|Home||The Cross-Roads||Newtimes Survey||blog.alor.org||Library|
5 March 2010 Thought for the Week:
Derivatives Scam: "We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency - the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] - who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis.
DVD - a must watch: “Fall of the Republic” $12.00 posted from Heritage Book Services.
DEVILS’ ADVOCATES IN THE COUNSEL OF ROGUES
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Ancient Greece swam in law suits and this was satirised by playwrights like Aristophanes in “The Clouds” and “The Peace”. Socrates (469 - 399 BC) father of Western philosophy, also protested against the lawyers and sophists as did Plato (c.427 – 347 BC). In ancient Rome, people also called on legal experts, advocati, in assisting with their cases. In the second century BC the advocatus were permitted to speak on another’s behalf in court and the legal profession never looked back, even in the Dark Ages.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, the lawyers of his day, in Luke 11:52: “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens hard to bear and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.” Lawyers prospered from the misery of others through the deliberate creation of “burdens”.
In a nutshell, lawyers according to the standard conception, may act in representing and defending clients, in ways that would be immoral outside of the professional role of lawyering. Lord Macauley asked how “it be right that a man should, with a wig on his head and a band around his neck, do for a guinea what, without these appendages, he would think it wicked and infamous to do for an empire?”
The standard answer to this – as articulated by Time Dare in “The Counsel of Rogues?” (Ashgate 2009) - is that the professional role itself makes a difference as lawyers have a special moral obligation to their clients, which permits them to act in ways which would be immoral outside of this professional capacity. It is important to have these obligations to ensure that the overall justice system works as if it was not so some people would not get any legal defence.
On the other hand, Ysaiah Ross in “Ethics in Law” argues that the amoral lawyer raises the difficulty that professional codes are more vague than legal codes and do not cover many situations. Morality is inescapable. However, morality and a theological dimension is lacking from contemporary law so there comes to be something of a moral vacuum in legal practice.
Last night I attended the Annual General Meeting of our local Chamber of Commerce and got to meet the new manager for our branch of “… Financial”. His name is ……, he grew up near Stalingrad in Russia and came to ... as a 21 year old. Now, at the rather tender age of about 30, he is the local bank manager and speaks excellent English.
Anyway, his parents still live in Russia and I asked him about developments there when the Soviet Union collapsed. He told me that there are now two classes of people in Russia: The filthy rich and the poor, nothing much in between. When the Soviet Union collapsed the political bosses simply gave themselves ownership to Russia's productive resources. There was no organized citizenry to stop them. This is exactly what our bankster friends want to do here by expropriating for themselves the tickets to wealth that belong to us collectively. That is why we need to organize on the ground before it is too late - and take back the commons. Public banking will be an important piece in that mosaic.
WHAT OTHER DANGERS ARE LURKING IN THE SHADOWS?
by Betty Luks
Brought out last September 2009 it warned Australians of the consequences should the Labor ETS legislation be passed. The Senate did reject the Labor legislation prior to the Copenhagen Conference, much to Mr. Rudd’s chagrin, but it has since been re-introduced. Not to be outdone, the Coalition has introduced into federal parliament its own ETS version.
The Lavoisier Group tract states:
The Australian Climate Change Regulatory
Further very serious inroads into the rule of law occur in clause 300-1 where the right to silence is abolished, and the right not to incriminate oneself is not allowed. The onus of proof is reversed in clause 336-3 and privacy laws are set aside since The Authority has the right to pass on private information to practically anyone, including the UN and foreign governments (clause 48-1).
A characteristic example of The Authority's power is set out in Para 6.138, which
deals with permits issued for reforestation.
The first reaction to this document, and to the legislation which it purports to explain, is one of awe. How many thousands of hours of bureaucratic endeavour have gone into the creation of this huge structure of regulation and control? For how long have the global warming enthusiasts now entrenched within the Department of Climate Change been refining their ambitions?...
As it became clear that what was being planned was going to be extremely harmful to major industries, lobbyists were appointed and consultants engaged to try at least to seek a delay in the execution warrants for those industries which could no longer exist in the new carbon-free world which would come about with this great project of salvation.
The complexity and ministerial-bureaucratic discretion which is intrinsic to this
project is the consequence of seeking to achieve something in real life which can
only be accomplished in the fantasy world of the economic models of Treasury
and Professor Garnaut…
The only way in which salvation can be made secure against slipping back into sin is through the construction of a tight and effective political cartel, which can successfully hold the line against any new political entrants, such as Family First, into the market for votes. This cartel must be strong enough, and wealthy enough, to impose huge economic dislocation, manifest in reduced incomes, higher costs, and growing unemployment, on the Australian people, and still retain power. This salvation project, then, has been built from the beginning on fantasy and deceit…
Recently, a growing number of economists have discovered that the Emissions Trading Scheme, under which tax receipts, euphemistically called 'emission permits' can be traded, just as taxi-cab licences can be bought and sold, is not the most efficient way of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide when compared with a good old fashioned tax, as in the excise on cigarettes and alcohol. In particular, the opportunities which will be created for 'shorting the market' and creating a 'carbon bubble' will seize the imagination of the traders and speculators in the new 'carbon' market, and cause great uncertainty and volatility in a market which was advertised as providing 'business certainty'
To counter this prospect, the Bill provides the minister with the authority
to issue new permits to prick such a bubble whenever she feels the necessity to do
so. The problem with all bubbles is how to distinguish them when they arrive… These 'tax-not-trade' economists are doubtless well meaning, but they have… certainly
forgotten the full page advertisement which was taken out by the World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) in The Australian Financial Review on 2 May 2007, at the time when
the Howard Government had lost its nerve and was planning to surrender on this
issue… The key sentence in this letter, which urged the government to adopt an Emissions
Trading Scheme, was this:
It does not require a crystal ball to predict that the relationships between the financial institutions which will trade these tax certificates, and the regulators who will staff The Authority, will become close indeed. Both parties will need each other.
At the heart of this great project of salvation, then, is the creation of a powerful rent-receiving and rent-seeking alliance of banks and other financial institutions who
will make billions from trading the emissions permits and who, once the emissions
trading scheme is established, will be able to spend hundred of millions in ensuring,
as best they can, that repeal is politically impossible. T
WHEN CARBON BECOMES CURRENCY
by Betty Luks
Some key points: “Technocracy, a movement started in the 1930's, has been hijacked by the global elite and now seeks to implement the New World Order through energy-based accounting and a universal Carbon Currency… The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production and consumption), instead of price… Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave…”
Not enough purchasing power in the hands of consumers:
Distribution Sequence adapted to a modern technological society.
Two key differences between price-based money and Energy Certificates are that:
The Modern Proposal: Because of the connection between the environmental movement, global warming and the Technocratic concept of Energy Certificates, one would expect that a Carbon Currency would be suggested from that particular community, and in fact, this is the case.
Carbon Market Players: The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K… Graciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protocol, states that the carbon market “is therefore all about cash and trading – but it is also a way to a profitable and greener future.” (See ‘Who Needs a Carbon Market?’) Who are the “traders” that provide the open door to all this profit? Currently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
SOCIAL CREDIT AND ECONOMICS – THREE ALLIED ACTIVITIES
What is the real purpose of the planned ‘carbon currency’? It is clearly stated in the above article: “The new currency… is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production and consumption), instead of price…”
Economics from a Social Credit viewpoint:
The Common Good:
Whether it is the Labor version or the Coalition version of the Emissions Trading Scheme BOTH versions must be defeated by the Australian people. If nothing else, politicians know how to count, i.e., votes, and they need to know in no uncertain terms that such a further sell-out of our freedoms IS JUST NOT ON. Tell your local member unless both versions are thrown out, they will also be job searching sometime this year!
SENATE DELAYS ETS VOTE UNTIL MAY
The federal government's planned emissions trading scheme is now on the parliamentary backburner after the Senate on Wednesday refused to debate the draft laws until May. Labor failed to gain the numbers on a procedural motion which would have allowed debate to begin. The Opposition and Family First senator Steve Fielding teamed up to defeat the motion. The defeat means the legislation cannot be debated until May at the earliest, effectively removing the opportunity for the government to make the legislation a double‐dissolution election trigger.
The government has until August 11 to dissolve both houses of parliament and call an election, leaving the Senate insufficient time to reject the current package of bills a second time. But its original legislation for an emissions trading scheme, twice rejected by the Senate last year, remains a trigger.
Further reading: Introducing Social Credit booklet series.
A KICK-IN-THE-HEAD FOR SANITY
by James Reed
TERRORISM AND MULTICULTURALISM
by Brian Simpson
Perhaps Australia’s multiculturalism is not as advanced as the UK or US. One wit at www.jihadwatch.org summed it up nicely: “If these guys had been sentenced in the UK or US, they’d have gone scot free and their accusers been sentenced to years of sensitivity training to cure them of their debilitating Islamophobia”. Nevertheless, many on talkback radio believe that these sentences are still too light and the terrorists should have been given life sentences.
THERE GOES GREECE!
by Brian Simpson
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|