government will be thrown behind the issue. The
thought of the combined weight of a phalanx of former union officials, party apparatchiks,
and a retired rock singer all led by a "multi- millionaire who has spent almost
his entire working life on the public payroll," as The Australian put it
on 6 September 2007, being "thrown" at our Constitution is, frankly, quite awful.
The report also says that "millions of pounds"
in political advertising were likely to be spent to persuade Australians of the
merits of becoming a republic. Well, millions and millions of dollars of the taxpayers'
money have already been spent on this. And the republicans had most of the media,
most of the politicians and hordes of celebrities last time, and look where it
If the referendum, which we can
assure Mr. Rudd will be strongly opposed, is to be held in 2010, we assume that
it is planned to coincide with the next federal election. If so, it will distract
the public from the issues in the election. At this time it is difficult to tell
whether a Rudd government, if one is elected this year, would or would not wish
for such a distraction.
Although the report says Mr. Rudd has drawn up
plans to achieve some sort of unknown republic, he has not yet informed Australians
what those plans are and what sort of republic he is proposing.
Nor has Mr
Costello, whom the Prime Minister predicts will succeed him if the Coalition wins
in the coming federal election likely to be held this year. Mr Costello says Australia
will "evolve in the direction, and will evolve in that direction when you have
more agreement in relation to the method of selecting a president. Obviously,
I want to be part of that."
seem determined to make a republic an issue in the election. On Channel 10's "Meet
the Press" on 23 September 2007 Labor's shadow health minister Nicola Roxon declared
that "the republic will be an issue that we will pursue passionately."
pursuit may be "passionate", but Ms. Roxon did not say what sort of republic she
meant. There was probably no need.
As we reported in this column on 9 June
2006, Ms. Roxon seems to prefer the constitution of East Timor to ours. She does
not think much of older Australians and is informed about our youth. She said,
and, remember, she aspires to be a Minister of the Crown:
"There are no new
monarchists being born. If we bide our time they will all die off. I still think
the biggest risk is Prince William meeting someone in an Australian pub." (Opinion
Column 14 March 2006) And it is sometimes said we get the politicians we deserve."
ASK: WHAT TYPE OF REPUBLIC WOULD MR. RUDD LIKE?
type of republic would Mr. Rudd like? As a socialist politician who spent a number
of years as a bureaucrat in Commuist China, would he push for such a regime as
ruled in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)? Or maybe be would
prefer the current communist/capitalist type in power in The People's Republic
International Financiers such as
Jacob Schiff (Kuhn, Loeb & Company - Jacob Shiff's firm) helped finance the
Russian Revolution and, not only helped to impose brutal communism on the peoples
of that great land mass, but continued to give the ruling regime the economic
and financial lifeblood to sustain it and keep it in power.
to the White Russian General de Goulevitsh - "Czarism and the Revolution"
- translated into English from the French : "Mr. Bahkmetiev, the late Russian
Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us the Bolsheviks, after victory,
transferred 600 million roubles in gold between the years 1918 and 1922 to Kuhn,
Loeb & Company
Quoted in "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"
by Gary Allen, 1972. No doubt, a hefty profit was made here! There
is now no pretence that (International) Capitalism and Communism are opposite
ends of the political spectrum.
Mr. Rudd, should he end up Prime Minister
of this once great federation of States, would have no more trouble working with
International Capitalism and Communism than does Mr. Howard and the present Coalition.
It is International Capitalism that wants Australia to become a republic.
could be Mr. Rudd's vision for a republic might be more along the lines of one
of the African States; maybe such as Zimbabwe under Marxist Robert Mugabe? Mugabe
claims his Marxist 'economic reforms' are working and inflation - in that once
humane, thriving, productive, multiracial little country called Rhodesia - has
been brought down to 6000+ per cent!
League carries a number of important books detailing the historical secret links
between Big Business/Capitalism and Communism. They are a must read for the younger
generation who haven't yet grasped the fact that their leaders are luring them
further and further into the web of a One World tyrannical Order.
Dare Call It Conspiracy," by Gary Allen
§ "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,"
by Antony Sutton
§ "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler," by Antony Sutton
§ "The Naked Capitalist," by W. Cleon Skousen
AT WHAT POINT WAS THE WAY LOST?
Ian Wilson LL.B:
Abortion and Foetus Rights: a forgotten human right.
are allegedly big on human rights - for homosexuals, all types of minority groups
- even ecosystems, but one group has no rights: foetuses. Abortion for the liberal
is a woman's basic right because she has a right to her body.
involves killing an innocent being - if not a person, then at least a developing
human. In partial death abortions, the abortionist delivers the baby's body but
not the head. The head then has scissors rammed into it and the baby's brains
are then sucked out. The dead baby is then delivered.
this was done outside of the woman's body it would be murder. Fortunately on 18
April 2007 the US Supreme Court found that partial-birth abortion was designed
to kill the baby and upheld the Constitutionality of the US Partial-Birth Abortion
Act in the case of Gonzales v Carhart. This case stays a madness of judicial activism
which began in January 1973 with Roe v Wade, a case which found a constitutional
right to abortion.
What would the Founding
Fathers of America think if they could look at America today. At what point was
the way lost?
LEADS TO REPLACEMENT OF POPULATION
Poland's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Roman Giertych
has recently warned Europe that abortion is a "new form of barbarism" that threatens
the survival of Europe: "A nation which kills its children will be settled by
people who do not kill theirs."
"If we will
not use all our power to strengthen the family, then as a continent there is not
a future for us. We will be a continent settled by representatives of the Islamic
world who care for the family."
for a serious discussion of the Christian foundation of morality that sustains
Europe. Source: Endeavour Forum May 2007 p.14.
TAKE THAT EINSTEIN!
The headline "Germans Challenge Einstein's Theory" (The Australian
28/8/07 p.3) could, with a little bit of imagination, almost be a World War II
headline. Have the Germans really declared war on one whom the politically correct
establishment regard as the greatest brain of all time, a Super-Jew?
Mintz and Alfons Stahlhofen of the University of Koblenz have claimed to have
refuted Einstein's special theory of relativity, which has as one of its postulates
that no material object can be propelled at the speed of light. They claim to
have done this with microwave photons, which are packets of light.
which I read said that the physicists now believe that they may have breached
a tenet of the theory and so have not really refuted it at all. Well, that will
teach them to be naughty boys and dare challenge the great Einstein.
Why did Einstein cross the road? Answer: He didn't: the road crossed him because
it's all relative.
AND VIOLENCE A DISSENTING VIEW
by Ian Wilson
Many articles by James Reed, Brian Simpson, Peter Ewer and others to
this publication, on Islamic issues and the "race suicide" of the West, seem to
be based upon an assumption that religion, especially Islamic religion is a source
of violence. Perhaps they are right. But Barney Zwartz ("So Violence is All Religion's
Fault?" Think Again," The Age 17/6/06 p.9 Insight) questions this.
division between the "religious" and the "secular" is itself artificial. So called
"secular" beliefs such as nationalism have a religious aspect or may actually
be religions. In any case "secular ideologies and institutions can be as absolutist,
divisive or irrational".
Modern politics often
shares all the essential features of religion. The myth about religious violence
is thus incoherent. Nevertheless, as Zwartz shows, the myth is influential. He
cites the example of Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and
the Future of Reason," where the threat of an Islamist bomb and a resulting global
nuclear holocaust may only be met by the West imposing "benign dictatorships"
upon such countries.
The book has apparently been endorsed by academics such
as Alan Dershowitz and Peter Singer. Our own James Reed seems to follow this line.
But it seems to me that the logical conclusion of this rejection of liberalism
in the face of a threat of survival will be a loss of our fundamental freedoms
in the process. I ask: what price must be paid for survival?
ZUNDEL - APPEAL DENIED
On 12 September 2007, the German
Bundesgerichtshof, a sort of appeal court, rubberstamped the treason against the
German People - that they have absolutely no right to hear the truth about their
history. The judgment stands as Judge Meinerzhagen pronounced it shamelessly while
sentencing Ernst Zundel: "It is of absolutely no relevance whether the Holocaust
happened or not. Denying it is a punishable offense. That is the only thing that
matters to the Court." (Source: Berliner Tageszeitung, 2 Feb 2007)
years in PRISON for speaking the truth about the Holocaust as documented by forensic
science! Let it be said that the defence submissions appealing the harsh Mannheim
sentence consisted of more than 800 carefully crafted pages of legal arguments.
The Bundesgerichtsamt's reply consisted of one-and-a-half pages of blah-blah!
On Target Vol.43 No.37, the article "Without a Study of Mammon (Money)
History Is Bunk" the second last line on page 2 should have read:
not forget, the original Commonwealth bank was a creature of the Fisher Labor