Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim?

The reported killing of Osama bin Laden and the recent failure to take aggressive action to safeguard the lives of the American Ambassador to Libya and three of his minders, as well as to secure American assets at Benghazi that came under attack by Islamic terrorists or Mujhadeen, whichever you the reader prefers, may not seem to be related to the uninformed reader, however, given the facts of both incidents an astute person must then consider the questions; Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim? And if he is, what does that mean for America and the World in general if he is re-elected?

It has become common knowledge that Obama on at least three occasions when presented with the opportunity to eliminate bin Laden cancelled the operation. It has also been hinted at that the operation that finally took out bin Laden was not authorized by Obama who had to be dragged away from the golf course and be made to watch bin Laden's elimination as the operation was underway at the time.

So if Obama didn't authorize the operation, then who did?

It may surprise or it may not that Hillary Clinton's name as authority for the operation that took out bin Laden has been mentioned.

In any case, whoever the nod was received from, bin Laden's body, for what this author believes are obvious reasons was buried at sea, but not until a full Muslim burial ceremony was carried out. If bin Laden had been a Christian, would the same protocol and sensitivity have been observed?

Why did Obama on at least three occasions that the media are now aware of refuse to give the go ahead to kill bin Laden? Was it because bin Laden was a fellow Muslim?

The facts surrounding the 9/11 attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi are now just being put out by the MSM which has been loath to do so until now. Obviously the MSM, who have largely been in the tank with the current White House administration since the 2008 presidential campaign, have been suffering a little 'buyer's remorse' and until now were very keen to keep anything at all that was adverse about the 'chosen one' under the radar. Well the cat is out of the bag and the facts concerning the appalling response by the White House to an attack on American interests in Libya that also got four Americans murdered, are now out there in the public domain.

Did Obama order a 'stand down' for those operatives in the safe house that came under attack after fleeing there from the embassy compound? The buck stops at Obama's desk and if it wasn't him who gave the order to stand down because he refused to aid his own (countrymen?) then who was it? As with the bin Laden take down, was Obama's authority undermined again?

Was his decision not to assist those Americans he was charged by presidential authority to provide protection for, to limit the 'collateral damage' to fellow Muslims? Or if Ambassador Steven's had survived the attack would his survival have posed a serious problem for the administration? If that is the case, what is it that Stevens knew?

Here is a list of Obama's failure to recognize Islamic terrorism and his seemingly pro-Islamic leaning that should be of concern to every law abiding person if the MSM had been doing its job:

Obama stated in a speech that there were 57 states in the Union and not 50 states that everyone else is aware of. The Organization of Islamic Council has 57 members, maybe Obama was a little confused?

Obama refuses to call blatant acts of Islamic terrorism or Islamic Jihad, for what they really are.

His instructions that NASA include Muslims into the space program, as part of an inclusion program, for which Muslims in general have very little to offer.

Obama's refusal to acknowledge the Fort Hood killer, Major Nidal Hasan, as an Islamic terrorist.

His bowing to the Saudis and all other Islamic leaders while simply shaking the hands of Westerners.

His antipathy toward Israel.

His promotion of the Arab Spring, but his refusal to acknowledge the Students for Democracy demonstration in Iran.

His return to Britain of the Bust of Winston Churchill.

This author believes there are many more examples of why Barack Hussein Obama is really a Muslim. But the most telling aspect of this destructive president is that he was the son of a Muslim Kenyan father which Islam recognizes, in fact insists, that all children born to a Muslim father are to be considered as Muslim. Is that why young Barack spent some of his early years in an Indonesian Islamic school and why his later education records have been sealed?

Anyone having knowledge of Islam knows only too well that any civilization that is not Islamic cannot survive having Muslims as neighbors or having them in any great number within their borders. By his recorded actions as evidence, this author believes that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim whose aim is to bring the greatest nation since the Roman and British Empires to its knees through economic and military destabilization. If this destroyer of democratic nations is given another four years to wreak his vengeance on America, America as we can still visualize it will be no more, and terror and lawlessness will reign supreme in the world with the knowledge that no other nation will be prepared as America has been prepared, to take on those rogue nations which try to upset the balance of world peace. God help us all if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected!











 

The New Fascists

Alan Jones has a conservative radio show which airs Monday to Friday from 5am to 9am at 2GB in Sydney. His program is high rating and is relayed around the country. Those who listen to him have been estimated to range in number from 150,000 to the millions at any one time, and this disparity in numbers would probably be dependent on the political leaning of the estimator, obviously his drawing power has also been the attraction in raising revenue from those businesses and corporations who choose to sponsor his show which has been a nice little money earner for the radio station. Mr Jones also commands respect from politicians and some very big names. He is also famous for his opinions on all topics and having a reputation for not being politically correct, preferring to say how it really is. One could say that in some political circles of Australian society Alan Jones is viewed as the enemy and is very much hated for his conservative messages.

Most Australians would be aware that Mr Jones recently attended a function as a speaker to around a thousand Young Liberals and that one attendee at that function secretly recorded Mr Jones speech in which Mr Jones uttered a slur against the Prime Minister and her recently dearly departed father. It is not the intention of this author to get into the appropriateness of what Mr Jones uttered, however it should be pointed out that what he stated was not meant for the personal ears of the Prime Minister and only for those in attendance at that function.

The person who recorded Mr Jones speech was obviously hoping to catch something that some would consider controversial. And record something controversial he did! And then like a true opportunist - without thought for the consequences of making something said in private available to the wider public and to the target of the comment, who would have been none the wiser if the comment was kept in house – his exposure began what can only be described as the most vicious, political and media driven hate fuelled campaign to unseat Mr Jones for something he said at a private function and when realizing it had been made public, he immediately and publicly apologized for, not once, not twice, but several times.

It may also interest the reader that the person whom the comment was made about, the Prime Minister, has consistently refused to take Alan Jones phone calls and accept his apology. This is a woman who holds the highest office of the land and is expected to lead by example. That is some example she has taken to set, and it has now become quite obvious that the Prime Minister is milking this controversy for all the political mileage she can get out of it in the hope that Alan Jones will lose his position, and the campaign that has been generated by that controversial remark can only lead to one conclusion. Alan Jones must be very effective at what he does!

It's no secret that the MSM is in the tank for the federal Labor government, particularly the ABC and its lesser sibling, SBS. The Canberra press gallery are all on board with this government and pay scant attention to anything other than what the government tells them. Witness the impromptu press interview that the Prime Minister called a few weeks ago to limit the damage being done from the exposure of her time when working for Slater and Gordon as a young, in her early thirties, lawyer.

If the Prime Minister really has nothing to hide from her past why did she not make a statement in parliament on Hansard as is expected of all Prime Ministers and sitting members?

According to the Daily Telegraph (Sydney), over 100,000 emails have now been sent to the various sponsors of Alan Jones radio show asking, pleading, begging and threatening them, to withdraw their sponsorship. That many of those emails have been found to have originated from the one IP address and displaying such colorful names as Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse and a host of other fun time favorites, speaks volumes to this author at least, as to how most of those 100,000 emails were generated by a fanatical band of partisan political hicks who in all probability are not in a position, nor ever likely to be in a position to actively carry out their threats to boycott those sponsors targeted. Yet, many sponsors have now withdrawn their support which has prompted 2GB management to cancel all sponsorship of Alan Jones who will now go to air ad free.

The Daily Telegraph reports (Tuesday, October 9, 2012) that two people have fronted up to take credit for the 'campaign against Jones' one being a Nic Lochner, university student and studier of political science, and the other, Jenna Price, self- styled feminist and academic. This author has a problem with 22 year old university students and older feminist academics who have probably never listened to an Alan Jones broadcast, but disagree out of hand with what he stands for without any experience of the conservative side of politics with which to base an honest opinion on. Students of political science and feminist academics may be able to obtain a piece of paper from a university that portrays their particular talent in nice pretty writing, but like possessing a driver's license, it does not prove you are a good driver!

But, it appears that the Daily Telegraph article proclaiming Lochner and Price the originators of the Jones campaign may be a misleading article, because other evidence has come to light that the origins of the Jones campaign started with Sally McManus, a branch secretary of the Australian Services Union (ASU) and Emily Mayo an ASU organizer. Their original site named 'destroy the joint' has been co-opted by Lochner and Price, with McManus's and Mayo's blessing, to destroy the reputation, if not the livelihood of one of Australia's most popular conservative broadcasters.

Make no mistake, this 'campaign against Jones' is not about his short unwelcome utterance at a private convention, it is political, and it is being orchestrated from the Prime Minister's office! Any other prime minister prior to Ms Gillard would have graciously accepted Alan Jones so very public apology as an expectation by the public from their leader. Ms Gillard has repeatedly shown that she is first and foremost a political player and conventions, protocols and personal integrity, come in at a very distant last place.

The actions of those who have been so very active in the campaign against Jones would not have been out of place in 1930s Germany with the rise of the Nazi Party. It is therefore an indictment on the state of our educational institutions which have largely become politicized into expressing Left wing thinking whose students go on to promote fascist reactions to organizations and persons who they feel stand in the way of their political goals. The current makeup of the Labor Party and unions in particular, must also take responsibility for taking us back to a time when personal freedom was restricted to the point that hostilities had to be undertaken to regain those freedoms.

Let the Labor Party, the unions and those houses of learning that are churning out students who are taught what to think rather than how to think, take note of where they are pushing us and beware of the consequences, because for every action there is a reaction!
 

Why it matters what a nation manufactures.

Not many of us who inhabit the West would sit and ponder just how Australia, until the end of the Nineteenth Century a basically agricultural/cattle/sheep farming nation, became part of Western manufacturing processes that joined with the West to become such a dominant political and industrial culture, that all other cultures are still measured against our achievements.

Not many of us would even consider what it is that allows nations, particularly the United States, to develop such sophisticated technology that other nations, such as Russia and China, through lack of financial incentive and government restrictions on private ownership, must steal Western innovations rather than develop their own.

Not many of us would realize that what we have all come to accept, and to now expect, from our own nation - such as medical care and a standard of living so high that even our so-called poor, when compared to other cultures, such as some African nations, can be considered to be wealthy in comparison - has been due to the efforts of preceding generations of Australians that invested their money and built up a manufacturing base that for the size of our then population was one of the most productive in the developed world.

During World War One it was realized that if this country was to survive the tyranny of distance from those markets we were then dependant on for goods used in this country we did not make ourselves, we would need – and through necessity brought about due to the war- to produce our own products. One of the biggest steps taken during that war was the steel-making enterprise of BHP at Newcastle, New South Wales, which proceeded to produce nearly all the steel products such as railway lines, sheet metal for fabrication of ships, etc. that until then had to be imported from British steel mills.

With the upsurge in manufacturing our own requirements, and becoming less reliant on distant markets for the same products, our standard of living rose (please note it is not the author's intent to dwell on how living standards rose which was due to a number of factors coming into play as this would require quite a lengthy discourse, but only to impress the thought that living standards overall generally rose due to the opportunities made available by having a manufacturing base) over the decades to the 1960's which was a time of full employment and availability of nearly everything that was manufactured within the West, including much being made here. Products such as air-conditioners, refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, motor vehicles, radios, television sets, and a multitude of home appliances, and these items were made to such high standards that many products made in the 1960's still function today. How long does the average imported TV or microwave oven last now?

During the 1970s two things occurred that has had far reaching consequences for our future as a productive nation and that of own standard of living and for the future of our children. One of those things was that minerals began to be discovered and exported, and the other was that government began to dismantle trade protection barriers and adopt 'free trade' agreements with other developing nations.

The gradual reduction of trade barriers which were originally put in place by government to protect our manufacturing base from cheap, and generally at the time inferior imports, such as those products from Japan, began to affect some companies which had been previously protected by the benefits of a closed market. As some companies began to adjust to the challenges that international trade posed with the importing of cheap products, they were also forced to downsize and lay off employees. During the mid - 1970s welfare, as we now know it, was put in place due to the effects of manufacturing companies going bust and coal mines closing due to the low prices being paid for underground coal and the high costs in extracting it, which closed many underground mines in New South Wales. Some families are now into a third generation that has never worked and probably never will. The social implications of this 'sit down money' as implemented by the Whitlam government is far reaching, and which really requires an essay to be written about the problems it has generated, but this is not the author's intent here. While underground mining began to become more expensive during the early to mid-1960's, some mines managed to withstand the economic pressures into the early 1980's and even into the new century, but the biggest impact on unemployment by far, was the lowering of trade protection barriers which has had a domino effect on all of our manufacturing.

It has been estimated that in the period from 1966 – 1995, 120,000 manufacturing jobs were lost due to companies becoming bankrupt, moving overseas or just winding up the business because it was uneconomical to continue. In 1966, 1.23 million people were employed in manufacturing which fell to 1.12 million by 1995. In a period of around three decades 40,000 people lost their jobs every ten years in a nation whose population in 1966 barely topped the ten million mark! By any measure of common sense the government at the time should have recognized the catastrophe of unemployment that their own policies were producing and fixed the problem. Instead the government chose to do nothing! Free trade and trade agreements became the mantra of the day and bugger the unemployed and loss of our own manufacturing base!

And that mentality has managed to trickle down to our current political class without revision or even hope of revision.

Australia managed to weather the fiscal storm of 2008 solely because we had a mining sector that virtually pulled us out of an economic mess even though the then Rudd government tried so very hard to push us into it with its economic madness of stimulus spending. But the mining sector has more boom and bust cycles than the financial sector and cannot be relied upon to keep our economy strong. Only a solid manufacturing base which employs millions, and can operate in a closed and therefore protected market, can guarantee a strong economy!

Total employment in 1966 was 4.8 million jobs, with 1.23 million being employed in manufacturing, which was around 25% of the working population who worked in positions that produced those items we now have to import. In 1995, total employment was 8.1 million jobs with 1.12 million being in manufacturing, which is a little over 12% of the workforce. So in a little under three decades manufacturing had effectively halved in its employment rate. Today those who work in manufacturing jobs are an endangered species that are constantly aware that their occupational position in this country is under constant threat. There is no job security for these people and we have become reliant on Communist countries, such as China, to import most of what we use, including light bulbs. Does anyone realize that this nation does not even make its own light bulbs anymore?

It should be of concern to those individuals who know their history that being reliant upon other nations, particularly in time of war, for our basic consumables places our nation in a very precarious position, especially when our armed forces start to run out of ordinance that we are also reliant on from other nations for. The situation this country now finds itself in is nothing short of Alice in Wonderland thinking that has either been created by those with a Globalist agenda who don't care if our nation collapses economically or by some kind of collective insanity that has caused those who have control over our daily lives to forgo their own common sense when legislating those policies into existence that even a four year old child would reject as unworkable and dangerous for our own existence as a sovereign nation.

Whichever reason you the reader may conclude is that which has caused this crisis of economic malaise to cast its shadow over our nation, it surely must be appreciated that we cannot continue on this path if we are to survive the next 100 years as a sovereign nation that should not be reliant on any other nation for its own survival.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Phobia Or Control For Controls Sake?

Apart from warfare, people have been murdering people ever since Man was on the Earth. The Old Testament is full of murder stories that highlight, that even under God's Law, and in peaceful times, there will always be those who choose to step outside the boundaries of their existence. Our criminal codes are based on the Ten Commandments which the typical Socialist will choose to disavow and sidestep in order to proclaim the 'clearer thinking' of 21^st Century Man over that of God's ancient laws. What the Socialist will also fail to admit is that so called '21^st Century Man' is now generally less well educated than his recent forbears once were which is a direct result of the long march through our educational institutions by those who decided that Socialism was to be Man's future. These Socialist thinkers also choose to ignore the failure of Socialism during the 20^th Century, a fact that any real unbiased thinker could not ignore!

One of the cardinal rules for indoctrinating the masses into the Socialist way of life is to dumb down the population via education, media and government propaganda, such as the Green's in their diabolical coalition with the Labor party now demonstrate. And in order to maintain their gains in their long march toward Communism, the Socialists realize that control, through whatever means necessary, is paramount in maintaining a controlled society to be maintained for their own purposes. Socialists, although proclaiming empathy for their fellow man, do not trust the masses, and for this reason, control over the masses is the number one goal.

Do you wish to live in a controlled society or an ordered society?

There is a difference, a big difference, and we are rapidly heading into a controlled society in which whatever we have left of our basic freedoms will disappear to be replaced by what you can say, do and think through government edict. Gun control laws will eventually lead to the banning of any private citizen being able to possess firearms and is a major goal that Socialists are aiming for. In other words, a disarmed citizenry is much easier to control to better suit the communist agenda. You the reader may also be aware that the United Nations is seeking to control every nation's small arms through a treaty that is designed to enforce the banning of private ownership of individual firearms.

Is this the kind of future you would like for your children?

One of the issues that Socialists like to push is so called 'Gun Control'. Whenever some nut grabs a gun and murders people we get bombarded by the hysterical gun-phobic crowd, usually catered for by a compliant left wing media, who call for more stringent gun control laws. It may interest you the reader that this nation has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. In fact they are so tough, that every person who desires to possess a firearm is treated as a potential criminal. Is that fair to an honest and law abiding citizen? Should the actions of a few nuts cause the demonization of millions of law abiding gun owners across Australia?

People are murdered every day in this country for whatever reason and by murderers who use a variety of weapons such as; knives, baseball bats, tyre levers, tomahawks, axes, chisels, screwdrivers, lumps of rock or concrete, fence posts, motor vehicles and last, but of course the most convenient, the firearm. Statistically, all those non-firearm weapons account for more murders and grievous bodily assaults than firearms. Motor vehicle collisions kill more people per year than are murdered, so why is there no call to ban motor vehicles? Why is there no call to ban knives, which are used in more murders than firearms, from every home? Isn't it hypocrisy that those who scream the loudest about Gun Control seem to be the very same people who will pack up their family in the family car and head on down the freeway at speeds that will kill everyone within that vehicle if a wheel happened to fall off it? Do you the reader believe that the people in that speeding vehicle have more chance of being murdered by a nut toting a gun or being killed by a mechanically unsound motor vehicle?

When the hysterics of the gun-phobic crowd can be put to one side, common sense will dictate that it is people who kill people and not guns which are inanimate objects until they are loaded, aimed and fired by a person! Guns do not kill people! People kill people and will use whatever is at hand as a weapon at the time to do so.

Under common law everyone has a right to self-defence and to defend their family, and their property from those who would do them harm or try to steal what they rightfully own. It is interesting to reflect that up until the late 1970's all Bank Tellers in New South Wales were issued with a Smith and Wesson .38 six shot revolver which they kept concealed under the counter for use to thwart a holdup and to protect their own life. When that 'protection' was taken away from individual Tellers under the guise of 'better security arrangements' made by agreement between the major Banks and the Finance Sector Union (FSU) there was an almost immediate upsurge in armed holdups on Banks where several Tellers were injured or resigned due to no longer being able to defend themselves.

The FSU caused the withdrawal of those firearms and had prepared to take industrial action against the Banks if the Banks had not agreed to the demand. But why would a Union, supposedly in place to protect the worker they represented decide that firearms had to go from Banks? Why did the FSU deliberately expose their workers to armed holdups while denying their workers they were paid to represent their right to self-defence? Did the FSU truly believe that by taking away the individual Teller's firearm it would not entice the criminal element to return to the very lucrative crime of holding up Banks that the armed Teller had demonstrably prevented for over sixty years?

It may come as a complete surprise to some, but it is generally recognized that all Trade Unions had become heavily influenced by communist thinking by the 1930's and their goal of looking after the worker began to take second place to that of socialist ideals. As this article has so far pointed out, one of those socialist ideals is for an unarmed, therefore defenceless citizenry. The motives of the FSU raise some serious questions as to why the FSU chose to pursue a policy of disarming Bank Tellers that any reasonable person would have had serious objections to.

No government, or Trade Union, has the right to disarm or to make defenceless those they are empowered to protect. Having police forces that maintain an ordered society is no guarantee of the individual citizen's protection from those who would do them harm. While police forces provide an 'air of security' to the average citizen, the reality of life in the 'burbs and in the cities is the complete opposite, and this is so very self-evident every time the News is watched or a Newspaper is read.

It is also a goal of Socialists to have the citizenry be subject to the law, not be part of the law making process where the masses may have an input, such as in a democracy that most Western nations are now just hanging onto. Most citizens are law abiding and therefore live their lives accordingly without the need for extra laws that socialist governments, under Liberal Democracies, may wish to impose. Socialism is all about control. Therefore, under Liberal Democracies, laws will necessarily be enacted to limit the citizen's rights, and we can now see this form of 'control' manifesting itself through Human Rights Laws which are designed to limit what can be said, whether the truth or not, about some cultures. Multiculturalism is enforced through Politically Correct, or Newspeak, which allows the authorities to persecute, through verbal abuse by epithet, such as racist, xenophobe, homophobe etc; which is legally sanctioned against those who choose to speak out at what they see is just plain wrong. Andrew Bolt is our most recent example of how socialist policies have corrupted our freedom to express ourselves without fear of persecution.

And Gun Control is another manifestation of that socialist process.















 

WHY CONSERVATIVE VALUES ARE BEING ATTACKED

A quick look around the Western world at the various forms of government now in power would give the astute political observer cause to realize that ALL governments, regardless of where they are placed by some on the political spectrum, now adhere to and promote socialism under the guise of Social Democracy.

Democracy as a form of government was never meant to be 'socialized' but that is where we have now ended up. And even America, a Constitutional Republic, is now being touted as a Social Democracy.

So what does Social Democracy mean?

To answer that question we first need to understand what Socialism is all about. According to the Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary, Socialism is described as thus:

Socialism, noun, 1. A theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting
of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land etc, in the community as a whole. 2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

National Socialism, or Nazism, was based on this theory. So too was Soviet style Communism. However, the main difference between both ideologies was that Nazism permitted, even encouraged, private enterprise in manufacturing and entitlement to ownership of land provided those who participated were members of the Nazi Party and towed the party line. Soviet style Communism allows no private ownership or manufacturing of any kind, and under Soviet and Peoples Democratic Republics, such as China and North Korea, the state controls everything.

Those who are comfortable with government controlling everything, even down to their daily activities like what they can buy, are usually those who support a socialist system. But not everyone who would give their vote to a socialist party, like Labor/Greens in this country or the Democrats in the United States, are truly cognizant of what it is that they are actually voting for when they cast their vote to a socialist party. This can also be true of someone who votes for a party that is considered conservative. And I would suggest that those voters who have voted for one particular party their entire life, and this would also apply to both sides of politics, continue to do so only because their parents voted the same way. Such are the vagaries of the democratic system.

Conservatism is a relatively modern concept and is based on preserving those systems and traditions that have been proven to work over the more ideologically based (theory) practices that have become the hallmark of the left side of politics. Conservatism has taken quite a hit over the past forty years from those who have an agenda to socialize everything, and the Capitalist Free Market system which has proven its worth over the years with the rise of the Middle Class, has also been demonized as a faulty system that brings more ills than good to the world.

So what is the difference between Socialism and the Capitalist system, a system that is now often portrayed as an evil system by Socialists? Let us consult the Dictionary which states:

Capitalism, noun, 1. A system under which the means of production, distribution and exchange are in large measure privately owned and directed. 2. The concentration of capital in the hands of a few, or the resulting power or influence. 3. A system favoring such a concentration of wealth.
 
That modern Western Civilization has become one of the most successful civilizations of all time is completely self - evident, and should be to everyone, but what has made our civilization so successful? Capitalism combined with a Free Enterprise system has made our civilization so successful that we have seen off the Soviet System in Russia while China now embraces some forms of private ownership, manufacturing and wealth, but still strictly under state regime controls.

The Capitalist system has allowed some people to become fabulously rich. But is this a bad thing? While this author has a problem with too few people holding the majority of wealth within this kind of system because it needs to be remembered that money in the hands of some is power and that some of these very wealthy people have developed an elitist attitude that generally expresses itself in the exercising of their influence at the political level. Why politics though? Because it is government that controls the less empowered through the rule of law. Laws, that some of the elite class have no compunction in breaking and will always uphold a do as I tell you, and not as I do approach to life that has now led us to a kind of soft totalitarianism that uses Human Rights Laws and failed lawyers to cower those who have become aware and attentive to the elitists real agenda.

But Free Enterprise was also mentioned which combined with Capitalism has given the West an extraordinary advantage over that of other systems and cultures. So what is Free Enterprise? Again we will consult the Dictionary:

Free Enterprise, noun, the doctrine or practice of a minimum amount of government control of private business and industry.

From that description of Free Enterprise we may take it that if government stays away from over-regulating the functions of business and industry, business and industry will thrive and prosper, which in turn powers the economy of the state and its citizenry though job creation and wealth accumulation. The Western middle class is a product of this system which also, to a large degree, came about due to the actions of industrial unions that (which also led to more government regulations) had the workers interest and welfare at heart and through many years of protracted strikes and demands helped to create an affluent middle class. But union activism for the betterment of its workers has been a double edged sword in the sense that the rise of worker's wages and conditions (also coinciding with the Lima Declaration and lowering of trade barriers) came at a cost to the profits and long term re-investment prospects for business and industry which decided to move to third world nations where labor was cheaper and profits higher. Unions by and large, were also pro-communist by the mid-1930's, and thought nothing of bringing a business to its knees, and in some cases, even to the point of closing it down and the workers losing their jobs due to excessive union demands. And when conservative governments should have legislated to uphold the rule of law against the most militant unions, they failed to do so!

We now have the situation where Western nations which were once self-sufficient manufacturers of consumer goods now face the prospect of being reliant on third world nations for those goods. In an ever increasingly dangerous world it is not an enviable position to be in for any nation to have to rely on those nations that supply its necessities it may one day have to go to war with.

The pro-communist stance by unions has over the decades been allowed to permeate our educational and political circles. Where we once had courteous discourse between political rivals, we now have the phenomenon of Conservatives and conservatism being publicly ridiculed on a daily basis by Socialists who would rather slander and cast aspersions on their Conservative rivals than provide a well reasoned argument that may persuade their audience. But what is Conservatism?

Again, let us consult the dictionary for the meaning of Conservatism:

Noun, 1, the disposition to preserve what is established; (opposition to innovation or change). 2. The principles and practices of political conservatives of right-wing parties.

And Conservative:

Adjective, 1, disposed to preserving existing conditions and institutions etc. 2, cautious or moderate: a conservative estimate. 3, traditional in style or manner. 4, having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. 5, a person of conservative principles.

The reader will note that this author has placed brackets around that part of the definition of Conservatism that implies opposition to innovation or change. The author believes this is a spurious addition to the whole definition and has been added by those who have a vested interest in denigrating traditional Conservative values which is disposed to protecting that which is considered as beneficial to society.  Conservatives are also innovative and welcome change, but not for changes sake, and unlike Socialists, only if change and innovation can be PROVEN to be beneficial for all.

Pascal Fervor has provided another example for the definition of Conservatism from a 1961 Webster's Dictionary which the author has included in this article for reference to those readers who will note the deliberate alteration of the meaning of Conservatism between the 1961 definition and the 1990 definition as provided by the Macquarie Dictionary the author has used. The definition is thus:

Conservative. n 1 a : Dispostion in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosphy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

By reading and understanding the difference between those two definitions it is plain to see why those who would choose the socialist path, that conservative ideals stand in the way of socialist ideals. It also explains why the spurious addition, that the author has bracketed in the 1990 definition, would have been added to undermine true conservative values which is nothing short of deliberate obfuscation or an act of sabotaging the true meaning. Such is the mentality of some who now profess to teach our children!

There is an old saying that goes; 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', in other words, why try to rebuild something that has been proven to work over many centuries? And that is what socialism is trying to achieve, it is trying to remake Western Civilization into something that will never work and will eventually, as the European Union is now also proving, fail, because the practice of socialism does not fit the theory for Western Civilization. The Socialists also conveniently forget their history of failed socialism. The 20^th Century was a century of many wars which had their genesis based in socialist ideology. For many reasons that ideology has failed those states that embraced socialism and it was not until those states decided to allow some private enterprise to grow, that those nations have prospered. China and Vietnam are prime examples of how the socialist state failed, but private enterprise has given them a new lease of life.
 
Conservatives are by nature cautious of those who advocate radical politics and ideas. Those who do not appreciate their cultural history are those who will embrace socialist ideals, because they really have no precedent in their lives with which to gauge socialist values and the outcomes of socialist ideals.

'Those who forget their history are those who are doomed to repeat it'. That quote is very relevant to today's lack of teaching methods in our schools, which due to political correctness and multicultural requirements no longer teach our children the real history of our Western cultures. It is for this reason that Conservatives are now being openly denigrated, humiliated and sometimes physically attacked. Just because they know history and can see the mistakes now being made by so many who remain so ignorant, and are being lied to, by so few!









 

What has happened to our Police Forces?

     I once noticed in the Maitland Mercury's editorial, the heading, 'Capsicum Spray case requires careful handling'.

    As an ex cop, I can attest to the effects of a well aimed burst of Oleoresin (often referred to as Capsicum) spray, when confronting those members of the public who, affected by either intoxicating liquor or drugs, or both, loudly declare their intentions of bodily harm to you, the police officer, who has been called to their location in order to quell a disturbance, usually caused by aggressive individuals or groups of rowdy youths, which these days seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

    Before 1998, Oleoresin spray was not in the NSW Police arsenal and the art of subduing a violent person - especially an individual who had also armed themselves and were intent on at least putting you in hospital or making it very plain to you that you were now on the endangered species list - had to be done using your own physical strength, a car mounted baton or the last resort, your revolver.

    Since its introduction, the deployment of Oleoresin Spray to front line police, has been instrumental in saving many violent persons from permanent injury or even death, and has reduced the number of injured police officers involved in these confrontations.

    The Mercury editorial was chiefly concerned with the use of excessive force by the arresting officer who had sprayed a 17 year old youth, who had been handcuffed and detained in the rear cage of a police truck, and as such, was considered by a Court to be defenceless? I have been kicked by a person in a similar situation, and believe me even while handcuffed he was far from being defenceless!  

    Details for why the youth was sprayed was not then made available, nevertheless, it is my opinion that this youth probably got what he deserved! The area from where this individual was arrested has been a trouble spot for a very long time with vandalism and anti-social behaviour by local youth completely out of control, and it is this very public process of pilloring a police officer via the court process, who may have been injudicious with his use of force, that further inspires this type of lawlessness amongst our youth.

     Since the Wood Royal commission in 1997 the NSW Police Force has become so heavily politicized that the actual role of the police in law enforcement has taken a back seat to the needs of the bureaucrats who require all their T's crossed and their I's dotted. The state government is in the habit of using spin to appease those of us who cry out for more police resources to combat the ever increasing levels of violent crime, while those officers who are over worked to the point that they are driven to make poor decisions when dealing with some offenders, are then hung out high and dry for all to see. What kind of message does this send out to those in our society who like to disobey the law?

    To further exacerbate an already demoralized police force, it is now taught at the Police Academy (some call it a college) to report on your workmate if you believe he/she has done something wrong. That 'something wrong' may be anything from a personal remark made about someone to a criminal act. While I understand that any officer committing a criminal offence should be treated no differently to any other person, I baulk at the requirement to put someone on report simply because he/she may have voiced an opinion about someone, or other such trivial incidents which in regular human activity occur on a daily basis. This academically inspired expectation of every officer to become their own informant makes for a very distrustful atmosphere in any work force let alone the police force! In short, it has killed any esprit de corps and further lowered any morale that the police force had prior to this communistic doctrine being introduced after the Royal commission. Individual officers can no longer expect to be supported by the police hierarchy if they so much as have a whiff of a complaint against them. They are guilty until proven innocent and I have witnessed this time after time and have been victim myself to this very narrow and destructive thinking by so called police management.

    As a result of that just mentioned, a lack of trust now envelops the force, and with the draconian oversighting measures now in place, the NSW Police Force is in crisis. Following a recent Daily Telegraph poll of 1500 serving police officers the newspaper found that one in four officers plan to leave the force within the next five years. It also found:

    77 per cent of those polled say they will reconsider their positions as police officers if the government caps wage rise increases at 2.5 per cent, which is well below the inflation rate.   


    75 per cent of those polled also say they would move interstate to work if offered better pay and conditions.


    98 per cent say that 'red tape' is getting in the way of their efforts to protect the community.


    94 per cent say that policing is now more dangerous than at any previous time.


    92 per cent believe there are not enough operational police to maintain proactive policing patrols, including in the City of Sydney.


And what has the state government done about this very sorry excuse for a police force?

Absolutely nothing! N.S.W. is the highest taxed state in the Commonwealth and yet we get to have a third world police force where the front line police who place their lives at risk on a daily basis are now having to constantly look over their shoulder before making some pretty tough decisions. Due to the extra stress placed on them, because of low police numbers, finding themselves constantly being overworked and often in situations where they may over- react because of that stress, and arising from any incident that has, in the vernacular of the force, 'turned to shit' they are then publicly pilloried by an all too compliant media and then hung out to dry by the very authorities who are in office to provide our protection from the very same people the police officers are being publicly pilloried for if they become too 'forceful' with those they are by circumstance, forced to arrest!   

    This needs to change and change quickly. The expectation of government by the people for a secure and safe environment in which we may all feel protected is not being provided and must become a priority.










       



      

The Absurdity of Rules of Engagement

    Although this subject is of a topical nature ie; our Coalition Forces involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not feature very highly on most Westerners radar. Given that Australia is also a signatory to the Rules of Warfare, as laid down by the Geneva Convention, it should be incumbent on all who wish to serve in the military to make themselves aware of the further restrictions, under Rules of Engagement, which have been placed onto all military personnel who undertake combat duties in current and future roles that requires the presence of our soldiers in foreign lands.

    Rules of Engagement are now considered to be an integral part of operations in foreign lands where the Coalition military is required to carry out its function while the normal lives of the occupied civilian population can be maintained with minimum interference. In other words, Rules of Engagement have been designed to keep the civilian casualty list down to foster local good will which also placates the sensibilities of the politicians and the left wing hand wringers back home. While the doctrine of Rules of Engagement has been successful in keeping civilian collateral damage to a minimum thereby limiting political fallout and bad press, it has allowed the enemy to take up some very disturbing practices against coalition forces involved in eradicating them from the landscape.

    The Daily Telegraph Editorial, September 28, 2010, highlighted the often very difficult circumstances that coalition soldiers find themselves in whenever the Taliban decide to use women and children as human shields, while fully cognizant that our highly trained and restrained by rules soldiers will not shoot back, even when shot at by these completely amoral Muslim guerilla fanatics. Those who have heard about the 2010 charging of three Australian soldiers by the Australian Army, who were involved in a firefight sometime during 2009, would also be aware that the incident so described saw the deaths of 5 Afghani children. The children had been holed up in a house with a Taliban fanatic who decided to fire upon advancing Australian troops from within the house with no apparent regard at all for the lives of the children he was hiding behind. And while the complete 'picture' of what actually occurred during that incident was not immediately available to those of us with an interest in our soldiers welfare, it should be noted that soon after being charged, two of the soldiers involved spoke out by issuing statements that defended their actions.

    It must be emphasized here to those who do not comprehend what Coalition forces Rules of Engagement cover, and what actions may occur before our troops are permitted to return fire, even while being shot at, that when soldiers are limited in the actions that they may take when coming under fire, and remember that these are real bullets that are fired at them, it increases the risk of them being killed or very badly wounded, while the enemy who is doing the shooting and hoping to kill them, is not restricted by any rules which may hinder his actions. In short, adding Rules of Engagement onto Rules of War and expecting our soldiers to comply with them is adding to their already high stress levels, and adds further dangers which imperil all coalition personnel while it contributes to an imbalance of military tactics which favors the enemy who Coalition soldiers are employed to eliminate.

    Here are two examples of Rules of Engagement:

If having been fired upon by a shooter who then drops his weapon to his side as soon as he comes under notice from coalition forces, he should no longer be considered an immediate threat and is not to be fired upon, even if he decamps to another location where it is likely he will take up another position to resume firing.

    And:

    If troops come under fire from a dwelling place which could be considered to have women and children present they are to avoid returning fire and deploy to another safer area.

    It's no wonder then that an Army lawyer, a Brigadier Prosecutor, got to rub her hands together at what she perceived was her first real case of substance involving three Australian soldiers who she charged with murder soon after that 2009 incident. Thankfully, and as cooler heads prevailed by applying some common sense, as of this time, those three soldiers have now been cleared of any wrongdoing. This after nearly two years of being forced to live in limbo because some Army lawyer decided to try and make a name for herself!

Rules of engagement have been written by politicians, lawyers and military people who will never visit, let alone take part in a war zone and in all probability, like that Army lawyer, have never been in a combat situation and will never be required to shoot back in self defence. The Rules of Engagement are not only absurd they are immoral, because those rules force the combat soldier to give away part of his own right of self defence to the benefit of his enemy. And those who should know better than to impose such restrictive rules on our fighting forces have forgotten or just plainly ignore, that our soldiers are in those places they are in to protect the basic freedoms of those who enact the very laws that the soldier now finds he is restricted by.

    It's an absurd situation and it needs to be changed!


    

The United Nations has destroyed good government

    I have written previously on why the West must divorce itself from the United Nations, a world body that has proved itself incapable of solving any of the Worlds ongoing problems. It is now a dictatorial and tyrannical organization, its policies now largely over riding the laws of our own sovereign states. This article, although mentioning the ANZAC nations only and concentrating on dysfunctional government brought about through U.N. policy, will, I hope, reinforce with the reader from which ever freedom loving nation he/she may dwell in, that the U.N. has now gone well beyond its use by date and must be defunded and dissolved.

    The current Australian and New Zealand systems of government has failed us. Multicultural, Politically Correct policies in line with Human Rights legislation forced upon both nations by successive governments since the 1970's, without due process of referenda, has systematically destroyed much of our basic freedoms. The common law right to freedom of expression has now been hijacked by the Leftist ideologues who consider free speech may only be tolerated when it is confined to their own narrow, but politically correct rules. Due to this intolerance of opposing points of view by government and semi-government agencies, we now find ourselves no longer living in fully democratic societies. We are no longer able to fully express ourselves without fear or favor because we are now forced to dwell under 'soft totalitarian principles' whereby any form of dissention from the Politically Correct is now met with hysterical name tagging, such as racist, homophobic etc. or worse. Pseudo-justice through Human Rights commissions and under the fascist banner of Anti-Discrimination legislation is now meted out to those who would expose the charade of Multiculturalism that we are now forced to live under. Anti-Discrimination laws, laws enforced by agencies which are non-judicial, unelected and unrepresentative of Western cultural values that were once regarded as norms, are permitted to by- pass the Australian Constitution and the New Zealand Bill of Rights which were originally put in place by enlightened people to protect us from this kind of tyranny. What was once taken for granted by the ANZAC nations as a surety for a free and happy society has over the decades been steadily eroded. During the past forty years, and through stealth legislation, this act of treachery by our elected officials has largely gone unnoticed by the citizenry, until now.

    The Australian Constitution and the New Zealand Bill of Rights once safeguarded our systems of democracy, whereby, any variation to those charters as required by elected governments must be decided through referenda by the people. Since the late 1970's all governments have seen fit to sidestep those very laws designed to protect us while dismantling policies and implementing others, which if put to the people at the time would have been politically defeated!

    Governments have been able to do this very effectively by signing onto the United Nations policies for Human Rights. This has permitted our elected and non-elected officials to implement policies which are not endorsed by our standing charters. These policies, under multicultural ideology, are now ruining once successful nations through the adoption of legislation that stealthily discriminates against white society in general by elevating imported cultures to a higher level under minority status. And these policies are being enforced illegally!

    We are no longer true sovereign nations able to determine our place in the world by our own hand because we have become signatories to United Nations policies. These are policies that have been generated by an organisation that is not a democratically elected body, is not run by elected officials, and is completely unaccountable for its actions!

    This slavish adherence, by both sides of politics to an unelected world organization and would be world governing body, has caused the major political parties of both nations to become so ideologically identical, that it is now only through trivial and minor differences that the voter is given a choice. The main political parties are now for big government, unchecked immigration, extended welfare and the destruction of our manufacturing and agricultural base through globalization and environmental issues.

    Our elected and non-elected officials have been actively dismantling the very system of government that following the carnage of World War Two, had seen both countries become world leaders in agriculture and industry. Australia once had its own electrical and white goods manufacturing base. Now Australia no longer produces its own steel, televisions, radio's, washers, refrigerators, freezers etc. Where both nations once had full employment we are now paying out billions of dollars yearly to those who are unable to work due to 'economic downturns' or worse, do not wish to work and are classed as a protected species!

    Small business, farmers and the middle class, the backbone of all Western nations, are now constantly under attack by governments through a system of taxation that one may only describe as oppressive! Due to ever expanding government, which also now employs hundreds of thousands of extra bureaucrats, there has been spawned many departments and agencies which require more of our tax dollars to fund. We now find ourselves having to pay an extra burden for this overblown system of government through a system of taxation where some taxes are raised on a tax. The Australian Goods and Services Tax is a prime example of this tax on a tax system.

    No Government should ever be permitted to become so large that in order for it to survive it imposes tax after tax on its citizens. The best government is small government. If successive governments had abided by the very documents which were written to limit the growth of government and government's interference in ordinary citizen's lives, we would not be in the fiscal and self -identity crisis that we now find ourselves in. In short, governments are no longer serving our best interest and as a matter of course, actively and blatantly engage in self promotion campaigns as the ideal government, while using our tax dollars to do so. Government has become so large that it has to keep inventing more effective means of extracting that extra dollar from the taxpayer. While tax revenue is seen by some as 'legal theft' perpetrated on us by the state, it is generally undisputed that revenue collecting has now become the main earner for government. Some of the methods employed to force citizens to pay up, even those who use their earnings to employ thousands of workers, would be termed a criminal enterprise if not legally sanctioned by the state. That term is called extortion and extortion is a criminal act! Yet we now have the scenario whereby governments extort tax from their citizens through an extortionate act. Pay up or go to jail is blatant extortion, but it is legally sanctioned extortion by the state!

Also, the liberalist stupidity of forcing those with the most to pay for those with the least, only forces those with the most to seek other means, and often 'illegal' means, of preserving what they have rightly earned for themselves. Is it right that because you occupy a position in life that earns you well above a notional average wage everything you earn over a notional sum requires you to pay half of your earnings or more, in tax to benefit those who choose not to work?

     Government is out of control and fast becoming unmanageable and is running out of other people's money. We need to fix it and fix it quickly before the system collapses in upon itself. But how do we repair an out of control broken down system?

    A start would be to divorce ourselves from the U.N. and its radical and nation destroying policies. By doing this simple act we can then begin to dismantle the very system that has enabled a few elitists to hijack our government so as to further their own illogical ideals that is detrimental to, and freedom limiting, for the rest of us.

    And so that this treachery could never be repeated, a stronger worded and less ambiguous Constitution and Bill of Rights, similar to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and heavy on individual inalienable rights, not Human Rights, must be initiated with a view to be determined through referendum rather than by our own elected officials, who quite frankly, can no longer be trusted to provide intelligent output in such an important exercise!


 



    

Middle Eastern Crime

    For some time now a handful of ex-police officers, like Tim Priest who was a Detective Sergeant in the NSW Police Force, have been writing and lecturing to any one who wishes to listen on the rise of Middle Eastern Crime (MEC) in this country.

    Most 'aware' officers working in and around Sydney during the mid to late 90's became familiar with the type of crime that Middle Eastern gangs were starting to concentrate on such as vehicle theft, armed robbery and smash and grab raids. Any police force is only as good as the information its intelligence services can gather on organized crime or criminals in general. The downside of course, when collating reliable information for which police act on, is the amount of time taken to gather that information.

    While there was an awareness at senior police level, of the rise of crime related incidents involving middle eastern gangs (Lebanese Muslim) before the Royal Commission of 1996/97 was convened, it was the advent of that Commission that put the investigation of these gangs onto the back burner. Senior police decided that until the fallout from the Commission had been fully assessed nothing further was to be done.

    This action on the part of senior police was a huge mistake, as the squad that would have been tasked with combating MEC was disbanded on the recommendation of Justice Wood, who headed the Commission. This recommendation by Wood has since, had far reaching consequences for the performance of the NSW Police. The loss of this squad very effectively nobbled any investigative knowledge that the police had at this time on criminals of all 'colors'. This ill thought out action of dismantling the state's foremost crime fighting unit gave rise to MEC throughout Sydney and wherever these gangs chose to commit crimes, or just for the fun of it, generally harass the non-Muslim population.

    During the latter part of the 1990's a tactic of the MEC gangs was to taunt and intimidate lone police officers, usually Highway Patrol officers who normally work as 'Alpha' units (Alone). It was not uncommon to be working a shift and have to respond to an 'officer backup' call, where earlier, a Highway Patrol officer may have pulled over a lone driver for a minor traffic offence, only to find within minutes that he/she would be surrounded by several vehicles carrying groups of young middle eastern men, readily identifying themselves as 'Lebs' who would begin to hurl abusive and offensive remarks aimed at that officer in order to intimidate them into retreating.

    While police at that time had no real power to move groups of persons on who were deemed to be causing trouble, and the younger police, some fresh out of the College of Knowledge, would stand around and be intimidated by these would be thugs, this author's favorite trick was to retrieve the Defect Notice book, or the Traffic infringement Notice book from the police vehicle, and begin defecting the trouble makers cars, or issuing them with traffic infringement notices depending on offences at the time. This action usually had the desired effect and the trouble makers would soon disperse leaving the Highway Patrol officer to do his job.

    Another tactic that the MEC gangs used was breaking into police vehicles while the officers were attending to 'jobs' away from the vehicle. Police equipment stolen over several thefts included, body armor, hand held radios, batons, and even a Glock 9mm pistol from a detectives car. Some officers had shirts stolen from their clothes line while some female officers were deliberately targeted and followed home by one or two of these criminals who did not bother to hide the fact from the wary and often intimidated officer. To the author's knowledge, none of the items stolen has ever been recovered, and there have been several incidents of crimes committed by offenders identifying themselves as 'police officers' invariably described by the victims of those crimes as males of middle eastern appearance.

    During mid 1999 a McDonalds Restaurant located in Southern Sydney came under siege by a group of young Arabic speaking men who, just prior to closing time, entered the restaurant and began to intimidate the restaurant's last minute diners by pushing and shoving them or by knocking their food onto the floor. When staff tried to intervene, the self- identified 'Lebs' began to pelt them with the diners discarded food and other loose and handy items which forced the staff, mostly female, to retreat into a back room and call police. Meanwhile the aggressive Muslims set about trashing the restaurant doing hundreds of dollars worth of damage.

    A large contingent of police arrived, including the Dog Squad, who set about arresting those offenders that still remained on the premises. Several scuffles broke out between police and Muslims and several officers suffered minor injuries. Those that were arrested were conveyed back to Sutherland Police station and charged with numerous offences. You may be thinking, that's great they got the bad guys! But wait, there's more!

    Following the Wood Royal Commission the then NSW Labor Government (socialist) put in place a very complex and intrusive complaint system within the NSW Police. In short, any one could call in anonymously and complain about a police officer. All complaints had to be acted on by a Duty Officer and let me add here, that the Duty Officer position was so new at this time, that some of these officers weren't even aware of their responsibilities. Even complaints from an offender recently arrested and still in police custody had to be dealt with. This most ridiculous system led to a very dangerous situation following the siege at McDonalds, and to wit:

    While Sutherland police were busily processing the offending Muslims the station came under a barrage of phone calls from family members of those being charged. As anyone knows who has dealt with these people, they know how to 'utilize' any system to their advantage. Complaints of police mistreatment at the hands of the arresting officers were so numerous that calls had to be diverted to other stations. But to really underscore this silly complaint system some of the Muslim family members began to call the emergency number '000' which then effectively tied up Southern Sydney's Emergency Network for more than two hours. Any REAL emergency calls that were lucky enough to get through, had to be dealt with by either mobile phone or portable radio on back channel. It was just plain luck that no one lost their life waiting for an ambulance.

    But, to really add insult to injury to a police officers job, on their day in Court the counsel for the offending Muslims accused the arresting officers of police brutality against his clients citing one offender who had allegedly been bitten by the police dog. The offenders now became the victims as the sitting Magistrate dismissed the police case against them ordering an investigation into police conduct at the McDonalds incident. This spineless keeper of our laws refused to even read the police FACTS sheet or witness/victims statements. One can only imagine the dismay of those police officers who, having sworn to uphold the law and protect the people and their property in the State of New South Wales, and had done so on the night in question, were now being singled out for investigation which could lead to possible charges. Robin Williams couldn't have written a better comedy!
             
    The NSW Police Association (Police Union) now became involved in this matter and vowed to fight the Magistrates decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The Secretary of the Police Association promised industrial action if any of the officers involved in the McDonalds incident were to face charges. After an Internal Affairs investigation all police involved in this now farcical stand off between the Police Force, the Judiciary and government were cleared of any wrongdoing.

    Although that silly complaint system soon after was modified to exclude anonymous complaints, which now has to be made in person, in this authors opinion, it was not modified enough!

    In 2000, an unprecedented act of intimidation was committed by a member of a MEC gang who shot nine rounds from a handgun, thought to be a police issue Glock 9mm, into Lakemba police station which narrowly missed the station officer and two other officers near him. The person thought to be responsible for that incident fled the country to Lebanon on his dual citizenship passport when he believed that police were closing in on him. However, he was soon arrested by authorities over there for another unrelated matter, and was until recently, serving time in that country's prison system. He has been extradited back to Australia and is currently serving a seven year jail sentence which some would say is not long enough.

    In 2002, a series of rapes were perpetrated on several young women in the Sydney area. Police soon picked up on the 'modus operandi' and as with most crimes of this nature there is a common thread which links them all together. These rapes were being committed by members of a gang of young Muslim men (Skaf brothers and friends) who would pack rape and taunt their victims and force them into degrading acts whilst uttering racial slurs, such as 'Aussie Pig'. The offenders readily identified themselves to the victims as Lebanese. In fact, they were proud of it! All members of this gang have now been locked up and are serving very lengthy prison sentences. The presiding judge at the trial of these scum was moved to remark when sentencing the leader of the gang, Bilal Skaf, to 55 years jail that was later on appeal reduced to 35 years, that; "Young Muslim men are a blight on our society." Again, some would say that even the original sentence as handed down was not long enough!

    In December, 2005, following many years of intimidation, taunts and some brutal assaults by young Muslim men aimed at young native Australian men and women, including Lifeguards - whose only crime was to enjoy themselves on a warm sunny day as countless generations have done before them at the beach - a crowd of local young people gathered at Cronulla Beach in Sydney's south east, to protest this recurrent problem and voice their concern to the authorities.

    Unfortunately, some people began to consume alcoholic beverages and began to take their frustrations out on anyone who looked to be Lebanese. While the author does not personally condone this type of protest and subsequent behaviour, it has to be understood, that this problem had been ongoing for years and regardless of the protestors concerns, the authorities, including the police, and for years, did absolutely nothing about it.

    Some hotheads in the large crowd assembled on that day hurled empty beer bottles and other handy weapons at police and ambulance officers out of sheer frustration and attacked several – again, self-identified young Lebanese males who had dared to show up on the day. While this was occurring in Cronulla, another group of young men were being primed at their local Mosque in Lakemba for what would turn out to be retaliation raids, almost an act of war, and not protests as most civilized peoples would offer up, against those who happened to live in the suburbs of Cronulla, Maroubra, and surrounding areas, and generally had played no part in the original riot.

    Over the next three nights, people living in those areas were the victims of, or witness to, some of the most violent and destructive actions by any group of individuals that has been witnessed to in this country since the Second World War.

    The police and the authorities to their everlasting shame stood back and let it happen! As an ex-cop and a proud Australian, this author has never felt so ashamed as he did at that time. One young male nearly lost his life and was left with a large knife embedded in his back while trying to defend two females from these gutless monsters. A father of three young children was beaten senseless with a baseball bat and now has brain damage, just because he was putting out his garbage for collection and chose to answer yes to the question; "Are you an Aussie?" before being assaulted. There was thousands of dollars worth of damage done to motor vehicles and other personal and public property. Then these Muslim thugs just melted back into their own community and have never been brought to justice! While the media and the authorities have named and shamed those young Australian men who were caught up in the so called Cronulla Riot, not one Lebanese Muslim has been dealt with who was involved in the payback raids, which for sheer violence and brutality, went far beyond that which had originally occurred on the actual riot day. This is the society that we now live in where individuals have more rights than society in general and minorities like the Lebanese Muslims are protected and can do no wrong according to our governments.

    The MEC gangs of today are involved in every kind of crime imaginable. In truth, they are over represented in crime statistics and in the jails. The crimes they are involved in cost this state and this nation, billions of dollars annually and it is only recently that a dedicated squad has been put in place to combat them. Young Muslim men are notorious for creating incidents against non-Muslim men and women who, on reacting to taunts from the Muslim, suddenly find themselves confronting several armed and very aggressive males. Several young Australian men have been murdered simply because they have reacted to insults aimed at them by young Muslim males. Off duty police have been assaulted and even murdered simply because they felt it their duty to intervene in a crime in progress that they inadvertently stumbled upon and the perpertrators happened to be Lebanese Muslim. Never before in our history have we been witness to the viciousness and wanton violence that the young Muslim is prepared to deal out to unsuspecting Australians, regardless of age or sex.

     We are now witness to the future of this country unless we can halt all Muslim immigration, and we need to do this now. Very rarely does a day go past where some crime has occurred that doesn't involve men of middle eastern appearance. There are now areas in Sydney and Melbourne that are no go areas for the native Australian who are now very thin on the ground in those parts, most having been intimidated into moving away from the areas now occupied by the Muslim.

    Is this what we want for our children?

































































 

What has Human Rights got to do with homelessness?

            

I originally wrote this article to salve my mind from the morbid stupidity that so called Human Rights people advocate as good policy in line with their utopian ideals on how we should all be, not how life really is, and for good effort or money, can never be changed.

Original article starts here:

I read an article by Graeme Innes, Disability and Race Discrimination Commissioner with the Australian Human Rights Commission, listed in the comments section of The Daily Telegraph, June 18, 2010, titled 'opening a door on the bleak truth of homelessness'. I printed it off as it got me to thinking along the lines of what has human rights got to do with homelessness?

Mr. Innes' article was, to my mind at least, intended to expose the existence of the homeless in our society and the need to do something about this very troubling issue. While his article quoted figures of homeless, (105,000) which I would certainly challenge on the grounds that it would be next to impossible to estimate numbers with any certainty, and to all intents would in truth, be just a guess, there was a notable lack of information which any balanced article should convey to the reader, as to why he believed that in this day and age, there should be so many of our citizens living on the street.

My thoughts were then cast back to my days as a NSW policeman who came into contact with many of our homeless as part of my duties as some homeless people have a tendency to commit petty crimes. Some would say a majority of homeless are mentally ill and on the streets due to the closure by uncaring governments of the very facilities, which until the mid 1970's used to provide for them - there are many issues as to why anyone of sound mind would find themselves living 'rough' and while not all that are unfortunate enough to find themselves in this position turn to crime, many are victims of domestic violence, or for personal reasons, feel they are no longer part of a family and choose to leave a secure home for a life of 'adventure' on the streets. Many of those I spoke with were young teenagers from single parent families, usually an uncaring mother, who felt more at home with other 'street kids'. In short, the reasons for anyone to be on the street are many and varied and cannot be pigeon holed into a nice neat little package that any government agency can correct or alleviate.

Mr. Innes in his article failed to be honest with the reader in that he sidestepped the issues which have led those who are homeless into their present circumstances.

One of the biggest issues concerning homelessness would have to be the 'designed' break down of the family unit that has been relentlessly pursued by those thinkers who are averse to personal binding contracts, such as marriage, an institution which is one of the cornerstones of our culture. Personal responsibility that the marriage vow instills in those of us who choose to raise a family has been so watered down through easily obtained divorce procedures and individual rights, that it is now easier to just walk away from a marriage rather than work at the relationship. My wife and I have been married thirty two years this year, and while it has not been all beer and skittles, we chose out of commitment to each other to work at our relationship. That is why our marriage has stood the test of time. Many choose not to work at the relationship and take the easy option. The fallout from these broken families is what we are witness to on the streets today.

Mr. Innes' silence on the 'broken marriage' syndrome and mental health issues proves to me that his appreciation of the causes of homelessness is naïve at best. Had he been honest with himself and his readers, he would have provided some of the causes of homelessness that have originated from bad decisions within government and the act of governments over reaching into family matters that have caused the greatest explosion of homelessness. Then again, maybe he also realizes that if he admitted to the reader that government is the major contributor of homelessness he would then have to admit that his article really had no basis, and was in fact disingenuous, written only so that he could justify his position as a Human Rights Commissioner!

So please tell us all Mr. Innes: What has Human Rights, or your position as a Human Rights commissioner, got to do with homelessness?







 

The increasing tyranny of the United Nations

     

Following on from the First World War, the Allied powers implemented a non-
government organisation designed to thwart future aggressive nations from instigating actions that could lead to another world war. In this regard, the League of Nations came into being and while it initially had some success in restricting arms build up, by the mid 1930's it was obvious to most military observers and any politicians of note, that the League was an abject failure, in that it could not enforce its own recommendations against nations involved in re-armament. Nations such as Japan, Italy and Germany simply snubbed their noses at the League while continuing to pursue aggressive military policies.

After World War Two the Allies acknowledged that the League of Nations had to be bolstered with more 'teeth' and a wider capability through enforceable laws to 'oversee' the pacification of those nations that persisted in aggressive policies. The Soviet Union had at this time become a recognized world power and it was also hoped that by keeping nations such as Russia 'inside the tent' dialogue could prevail first with military action considered as a last resort.

 In October 1945, the United Nations came into being with the League of Nations dissolving itself in early 1946.

 While the concept of a world governing body is a sound principle, in reality it is an unworkable arrangement, and one which has proven impossible to operate as it was intended due to a number of factors - while it is not the intention of this author to provide examples of botched U.N. operations, those interested in looking into the many examples available could probably start with the genocide that was allowed to occur in Rwanda – and anyone familiar with human behaviour can appreciate that there are many personality types, cultures and religions that make up the human family. The U.N. concept that all cultures aspire to the same ideals so therefore will obey the same laws is flawed, in that this concept does not recognize the many variables that are so very apparent which even 'Blind Freddy' could identify. This disregard for the obvious to pursue the idealistic should sound a warning to the observer as to the mindset that now inhabits the U.N. To disregard the variables such as religion and the method of government which has a profound effect on a culture, and for a western nation to be equated with that of an Arab nation for instance, is simply ludicrous and a blatantly dishonest concept. This is the crux of the dysfunctional system that is now the United Nations, an organisation that is causing its own increasing irrelevancy and march to tyranny, because it now disregards its founding principles and continues to exercise political and racial distinctions, which in today's politically correct atmosphere, western nations should be considering the U.N. as a racist and bigoted organization, but alas, it is never taken to task by any nation.

Indeed, over the past few years we have been able to witness at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, two very appalling rants from Iran's Ahmadinejad and Libya's Gaddafi, two murderous leaders from Islamic nations recognized as supporting terrorist organizations, but given the status of presenting speeches at the United Nations!

What has happened at the United Nations that would cause an organization which was formed to curtail any form of aggression amongst nations to permit two terrorist leaders to present their twisted logic and derision of the west in general, that if held in a public park would have seen them arrested as promoting 'incitement to hatred and racial violence?'

The United Nations is an organisation run by unelected officials who, unlike our own politicians, are not held accountable for their actions, and in this arrangement may be seen the main contributing problem for why the U.N. is now the dysfunctional organisation that it is today. Ex-politicians are normally given posts at the U.N. and as a result of this higher 'goal of office' as Australia's previous prime minister is now working toward, the organization has become highly politicized. Anyone recognizing the dysfunction that occurs within government and major political parties can also appreciate the same process which has occurred at the U.N. The politicization process has also facilitated the U.N. into being hijacked by those Islamic countries that provide 'black gold' to many European and other oil-reliant nations. This 'oil hegemony' has permitted those Islamic nations who posses it to dominate parts of the U.N. structure allowing them to extract concessions through extortion that has turned the U.N. into a toothless tiger that is now more concerned with keeping the oil flowing into those oil-reliant nations, than in maintaining the rights and privileges of sovereign and democratic nations, such as Israel.

During the 1970's the UN, in a perverted political move, welcomed into its chamber the terrorist leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat, and recognized the cause of the 'Palestinian People' in seeking a state in the Holy Land. The PLO had become a leading terrorist organization during the mid 1960's by hijacking passenger aircraft and slaughtering Jews in order to force their issues onto the world stage. In this regard they were highly successful which also showed up the complacency and sheer cowardice of those nations willing to give up their moral obligations for the black gold that the Arabs provided. And to their everlasting shame, France and Germany were the leading players in this regard. 

While many westerners still believe the U.N. to be an organization which protects the rights of individual nations around the globe, the reality is the complete opposite. Western nations are all signatories to the U.N. Charter of Human Rights and have through bypassing their individual Bills of Rights, or Constitutions, implemented Human Rights Commissions, which if studied minutely by anyone with a modicum of economic knowledge, would guarantee concerns about such a commissions fiscal viability, let alone the fact that all these commissions are illegal in every sense of the word.

Those who still see the U.N. as a protective body do not realize that the U.N. Human Rights policies have only been adopted and adhered to by mostly western nations. The rest of the world only pays lip service to these policies. One only needs to look at the Human Trafficking currently occurring in Indonesia, and other places, to realize this fact.

The U.N. promotes mass immigration from third world nations into mainly western nations under 'refugee' status and 'suggests' numbers to be taken in. Those who choose to join the queue of immigration as a 'refugee' are encouraged by the pot of gold at the end of their destination (western nations) to pass through several other countries which have similar cultures en-route. They are in effect 'economic refugees' and no longer fit the standard U.N. description of a refugee.

Those who cannot see the ongoing colonization of their nations by people from cultures who despise the western lifestyle and have no intention of assimilating are, in my opinion, also part of this problem, and unwittingly, or more disturbingly, are willingly encouraging the destruction of our western cultures through some misplaced western 'white guilt', that has been encouraged to be thrown around our educational systems for the past fifty odd years.

It is time that this nation and all western nations that value their sovereignty and freedom to withdraw their financial and legal support to the United Nations which has become a farcical and dysfunctional organization more intent in pursuing political favors and a global agenda of governance, than in providing a safe and productive world in which we may all dwell with a concrete guarantee of peace. The U.N. now caters to despots and dictators who strut the world stage espousing their brand of socialism mixed with their perverted logic. Time to call a spade a spade and go back to protecting our own borders and manufacturing industries, which have been devastated by government actions designed to alleviate third world suffering. (Please read the LIMA Declaration) Instead we now find our middle classes becoming the new poor of the world through increased taxation by governments more concerned with supplying money to the U.N. and supporting U.N. policies than in being fiscally and nationally responsible to their own citizens. It's time to say goodbye to the United Nations!


    

    

Economic Retribution

The Western world is currently living beyond its means. The welfare and entitlement mentality that has become the hallmark of recent Western style Socialist Democratic government will soon implode. There is already evidence of this in the economic catastrophe that is Greece. Ireland, Spain and Portugal will soon replicate and then follow the Greek tragedy that is currently being played out in Greece where its people are ill prepared for what lies ahead. Europe will then follow. It's 1929 all over again as those nations which will fail first rush to shore up their dwindling economies by introducing severe economic measures which penalize those who have had no say in what has come about while refusing to enact severe austerity programs and measures to contain those who have helped bring us to this place; the Banking houses and their wastrel CEOs who have governed their lending and invested your money while lining their own pockets with salaries so huge they can only be described as obscene, knowing full well the inevitable economic outcome of their self-serving ways.

The Ten Commandments tell us not to Covet Thy Neighbors House and the Bible informs us that Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Yet, during the 1980's the catch cry in the financial and business circles was that, Greed was Good! The deliberate inversion of two of our basic civilizational cornerstones by those who could see money to be made from such a moral travesty should have sounded warnings from within our own financial sectors. Those who did rise up were drowned out in a cacophony of Bankers and Entrepreneurs who could sniff out the instant wealth to be made from their fellow man who were completely ignorant of economic matters concerning the giant Ponzi scheme then being hatched. Since abandoning the Gold Standard, finance houses have been lending money as if there was no end to its supply. By abandoning the Gold Standard we also abandoned any pretence in balancing our money supply, that is, we no longer held in reserve the capital via Gold Bullion with which to guarantee the money that was lent for housing, business and any other venture which could generate income for the Big Banks. As a result of no longer abiding by the Gold Standard we now find our government's borrowing huge sums of money from the World Bank with which to finance their welfare and other slave inducing programs which has taken our national debt levels to dangerously high amounts, amounts that may not be able to be repaid! While we must have the Big Banks in order to function as an economy, the accountability of the Big Banks has not been as it should have been and the Big Banks have taken advantage in every area of finance to capitalize on this lack of accountability. Bank profits are now at record highs and although this author has no problem with Banks making money on what they lend out, the Banks have been less than honorable in how they have lent that money and provide incentives to ordinary folk who would wish to save their hard earned money for a rainy day.

We are now witnessing the result of that lack of accountability in lending and business practices with Greek Banks now running out of money because those Banks failed to keep lending money to within their own means. The Greeks who have money in Greek Banks now realize that their money will soon disappear from their accounts if they don't act and remove it first.

It is only a matter of time before we see this happening here and in every other Western style nation that has embraced the lunatic policies associated with Socialist Democracy.

Be warned! Australia which was once a land of opportunity to those who chose to work hard and were prepared to take risks with business ventures, has now become a stagnant place where government now dictates the order of the day and has so much red tape in place that it now deters those risk takers and hard workers from even thinking about creating the wealth that this nation was once so proud to proclaim and which offered work to all those who wanted it.

It is now just a matter of time before the whole House of Cards that has become Western Democracy collapses in on itself. We are now seeing this in Greece with other nations to soon follow which will then engulf the European Union, including Britain. America is teetering on the abyss and only needs another 'stimulus package' or 'Quantitative Easing' part three, to push it over where it will never recover economically from. The next few years promise to be a wild ride, are you prepared?

On Breivik

We all know of the incident where the Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, slaughtered 69 young people on the pleasure island of Utoya, a short boat ride from the capital Oslo. Indeed, much has been written on blogs and in newspapers about this most heinous of events which can leave the casual reader in no doubt that Breivik is insane or at the very least, suffering some kind of mental illness.

But is Breivik mad? Does he really suffer from some kind of mental instability that could be attributed to his extreme actions in taking the lives of so many young people? And if he is not insane, as some Norwegian Psychiatrists are now arguing, what was his real purpose for carrying out this massacre?

We now know how meticulous Breivik was in his planning for the massacre when he had a diversionary explosion go off killing 8 people at a government office in Oslo around the same time as he started to hunt down and slaughter his 69 victims on Utoya. It was quite plain from this diversionary tactic that he did not want to be interrupted from what he was doing on Utoya. We now know of Breivik's manifesto of 1400 pages in which he lays the blame for his extremist actions on the Norwegian State and Socialism, which is - and to any thinking person who has not been tainted with Marxist ideals, causing the rapid disintegration of the Norwegian culture into a totalitarian state where thinking of any kind outside of socialist ideals is no longer tolerated. And here is an example of how this kind of thinking is now affecting Norway and its people: In any society or culture that still values its origins and future prospects as a viable community or nation, a montrous act like the one that Breivik committed would be deemed intolerable and the perpetrator dealt with quickly, legally, and then executed. No society calling itself tolerant and fair should be forced to tolerate the intolerable actions of a person who murders young people, especially in a cruel and unusual way just to bring attention to himself and to his cause, especially by arranging a show trial that is now in progress. A trial that is politically motivated to 'unearth' those perceived 'mentors' of Breivik, as mentioned in passing in his manifesto, and to cast them in the public eye as Aiders and Abettors in Breiviks crime. And a trial that may only award this monster 21 years maximum jail time for his particular affront to humanity.

There was only one killer on the day and that was Breivik. Whether he was physically aided and abetted by others who have yet to be caught remains pure speculation because at this time, there have been no other arrests. Breivik has admitted to his crimes, but does not admit to his guilt. And therein lies the rub, the sticking point in this farcical trial. Breivik planned this atrocity and then systematically went about personally executing 69 of his victims before being surrounded by police and then surrendering to them with the explicit wish of telling the 'world' why he did what he did.

There can be no doubt that Breivik is guilty of the crimes. He should be executed. In any culture that values its existence, Breivik would be done away with. He would not have been put on display in a show trial that is more concerned with attacking those the court deems as from the 'far right' politically and therefore partly responsible for what Breivik did. There is no common sense here, no logic of thought, no following for the rule of law as laid down, only ideological pandering to those who drive Norway's decline into a third world socialist Hellhole.

Is that why Breivik did what he did? There is a saying that for every action there is a reaction. One could also say; that for every act of left wing extremism expect an opposite act of right wing extremism. Breivik has stated that he is a Nationalist which has been quickly attacked by those who proudly proclaim Marx their hero as an admission of his right wing leaning. But those who have been quick to take up this mantra forget that nationalism can straddle both sides of politics. Nationalists have been noted Fascists such as Mussolini's Blackshirts and Franco's Spanish Fascists. Socialism has been involved in Germany's National Socialism and Russia's Soviet Socialism, all have failed and those who still think this way have now morphed into the softer sounding Social Democrats, or the more beguiling, 'Progressives'. Patriotism as nationalism, has now been denigrated by those Progressives as the new extremism which must be checked at all costs. Norway is now far down the path of communism, or socialism, whatever leftwing term of thinking you may wish to tag the country with. When young people congregate in large numbers outside a mass murderers jail, as they did in Norway a few weeks ago, and sing songs with which to admonish him, which is really just turning the other cheek because they wish to not be like the monster they were singing to, what future that nation?