Liberal Party Seeks Out Its ‘Patriotic’ Three Stooges
Dr. Jim Saleam
The Liberal Party is up to its old tricks again. With public concern heightened by the refugee invasion and with immigration soaring to unheard of levels, the Liberal Party is floating out its rhetoric of “concern”.
The spin doctors have TV ads that feature maps of refugee boat streams heading towards Australia. Abbott talks of “sustainability” being out of whack in KRudd’s immigration plans. Shadow Immigration Minister Morrison has talked tough about “asylum seekers” being “illegal” and that it’s time to be “tough”.
It is all meant to deceive. It is schemed to win the public to believe that the Liberal Party will do something about it all. It won’t and as before (like with the Tampa ‘children overboard’ affair in 2001), the public will be lulled into colluding with one of the parties of the establishment, while it gets on with the job of dispossessing the Australian people in their own land through the continuation of immigration (and economic globalisation).
But the worst aspect of the deception is not that the public is the victim of a con, it is rather that people who should know better - line up to suckle the Liberal pig.
The Delusion
John Pasquarelli has written an important article. We remember him as an advisor to Pauline Hanson in 1997 and – more recently – as an official of the short-lived Pauline’s United Australia Party. His piece appeared on the website ‘The Australian Conservative’, a Liberal-Party-connected forum and news site.
In this piece, Pasquarelli advised all patriotic people not to found other parties that compete with the Liberals – but to rally together with the Libs, even as a faction of opinion within the party such that they may have a “say” in a mainstream party. In particular, he admonished two micro (Federally unregistered) ‘parties’ – the Protectionists and the Conservative United Party – to get with the program. The alternative was the hard yards of amassing funds and resources which he put in the ‘too hard basket’.
Pasquarelli, for all his intelligence, may have missed the point. In fact, the Liberals don’t mind these outside micro groups at all. If he had looked closer, he would have seen a strong current of common opinion (as we shall describe shortly) and most importantly, a fervent desire on their part to enter the mainstream through the Liberal prism, but in posturing competition against Liberal ‘softness’. The Libs hold out the illusion that they are agreeable in fact and that their voting herds and financiers might see the light in the future and come to these new ‘hard’ conservative parties. They hold out that they are soft because they are compelled to be and that the hard men can bring them back to true Liberal principles if they work hard enough. So, the micro parties work hard at a project (mainstreaming via the scheme to recruit the Liberal herds) that will never eventuate. Pasquarelli should have noted that all this chatter was actually taking place on a Liberal forum! And the Libs are happy about that.
Significantly, he did not mention Australia First in all this and for that we are truly grateful; after all, we are not in the program.
Weird Facts
Consider what’s happening. It looks weird at first glance.
Recently, Pauline Hanson, of all people, appeared on national television to tell us that Abbott would make a better PM than KRudd. What? This was the very same Tony Abbott whose ‘Australians For Honest Politics’ put her in gaol! Now she wants Abbott? But, remember what David Oldfield, her adviser, said years ago: “the aim of the One Nation was to make the Liberal Party more right wing.”
Was Pauline just returning to daddy? In other words, was the original One Nation just a reflection of stress in the Liberal Party heartland which was allowed to fester into a group that fundamentally – the Liberals still had a hook into? When the beat had run its course, it could be safely reintegrated back into the fold?
Now Hanson wants the conservatives not to rebel (that is too dangerous now; like the original One Nation did briefly, it could get out of control). Rather, she recommends they line up pure and simple behind the Liberal Party. What happened to her rhetoric about “Australia is being swamped by Asians?” All gone. Now she is more concerned that her house is not sold to a “Moslem”. Peddling a little ‘anti-Islam’ is not really a challenge to the Asianizing establishment.
And Alan Jones. The man who defended Hanson whilst she was a prisoner may now front for the John Howard Institute, a policy making think tank – for guess who? The nominal president of this group has been touted as one fellow who is big in the David Clarke faction of the New South Wales Liberals. This conservative, David Clarke, had his faction resuscitated by Abbott in 1996 as a barrier to too many Liberals sliding over to Hanson and as a fish-hook to reel them all back in when the time was ripe.
With Hanson as the big endorsement to the Liberals overall and Jones in the wings, Abbott has solid foundations to ensure that there is never a real radicalisation of the conservatives. Getting to this point isn’t weird: it’s diabolically clever.
So: the Three Stooges Get A Role
Of course, the conservatives in the Liberal Party, like the unionists in the ALP and certain farmers in the Nats, are all people who can, under particular circumstances, move away from their traditional alignments. Under temporary stress, some slid over to the former One Nation. They could do something similar again. But if the crisis of globalism becomes deeper (there are signs in the European debt crisis), or if domestic pressures against free trade and mass immigration become stronger, some may opt out of establishment politics altogether.
Enter Australia First.
For the Liberals, that must never happen. So they have their three stooges waiting. They have groups on hand that may even in themselves be genuine structures, but which can be conned into singing the Abbott chorus.
I refer unashamedly to the Australian Conservative United Party, to the Australian Protectionist Party and to One Nation (or at least a faction of it seemingly dominant in New South Wales and strong elsewhere).
What’s the con?
Well, there’s always the anti-Islam routine. The establishment doesn’t mind that – at least to a certain extent. As nationalists have said: this blows off steam while the state builds support for the faked up wars on terror (sic). They let people direct their rage at multiculturalism at the Moslems in Australia, careful always that it not spill over into a generalized critique of immigration generally. But these groups can go that extra mile. They can talk up the need to follow the ‘war on terror’, to support Israeli foreign policy, to bloc with the Zionists within the Australian Jewish community against any deals with the Palestinians and for the coming war with Iran – and so on. They can do the Liberal Party’s foreign policy propaganda work for them. When one goes down the militant anti Islam road, it means building alliances with other pro Liberal groups like Australian Christian Nation and the Christian Democratic Party. This is supposedly the mainstream option. It is – on our assessment – the road to nowhere.
The anti Islam routine usually leads to blocs being made with people who have no commitment to any real idea that the Australian People are a nationality. Rather these ‘allies’ bleat that the Moslems should be turned into Australians by Christian conversion and civic training. Their logic as applied to Moslems is held with the same vehemence towards anyone else. As allies for supposed nationalists, they are worse than useless. In this regard, I note that the United Conservatives declaim against any European ethnic basis of Australian nationality in any case; the Protectionists are still coy, if only because they had partial origins inside the womb of nationalist politics, but as time goes on, they will turn to the easy path. One Nation is divided on the matter. But the con stands – that these allies will bring masses and people may kid themselves that they are part of a real mass movement. The civic patriot danger exists for One Nation absolutely and not just for a chunk of it.
It follows too, that by taking this civic patriot road of praising flags and constitutions alone rather than our European blood, one gets close to the conservative faction of the Liberal Party. We note that the Liberals’ conservatism does not extend to defence of Australian Nationality – only to its civic forms.
The old One Nation in some States, but particularly in New South Wales, may find itself enmeshed in the Liberal Right. Some of its factional leaders have built close links with the Christian Nation group and the Christian Democrats, conduits for the Liberal Party. They are continuing to develop these links.
Three Stooges?
Dearly would the liberal Party like to possess these named groups as a three-stooges-act. There are dangers that they may be successful in the plan.
By ensuring groups fly false signals, the Liberal game-players understand that they also demobilise the developing nationalist people’s movement.
They have not reckoned on the resolve of Australia First to do what must be done.
Nationalists will maintain their independence and their initiative at all times. We refuse to be co-opted into the Liberals’ game and we will always be at liberty to act in the interest of all Australians. Against the Liberal ethos of high immigration, globalist economics, free market labour rules, war for the New World Order and so forth, we offer the vision of an Australian Australia, Australian identity, independence and freedom.
The reactionary minded can follow Abbott if they wish, under any self-deception that moves them, but Australia First will reject the Liberal Party’s game today, tomorrow, always.
Monday, February 22, 2010
PUT AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIANS FIRST!
We Pledge To Implement These Policies.
This is draft election policy for Australia First party in the 2010 Federal poll and for subsequent polls. The final version is yet to be approved. Our general programme is set out in the “Eight Core Policies” of the party; these policies are in accordance with these statements of position. What appears below is an electoral and community programme for action. It may be used as local circumstances permit in tandem with any purely local issue of community significance. Such policies may be added to if they are in accordance with the Eight Core Policies that guarantee the unity of the party around the idea of ‘Australia First’.
Eleven Points For Action
Australia First Party stands in this election with a programme for action and change for our country. Any Australia First representative elected is pledged to advocate these policies. The party is pledged to motivate the community generally to support these key demands to secure Australia’s identity, independence and freedom..
1. We demand that YOU the people should be represented in the parliaments and not be the victims of cynical, corrupt, and foreign-loyal party machines.
2. We demand the Implementation of Citizens’ Initiated Referendum and Voters’ Recall of parliamentarians, so that you the people can propose the laws and get rid of unresponsive parliamentarians.
3. We demand accountability for all politicians: for all those who have failed and corrupted Australia, sold the country to foreign states and agencies, or devoted themselves to globalisation; we pledge to nationalize their personal property and deny them parliamentary pensions and benefits.
4. We demand the promotion and rebuilding of Australian manufacturing and other enterprise and thence guarantee - Australian jobs for Australian workers.
5. We demand the re-instatement of the Commonwealth Bank as originally intended to limit interest rates to a minimum charge and to eliminate the private control of the nation’s credit.
6. We demand the control of currency exchange rates to end speculation in the national currency and resources.
7. We demand the reform of taxation, its simplification to end the exemptions for the speculators, the multinationals and the super-rich.
8. We demand an end to foreign ownership and control of Australian real estate and Australian resources.
9. We demand: the end of all immigration for a long period on environmental, cultural, ethnic and security grounds ; the repudiation of all treaties on refugees ; the end of contract labour ; the end of residency for foreign students; the end of multiculturalism.
10. We demand that the Australian transport industry be freed of bureaucratic control with the end of world-parity-pricing for fuel, the creation of an Australian fuel industry with a domestic fuel price and with public ownership of all roads and abolition of tolls.
11. We demand protection for Australian farmers by the provision of a guaranteed national market and pricing system, such that all food necessary to sustain the Australian People may be grown in Australia and regional Australia and its lifestyle be maintained.
This is draft election policy for Australia First party in the 2010 Federal poll and for subsequent polls. The final version is yet to be approved. Our general programme is set out in the “Eight Core Policies” of the party; these policies are in accordance with these statements of position. What appears below is an electoral and community programme for action. It may be used as local circumstances permit in tandem with any purely local issue of community significance. Such policies may be added to if they are in accordance with the Eight Core Policies that guarantee the unity of the party around the idea of ‘Australia First’.
Eleven Points For Action
Australia First Party stands in this election with a programme for action and change for our country. Any Australia First representative elected is pledged to advocate these policies. The party is pledged to motivate the community generally to support these key demands to secure Australia’s identity, independence and freedom..
1. We demand that YOU the people should be represented in the parliaments and not be the victims of cynical, corrupt, and foreign-loyal party machines.
2. We demand the Implementation of Citizens’ Initiated Referendum and Voters’ Recall of parliamentarians, so that you the people can propose the laws and get rid of unresponsive parliamentarians.
3. We demand accountability for all politicians: for all those who have failed and corrupted Australia, sold the country to foreign states and agencies, or devoted themselves to globalisation; we pledge to nationalize their personal property and deny them parliamentary pensions and benefits.
4. We demand the promotion and rebuilding of Australian manufacturing and other enterprise and thence guarantee - Australian jobs for Australian workers.
5. We demand the re-instatement of the Commonwealth Bank as originally intended to limit interest rates to a minimum charge and to eliminate the private control of the nation’s credit.
6. We demand the control of currency exchange rates to end speculation in the national currency and resources.
7. We demand the reform of taxation, its simplification to end the exemptions for the speculators, the multinationals and the super-rich.
8. We demand an end to foreign ownership and control of Australian real estate and Australian resources.
9. We demand: the end of all immigration for a long period on environmental, cultural, ethnic and security grounds ; the repudiation of all treaties on refugees ; the end of contract labour ; the end of residency for foreign students; the end of multiculturalism.
10. We demand that the Australian transport industry be freed of bureaucratic control with the end of world-parity-pricing for fuel, the creation of an Australian fuel industry with a domestic fuel price and with public ownership of all roads and abolition of tolls.
11. We demand protection for Australian farmers by the provision of a guaranteed national market and pricing system, such that all food necessary to sustain the Australian People may be grown in Australia and regional Australia and its lifestyle be maintained.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Contract Labour Is Cheap Labour And It Can Now ‘Legally’ Flood Australia!
Australian Workers: It Is Time To Fight!
It is now official. Contract labour can be employed ahead of Australian labour, at a cheaper price and there is nothing the Federal government will do about it. No only that, the Federal government says that allowing this to happen is part of the free trade deals that Australia has signed.
Contract labour enters Australia as temporary visa holders. Some acquire that right as part of the overseas student rort; others are part of a mobile pool of labour hired by foreign body-hire companies for employment in Australia. Strong evidence exists that many of these companies are fraught with criminal overtones. Others (like the Chinese or Vietnamese ones) are state agencies.
Australian workers cannot look, either to Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party (which started the whole Section 456 and 457 Visa scam), or to the Greens (who favour the ‘rights’ of these parasites) - for any sympathy. They must now look to themselves for strength and to a new party like Australia First for political action.
The contract labourers who now number over 70,000 persons are joined by up to 60,000 illegal workers. Numbers have been rising steadily.
The Truth Revealed.
The truth has been revealed by a report issued by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and to be launched within days.
The report, which analyses recent government statements on the visa scheme, finds that Australia is not requiring employers to prefer Australian over foreign workers in hiring - or in retention in case of redundancies. Nor can Australia freely change the list of occupations for which the visas can be granted, nor cap the numbers of visa holders in a particular year. The number on the scheme is now set to explode.
The CFMEU has approached the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, in letters and in meetings.
Union leader John Sutton said:
''What they are saying is that their hands are tied by international obligations under the World Trade Organisation and the Doha round of trade talks. This report has found that that is not the case. We are not bound, but the Rudd government is totally mesmerised by being seen to support a free-trade agenda internationally.''
Indeed, all Australian governments are hitched to the globalisers’ dream of a borderless world – borderless for goods, capital and workers.
Senator Evans has replied to the CFMEU: ''We cannot create legal obstacles for overseas workers or introduce preferential treatment for Australian workers without compromising our international trading position and legal obligations.”
Essentially, the globalist dream comes first.
The minimum salary or wage for a visa worker is sometimes 60% of that of an Australian worker. If employers are no longer even compelled to demonstrate the ‘need’ conclusively, they could sack current workforces on certain pretexts – and rehire aliens. It is strongly rumoured this may occur at the Burrangong Meat Works in Young.
Cheap Labour Scourge Built The Old Labour Movement
Obviously, unions like the CFMEU may be compelled to fight the government. But contract labour involves many unions and occupational representative groups. Mr. ‘Bunny’ Brown of the Australian Long Distance Owners And Drivers Association said today:
“Contract labour, hired by the big transport companies, has become common. It denies many ordinary Australian drivers a job and it increases the profitability of the large companies against owner drivers. We have noticed large numbers of contract drivers from Sudan and South East Asia. Some come on trainee schemes and we have been told the government subsidises the scheme. These drivers are not as hounded by the authorities to comply with regulations as are we”.
Originally, cheap labour, drawn from the South Pacific and from China, was a factor in fuelling the original Australian trade union movement over 100 years ago. It was a cardinal rule of policy that cheap labour would be refused access to Australia.
All this changed with the globalising ‘vision’ which grew to dominance by 1990. The availability of foreign contract labour – and now even domestic contract labour which enters under the guise of ‘refugee’ and overseas student programs – is too much of a temptation to the dominant class.
Similar problems build similar movements. It is obvious enough that the Labor Party and its unions are no longer any sort of representative of the working population. However, for Australia First, it is the original model of a united people’s movement, which the former Labour Party grew out of – to which we must turn.
People’s Action
The threat of cheap labour may drive tens of thousands of Australian workers into unemployment and continue to deny employment to those who lost jobs in the current economic downturn.
The cheap labour curse is a recipe for unlawful conduct. Australia First could not legally condone those who might break the law in wildcat strikes or actions against such unconscionable scabs, but we could understand the frustration and the anger denied a job to support their families.
Whatever occurs, it is time for Australian workers to fight back howsoever they can – through any union or association which is prepared to go the distance industrially and through Australia First, the only political party prepared to say what needs to be said on the political front.
In unity, we will have the Australian people’s movement that can ensure that Australian Jobs Are For Australian Workers!
It is now official. Contract labour can be employed ahead of Australian labour, at a cheaper price and there is nothing the Federal government will do about it. No only that, the Federal government says that allowing this to happen is part of the free trade deals that Australia has signed.
Contract labour enters Australia as temporary visa holders. Some acquire that right as part of the overseas student rort; others are part of a mobile pool of labour hired by foreign body-hire companies for employment in Australia. Strong evidence exists that many of these companies are fraught with criminal overtones. Others (like the Chinese or Vietnamese ones) are state agencies.
Australian workers cannot look, either to Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party (which started the whole Section 456 and 457 Visa scam), or to the Greens (who favour the ‘rights’ of these parasites) - for any sympathy. They must now look to themselves for strength and to a new party like Australia First for political action.
The contract labourers who now number over 70,000 persons are joined by up to 60,000 illegal workers. Numbers have been rising steadily.
The Truth Revealed.
The truth has been revealed by a report issued by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and to be launched within days.
The report, which analyses recent government statements on the visa scheme, finds that Australia is not requiring employers to prefer Australian over foreign workers in hiring - or in retention in case of redundancies. Nor can Australia freely change the list of occupations for which the visas can be granted, nor cap the numbers of visa holders in a particular year. The number on the scheme is now set to explode.
The CFMEU has approached the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, in letters and in meetings.
Union leader John Sutton said:
''What they are saying is that their hands are tied by international obligations under the World Trade Organisation and the Doha round of trade talks. This report has found that that is not the case. We are not bound, but the Rudd government is totally mesmerised by being seen to support a free-trade agenda internationally.''
Indeed, all Australian governments are hitched to the globalisers’ dream of a borderless world – borderless for goods, capital and workers.
Senator Evans has replied to the CFMEU: ''We cannot create legal obstacles for overseas workers or introduce preferential treatment for Australian workers without compromising our international trading position and legal obligations.”
Essentially, the globalist dream comes first.
The minimum salary or wage for a visa worker is sometimes 60% of that of an Australian worker. If employers are no longer even compelled to demonstrate the ‘need’ conclusively, they could sack current workforces on certain pretexts – and rehire aliens. It is strongly rumoured this may occur at the Burrangong Meat Works in Young.
Cheap Labour Scourge Built The Old Labour Movement
Obviously, unions like the CFMEU may be compelled to fight the government. But contract labour involves many unions and occupational representative groups. Mr. ‘Bunny’ Brown of the Australian Long Distance Owners And Drivers Association said today:
“Contract labour, hired by the big transport companies, has become common. It denies many ordinary Australian drivers a job and it increases the profitability of the large companies against owner drivers. We have noticed large numbers of contract drivers from Sudan and South East Asia. Some come on trainee schemes and we have been told the government subsidises the scheme. These drivers are not as hounded by the authorities to comply with regulations as are we”.
Originally, cheap labour, drawn from the South Pacific and from China, was a factor in fuelling the original Australian trade union movement over 100 years ago. It was a cardinal rule of policy that cheap labour would be refused access to Australia.
All this changed with the globalising ‘vision’ which grew to dominance by 1990. The availability of foreign contract labour – and now even domestic contract labour which enters under the guise of ‘refugee’ and overseas student programs – is too much of a temptation to the dominant class.
Similar problems build similar movements. It is obvious enough that the Labor Party and its unions are no longer any sort of representative of the working population. However, for Australia First, it is the original model of a united people’s movement, which the former Labour Party grew out of – to which we must turn.
People’s Action
The threat of cheap labour may drive tens of thousands of Australian workers into unemployment and continue to deny employment to those who lost jobs in the current economic downturn.
The cheap labour curse is a recipe for unlawful conduct. Australia First could not legally condone those who might break the law in wildcat strikes or actions against such unconscionable scabs, but we could understand the frustration and the anger denied a job to support their families.
Whatever occurs, it is time for Australian workers to fight back howsoever they can – through any union or association which is prepared to go the distance industrially and through Australia First, the only political party prepared to say what needs to be said on the political front.
In unity, we will have the Australian people’s movement that can ensure that Australian Jobs Are For Australian Workers!
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Peter Spencer Rally In Canberra: Warning To Farmers: Beware Of Lib/Nats Bearing Gifts!
(We publish an edited version of an article by an activist who attended the Feb. 2 rally outside the National Parliament. We have added material from a farmer activist who has dealt with the Liberal-National parties.)
The "Tower of Hope" Property Rally took place last week. To give a very quick brief to the background of the rally:
Our Prime Minister is more concerned about galavanting about on the international stage then worrying about his citizens at home. Mr Rudd has taken the moral high ground because Australia, under his "esteemed leadership", met its entire “Kyoto commitment to reduce carbon emissions”.
However Mr Rudd has been less than forthcoming on the international stage as to how he actually achieved this feat. Did he target the coal/mining industry or electricity power stations? Um No. Has there been any reduction in fuel consumption, smaller cars, less whitegoods? Um No. Did the average person in Australia have to make a sacrifice and purchase a smaller size plasma TV. Um No. The Australian Government met its Kyoto commitment by removing the land rights of Australian farmers in a very underhanded way.
By putting through the "Native Vegetation Act" the government in New South Wales (and with similar State laws) has stopped farmers from being able to clear/use vast tracts of their land. They also did this in a sneaky way to deny the farmers any compensation for their loss. Had the Federal Government done this directly, they would have by law, had to pay the farmers fair compensation. So to avoid this, the Federal Government pushed and financially sponsored the State Governments to enact the laws on their behalf. The way the law currently stands, if a State Government does it - they do not have to pay the farmers any compensation. Everyone is passing the buck. The Courts say they cannot act - it is a political matter. The Federal Government claims it has nothing to do with them - it's a State matter. And meanwhile it's the Farmers who suffer. After spending years fighting the government, one Farmer (Peter Spencer) in sheer desperation, staged a 52 day hunger strike to draw attention to this matter. It culminated with this rally.
Everyone met at Magna Carta Place, near old Parliament House in Canberra. There were some speakers, poetry readers and musicians entertaining the crowds while they waited. We also had a couple of bagpipe players, and a couple of stock horses. A sausage sizzle had been put on, and some apple farmers had brought free apples for the participants to snack on.
A number of women had travelled in one of the many buses that brought people from around rural NSW. These had been sponsored by the NSW Farmers Association. There were also people there from Queensland and Victoria. I would put crowd size at approximately 4,000 people. The crowd was 99.9% white Australians - all good hardworking and decent country folk, who put way more into this country than they get back from it. Despite the financial hardships they have endured over the last few years they still made the effort to come to Canberra.
The crowd formed a marching line and we walked up to the front of New Parliament House, where we listened to a variety of speakers. I didn't take a notepad with me (lesson learned for next time) so I'm sorry, I don't know the names of all of the speakers and I won't try to describe them all, just some of the key ones I noted.
Some guy from channel 9 started the proceedings. He apparently had been one of the few in the media to give Peter Spencer’s plight any media attention.
A few other speakers from various Farmers groups followed him, as well as an aboriginal lady who seemed a bit confused.
The Truth Explained.
Then Alan Jones the radio presenter (who was the MC for the proceedings) arrived by private helicopter. His speech was outstanding and really hit the mark. His father had been a farmer, so it appeared that he genuinely sympathised with the farmers’ plight. His speech was really well researched, and listed many of the laws that had been passed which farmers have had to deal with - and which have slowly but surely eroded away their rights to their own lands. It was quite a list. The entire speech is going to be put up on the NSW Farmers Association web site, it's worth reading. http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/
Alan was followed by Peter Spencer. He was practically in tears; he was so emotional about Alan’s speech, and the support he had received from people. He was also a very good speaker - you could really hear how he was talking straight from the heart. Unfortunately Peter's plight does not have a happy ending - he told the crowd that he had now received official notice that his property was going to be seized by the bank on the 10th (I think) of this month. This man has lost everything thanks to his own government, and the plight of the other farmers would not be getting any media attention if it wasn't for his hunger strike. This brave man was certainly a role model to unite everyone who was there.
Enter The Lib/Nats
Senator Barnaby Joyce from the Nationals also spoke. He said he had been behind the farmers’ plight all the way, but he said he was not able to influence the government a lot; he said he was strongly pushing for an inquiry as to how the government had taken away the farmers land use rights so underhandedly and without compensation. Of course, Joyce’s party is paid for by a billionaire, Clive palmer, who thinks that Australian land should be handed over to the Chinese imperialists.
The next (surprise) speaker was Tony Abbot (Federal Opposition Leader). The Farmers’ groups had previously been lobbying for him to speak, but without much success. Nearly all of the rest of the parliament on all sides has been ducking the issue completely and had been to cowardly to deal with it. Abbott gave the weasely politicians’ speech that some expected of him. It all sounded like lip service which committed to nothing. Many politicians had used the excuse to not talk to Peter Spencer – that they wouldn't support "self harm" (conveniently ignoring the fact that this was a final act of desperation on his part, brought about by years of him trying unsuccessfully to get help and attention to his plight from these same politicians).
Mr Abbot started his speech by saying that he couldn't support "self harm" (therefore covering himself). He also went on to say that he agreed with many of the farmers’ points, but not all, but didn't say which. He also kept saying that he would always support and fight when injustice had been done... but we noticed that he conveniently didn't say that he agreed it had been done in this specific case.
The rest of the speakers were from a variety of groups. There was a very passionate young lady who represented a small landholdings group - people who generally had about 5 acres. This legislation also affected them, and I think she said there were about 20,000 people represented by her group. And, another poor farmer told how the government had removed 90% of his water use rights, but only provided compensation for 10%
Another issue raised was the bullying and intimidation tactics used by agencies against the farmers. One farmers group had got together to successfully fight these agencies. There were horror stories of government officials lying under oath, and magistrate corruption. One poor farmer was hounded and paid $500,000 in legal fees, to see the case thrown out completely and the judge state that the matter should never have been pursued by the agency in question
We should 100% support our Australian farmers. They are the foundation of our nation, and without them we do not have food, and are therefore completely dependent on foreign countries to stay alive. This is where the farmers think Rudd is heading - he doesn't care about them, he thinks the nation can survive on frozen vegetables from China!
Having heard Joyce and Abbott, we must be wary in election year that the farmers are going to be sold out if they rally to the ‘conservative face’ of our globalist regime.
If the Spencer Affair proves anything, we must make sure the farmers’ movement is independent at all costs!
The "Tower of Hope" Property Rally took place last week. To give a very quick brief to the background of the rally:
Our Prime Minister is more concerned about galavanting about on the international stage then worrying about his citizens at home. Mr Rudd has taken the moral high ground because Australia, under his "esteemed leadership", met its entire “Kyoto commitment to reduce carbon emissions”.
However Mr Rudd has been less than forthcoming on the international stage as to how he actually achieved this feat. Did he target the coal/mining industry or electricity power stations? Um No. Has there been any reduction in fuel consumption, smaller cars, less whitegoods? Um No. Did the average person in Australia have to make a sacrifice and purchase a smaller size plasma TV. Um No. The Australian Government met its Kyoto commitment by removing the land rights of Australian farmers in a very underhanded way.
By putting through the "Native Vegetation Act" the government in New South Wales (and with similar State laws) has stopped farmers from being able to clear/use vast tracts of their land. They also did this in a sneaky way to deny the farmers any compensation for their loss. Had the Federal Government done this directly, they would have by law, had to pay the farmers fair compensation. So to avoid this, the Federal Government pushed and financially sponsored the State Governments to enact the laws on their behalf. The way the law currently stands, if a State Government does it - they do not have to pay the farmers any compensation. Everyone is passing the buck. The Courts say they cannot act - it is a political matter. The Federal Government claims it has nothing to do with them - it's a State matter. And meanwhile it's the Farmers who suffer. After spending years fighting the government, one Farmer (Peter Spencer) in sheer desperation, staged a 52 day hunger strike to draw attention to this matter. It culminated with this rally.
Everyone met at Magna Carta Place, near old Parliament House in Canberra. There were some speakers, poetry readers and musicians entertaining the crowds while they waited. We also had a couple of bagpipe players, and a couple of stock horses. A sausage sizzle had been put on, and some apple farmers had brought free apples for the participants to snack on.
A number of women had travelled in one of the many buses that brought people from around rural NSW. These had been sponsored by the NSW Farmers Association. There were also people there from Queensland and Victoria. I would put crowd size at approximately 4,000 people. The crowd was 99.9% white Australians - all good hardworking and decent country folk, who put way more into this country than they get back from it. Despite the financial hardships they have endured over the last few years they still made the effort to come to Canberra.
The crowd formed a marching line and we walked up to the front of New Parliament House, where we listened to a variety of speakers. I didn't take a notepad with me (lesson learned for next time) so I'm sorry, I don't know the names of all of the speakers and I won't try to describe them all, just some of the key ones I noted.
Some guy from channel 9 started the proceedings. He apparently had been one of the few in the media to give Peter Spencer’s plight any media attention.
A few other speakers from various Farmers groups followed him, as well as an aboriginal lady who seemed a bit confused.
The Truth Explained.
Then Alan Jones the radio presenter (who was the MC for the proceedings) arrived by private helicopter. His speech was outstanding and really hit the mark. His father had been a farmer, so it appeared that he genuinely sympathised with the farmers’ plight. His speech was really well researched, and listed many of the laws that had been passed which farmers have had to deal with - and which have slowly but surely eroded away their rights to their own lands. It was quite a list. The entire speech is going to be put up on the NSW Farmers Association web site, it's worth reading. http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/
Alan was followed by Peter Spencer. He was practically in tears; he was so emotional about Alan’s speech, and the support he had received from people. He was also a very good speaker - you could really hear how he was talking straight from the heart. Unfortunately Peter's plight does not have a happy ending - he told the crowd that he had now received official notice that his property was going to be seized by the bank on the 10th (I think) of this month. This man has lost everything thanks to his own government, and the plight of the other farmers would not be getting any media attention if it wasn't for his hunger strike. This brave man was certainly a role model to unite everyone who was there.
Enter The Lib/Nats
Senator Barnaby Joyce from the Nationals also spoke. He said he had been behind the farmers’ plight all the way, but he said he was not able to influence the government a lot; he said he was strongly pushing for an inquiry as to how the government had taken away the farmers land use rights so underhandedly and without compensation. Of course, Joyce’s party is paid for by a billionaire, Clive palmer, who thinks that Australian land should be handed over to the Chinese imperialists.
The next (surprise) speaker was Tony Abbot (Federal Opposition Leader). The Farmers’ groups had previously been lobbying for him to speak, but without much success. Nearly all of the rest of the parliament on all sides has been ducking the issue completely and had been to cowardly to deal with it. Abbott gave the weasely politicians’ speech that some expected of him. It all sounded like lip service which committed to nothing. Many politicians had used the excuse to not talk to Peter Spencer – that they wouldn't support "self harm" (conveniently ignoring the fact that this was a final act of desperation on his part, brought about by years of him trying unsuccessfully to get help and attention to his plight from these same politicians).
Mr Abbot started his speech by saying that he couldn't support "self harm" (therefore covering himself). He also went on to say that he agreed with many of the farmers’ points, but not all, but didn't say which. He also kept saying that he would always support and fight when injustice had been done... but we noticed that he conveniently didn't say that he agreed it had been done in this specific case.
The rest of the speakers were from a variety of groups. There was a very passionate young lady who represented a small landholdings group - people who generally had about 5 acres. This legislation also affected them, and I think she said there were about 20,000 people represented by her group. And, another poor farmer told how the government had removed 90% of his water use rights, but only provided compensation for 10%
Another issue raised was the bullying and intimidation tactics used by agencies against the farmers. One farmers group had got together to successfully fight these agencies. There were horror stories of government officials lying under oath, and magistrate corruption. One poor farmer was hounded and paid $500,000 in legal fees, to see the case thrown out completely and the judge state that the matter should never have been pursued by the agency in question
We should 100% support our Australian farmers. They are the foundation of our nation, and without them we do not have food, and are therefore completely dependent on foreign countries to stay alive. This is where the farmers think Rudd is heading - he doesn't care about them, he thinks the nation can survive on frozen vegetables from China!
Having heard Joyce and Abbott, we must be wary in election year that the farmers are going to be sold out if they rally to the ‘conservative face’ of our globalist regime.
If the Spencer Affair proves anything, we must make sure the farmers’ movement is independent at all costs!
Monday, February 8, 2010
Homelessness In The ACT: Unfashionable Facts
Homelessness in the ACT is an issue that is not fashionable with the major parties. It will be acampaign issue for the Australia First Party as we develop our presence.
Many social workers say homelessness in Canberra is rising as the global financial crisis cutsdeeper into household budgets. Local relief centres are noticing an increased demand for foodand financial help. The global downturn means some Canberra families are now struggling to keep a roof over their heads.
Between 2001 and 2006, there was actually an 11 per cent increase in the number of homeless people in the ACT and that was before the global financial crisis developed after October 2008. There has been a 40 per cent demand increase for emergency relief and service support across the sector."
St John's Care at the Anglican Church in Reid has confirmed demand at their centre has increaseddramatically in recent months.
Homelessness is starting to affect a broader range of people in the community.
"We're seeing a lot more new people coming to us, people who would never have had to
approach a welfare agency before," she said. A new report has found 20 per cent of homeless people in the ACT are under the age of 12, nearly twice the national average.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report, Counting The Homeless, comparedhomelessness figures collected across the country on census night in 2006.
More than 1,360 people in the ACT were found to be living in temporary accommodation or on thestreet.
Report co-author and RMIT University Associate Professor Chris Chamberlain says three-quarterswere aged under 35. "The homeless population in the ACT was younger than in any other state and territory," he said."Basically we aren't sure why but we are certain that the population is younger and it's really quite striking."
Associate Professor Chamberlain says many of the homeless children were staying in emergency accommodation with one parent. "In those cases it's a family household that's homeless," he said.
"Quite a lot of them it appears in the ACT were single parent families and a fair number of them were actually in emergency accommodation".
Australia First notes that he ACT Greens say the 2009report on homelessness showed how important it was to continue building public housing. The Greens – of course – with their so-called Human Rights agenda and support for refugee intakes, can be counted on to betray the interests of the homeless for the benefit of utter aliens.
Many social workers say homelessness in Canberra is rising as the global financial crisis cutsdeeper into household budgets. Local relief centres are noticing an increased demand for foodand financial help. The global downturn means some Canberra families are now struggling to keep a roof over their heads.
Between 2001 and 2006, there was actually an 11 per cent increase in the number of homeless people in the ACT and that was before the global financial crisis developed after October 2008. There has been a 40 per cent demand increase for emergency relief and service support across the sector."
St John's Care at the Anglican Church in Reid has confirmed demand at their centre has increaseddramatically in recent months.
Homelessness is starting to affect a broader range of people in the community.
"We're seeing a lot more new people coming to us, people who would never have had to
approach a welfare agency before," she said. A new report has found 20 per cent of homeless people in the ACT are under the age of 12, nearly twice the national average.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report, Counting The Homeless, comparedhomelessness figures collected across the country on census night in 2006.
More than 1,360 people in the ACT were found to be living in temporary accommodation or on thestreet.
Report co-author and RMIT University Associate Professor Chris Chamberlain says three-quarterswere aged under 35. "The homeless population in the ACT was younger than in any other state and territory," he said."Basically we aren't sure why but we are certain that the population is younger and it's really quite striking."
Associate Professor Chamberlain says many of the homeless children were staying in emergency accommodation with one parent. "In those cases it's a family household that's homeless," he said.
"Quite a lot of them it appears in the ACT were single parent families and a fair number of them were actually in emergency accommodation".
Australia First notes that he ACT Greens say the 2009report on homelessness showed how important it was to continue building public housing. The Greens – of course – with their so-called Human Rights agenda and support for refugee intakes, can be counted on to betray the interests of the homeless for the benefit of utter aliens.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
One Nation Leader Signals Sell-Out To The Liberals On Immigration, Population And National Identity?
A prominent executive member of the One Nation party, Mr. Bob Vinnicombe, has signalled in recent public material, that he would sell-out to the Liberal Party.
If Mr. Vinnicombe is accepting as “spot on” Tony Abbott’s recent deceptive mouthings on Australia’s immigration and population requirements and our national identity, then he is encouraging a blurring of the One Nation’s policy integrity with a pure propaganda line from an establishment party.
What do we mean?
In an Australia Day speech, Tony Abbott said a lot about the failure of infrastructure to accommodate immigration, about the need for a population debate, about community concerns with bad immigrants who criticise our ways - and so on. But he also said that he was in favour of a larger population, high immigration and refugee intakes.
His quibbles seem to be precise numbers overall. Big bloody deal! Where’s the real difference with KRudd?
However, we see from the One Nation representative, an attempt to separate the Abbott commentary into little pieces and ‘unite’ with him on some of it. Once any ‘unity’ is arrived at with an establishment party, the sucker party is turned into a satellite.
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said, ‘the inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law’ and ‘It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australian values the respect they demand for their own’ most Australians, and the party that represents them, One Nation, will say ‘spot on’.“
Really? All this means that we continue to accept those who should not be allowed admission into Australia on the ultimate survivalist ground (they differ from Australia’s European population by ethnic and cultural factors!) and on the other grounds that immigration has had its day on an ecological basis, that “diversity” is something to choke on to the point of cultural and social confusion – but we are supposed to insist the new colonisers “respect” our values? What foolishness is this?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said ‘existing and planned infrastructure can hardly cope with the present population let alone the additional 14 million (almost entirely due to immigration) that the Prime Minister expects by 2050’ and ‘the rise of ethnic gangs and perceptions of ethnic street crime threaten the community understanding that migration should be overwhelmingly a net benefit’, they'll say ‘spot on’ again.”
But Abbott’s Liberals intend to keep high immigration and refugee intakes. They did not say, they never will say, that they will opt for anything else. They simply want to plan it better and select immigrants more carefully to avoid taking in the gangster elements. Big bloody deal! Abbott is addressing how to hoodwink the community with ‘better’ immigrants. He is not addressing whether the entire psychotic desire to boost Australia ’s population – should be abandoned. Why should anyone support him?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“If this signals a possible about turn on policy by the Liberal Party, following their about turn on the ETS, One Nation welcomes it and hopes it is followed by an about turn on other policies like free trade on which the Liberals are at present equally misguided.”
No, there is no “about turn on policy” by the Liberal Party on anything. There never will be.
The Liberal Party is just one face of a two-party-faced regime. The Liberal Party functions to deceive that it is an “opposition” to the “other” party. But both parties agree on all that matters, because they are created and sustained by the same economic-political class. Yet, both play to their electoral and activist clients to convince them they matter and that they listen. It is part of a game which we call mistake as - democracy. For anyone in One Nation not to know this, would mean that he has abandoned reason.
From his press release published on the One Nation website through to a letter in the Griffith Area News (Griffith: where Australia First has recently been in the news over the contract labour scandal now engulfing that city), Mr. Vinnicombe is clearly trying to impose a ‘me too’ style on One Nation, which would make it a cheerleader to Abbott’s deceitful policy (it is a policy that tells the people what they might like to hear in loud tones, while it pushes the establishment agenda). Playing ‘me too’ or ‘we said it first’, seldom gets anyone anywhere. It is desperate politics which leads to being used by someone else.
One Nation exists as a federally registered party, but is it now divided internally, between those who wish to follow in the Liberals’ wake and those who would pursue an independent policy?
It is a cold fact that a faction directed by Mr. Vinnicombe has operated for a long time with very particular politics on things Islamic (ie. to the point of a very narrow focus). It has overstated the Islamic problem in Australia as the main immigration problem . This has led to building alliances with Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Christian Nation Association and the actual ‘conservative wing’ of the Liberal Party itself in New South Wales . The focus on Islam by these groups hides their passion for increasing ‘Christian’ immigration from anywhere (particularly Middle Eastern countries). Indeed, Fred Nile supports high immigration drawn from everywhere. These straight-jacket alliances centre on criticising Islam generally, whilst being truly ‘colour-blind’ on immigration overall. They also involve themselves in a lot of false religion about Israel being an ally in a world struggle against Islam ( Israel is as much a problem as it seems to incite Moslem discord), which supposedly obligates Christians to support it, even saying that is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
It is easy to go down that road. Meetings. Friends. Good press. Talk to others about a great future. This is fantasy politics.
Many people in One Nation reject this. A larger amorphous group inside the party has struggled towards nationalist politics. Many One Nation members have pondered all this Islam / Israel stuff and observe that it’s hatched by people who tie back to the Liberal Party.
So, are the latest comments on Abbott part of a process by which a faction ties One Nation to the Liberal Party?
What is the future? It is not for Australia First Party to lecture One Nation. But we ask: what if Abbott continues with his rhetoric? Just as Howard did at the time of the ‘Tampa Affair’ in 2001 – and even much earlier in 1988 when he invented the ‘One Australia’ idea to run counter to multiculturalism? Remember: Howard flew in the Tampa ‘refugees’ after the tough talk of the 2001 election and his criticism of multiculturalism never, ever, involved a critique of developing Australia as a multi-ethnic society. Will there be those who urge an alliance with the Liberal Party, an entirely delusional thing in fact, but who merge together with the Liberal Party on the ground?
Australia First Party says openly that if these alien elements seize control of One Nation, or acquire a debilitating influence, the nationalist minded within its ranks are always welcome to join us. Our party rejects compromise. The Australia First Party will fight unreservedly for the Australian people in the struggle for possession of its own state!
If Mr. Vinnicombe is accepting as “spot on” Tony Abbott’s recent deceptive mouthings on Australia’s immigration and population requirements and our national identity, then he is encouraging a blurring of the One Nation’s policy integrity with a pure propaganda line from an establishment party.
What do we mean?
In an Australia Day speech, Tony Abbott said a lot about the failure of infrastructure to accommodate immigration, about the need for a population debate, about community concerns with bad immigrants who criticise our ways - and so on. But he also said that he was in favour of a larger population, high immigration and refugee intakes.
His quibbles seem to be precise numbers overall. Big bloody deal! Where’s the real difference with KRudd?
However, we see from the One Nation representative, an attempt to separate the Abbott commentary into little pieces and ‘unite’ with him on some of it. Once any ‘unity’ is arrived at with an establishment party, the sucker party is turned into a satellite.
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said, ‘the inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law’ and ‘It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australian values the respect they demand for their own’ most Australians, and the party that represents them, One Nation, will say ‘spot on’.“
Really? All this means that we continue to accept those who should not be allowed admission into Australia on the ultimate survivalist ground (they differ from Australia’s European population by ethnic and cultural factors!) and on the other grounds that immigration has had its day on an ecological basis, that “diversity” is something to choke on to the point of cultural and social confusion – but we are supposed to insist the new colonisers “respect” our values? What foolishness is this?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said ‘existing and planned infrastructure can hardly cope with the present population let alone the additional 14 million (almost entirely due to immigration) that the Prime Minister expects by 2050’ and ‘the rise of ethnic gangs and perceptions of ethnic street crime threaten the community understanding that migration should be overwhelmingly a net benefit’, they'll say ‘spot on’ again.”
But Abbott’s Liberals intend to keep high immigration and refugee intakes. They did not say, they never will say, that they will opt for anything else. They simply want to plan it better and select immigrants more carefully to avoid taking in the gangster elements. Big bloody deal! Abbott is addressing how to hoodwink the community with ‘better’ immigrants. He is not addressing whether the entire psychotic desire to boost Australia ’s population – should be abandoned. Why should anyone support him?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“If this signals a possible about turn on policy by the Liberal Party, following their about turn on the ETS, One Nation welcomes it and hopes it is followed by an about turn on other policies like free trade on which the Liberals are at present equally misguided.”
No, there is no “about turn on policy” by the Liberal Party on anything. There never will be.
The Liberal Party is just one face of a two-party-faced regime. The Liberal Party functions to deceive that it is an “opposition” to the “other” party. But both parties agree on all that matters, because they are created and sustained by the same economic-political class. Yet, both play to their electoral and activist clients to convince them they matter and that they listen. It is part of a game which we call mistake as - democracy. For anyone in One Nation not to know this, would mean that he has abandoned reason.
From his press release published on the One Nation website through to a letter in the Griffith Area News (Griffith: where Australia First has recently been in the news over the contract labour scandal now engulfing that city), Mr. Vinnicombe is clearly trying to impose a ‘me too’ style on One Nation, which would make it a cheerleader to Abbott’s deceitful policy (it is a policy that tells the people what they might like to hear in loud tones, while it pushes the establishment agenda). Playing ‘me too’ or ‘we said it first’, seldom gets anyone anywhere. It is desperate politics which leads to being used by someone else.
One Nation exists as a federally registered party, but is it now divided internally, between those who wish to follow in the Liberals’ wake and those who would pursue an independent policy?
It is a cold fact that a faction directed by Mr. Vinnicombe has operated for a long time with very particular politics on things Islamic (ie. to the point of a very narrow focus). It has overstated the Islamic problem in Australia as the main immigration problem . This has led to building alliances with Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Christian Nation Association and the actual ‘conservative wing’ of the Liberal Party itself in New South Wales . The focus on Islam by these groups hides their passion for increasing ‘Christian’ immigration from anywhere (particularly Middle Eastern countries). Indeed, Fred Nile supports high immigration drawn from everywhere. These straight-jacket alliances centre on criticising Islam generally, whilst being truly ‘colour-blind’ on immigration overall. They also involve themselves in a lot of false religion about Israel being an ally in a world struggle against Islam ( Israel is as much a problem as it seems to incite Moslem discord), which supposedly obligates Christians to support it, even saying that is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
It is easy to go down that road. Meetings. Friends. Good press. Talk to others about a great future. This is fantasy politics.
Many people in One Nation reject this. A larger amorphous group inside the party has struggled towards nationalist politics. Many One Nation members have pondered all this Islam / Israel stuff and observe that it’s hatched by people who tie back to the Liberal Party.
So, are the latest comments on Abbott part of a process by which a faction ties One Nation to the Liberal Party?
What is the future? It is not for Australia First Party to lecture One Nation. But we ask: what if Abbott continues with his rhetoric? Just as Howard did at the time of the ‘Tampa Affair’ in 2001 – and even much earlier in 1988 when he invented the ‘One Australia’ idea to run counter to multiculturalism? Remember: Howard flew in the Tampa ‘refugees’ after the tough talk of the 2001 election and his criticism of multiculturalism never, ever, involved a critique of developing Australia as a multi-ethnic society. Will there be those who urge an alliance with the Liberal Party, an entirely delusional thing in fact, but who merge together with the Liberal Party on the ground?
Australia First Party says openly that if these alien elements seize control of One Nation, or acquire a debilitating influence, the nationalist minded within its ranks are always welcome to join us. Our party rejects compromise. The Australia First Party will fight unreservedly for the Australian people in the struggle for possession of its own state!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
