There is always hope remaining when a brave politician points out the obvious – that a government overriding your individual property rights is an act of theft.
From Farm Weekly today (emphasis added):
QLD Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has condemned the rising amount of “green tape” holding back Australian farmers.
Senator Joyce will raise the issue during an address to the Rural Press Club of Victoria today.
He also plans to tell the gathering that rural Australia will never warm to the Greens as its new leader plans to stamp her leadership by trying to recover lost ground in rural electorates.
“Our side of politics believes that property rights actually mean something,” Senator Joyce told Fairfax Agricultural Media.
“If someone wants an asset I own they can offer me a price.
“If they can’t afford it then they should not be allowed to just steal it.
“The community may see it as their right to restrict the removal of trees but the community has not been prepared to pay for that right.
“If I were to steal property that I wanted but could not afford I would go to jail.
“I might have a very righteous reason to steal a car, perhaps I wanted to take elderly people to bingo night but I would still go to jail.
“And this can be done through a straight transfer of that asset to the government or via regulation that effectively divests you of that asset. “
Senator Joyce said regional Australia would never warm to the Greens because they have been the key drivers of a revolution in regulation via environmental laws over the past two decades.
It was a veiled reference to new Greens leader Senator Christine Milne’s plans to conduct a listening tour of regional Australia.
Senator Joyce said previously the environment was important and it had to be traded off against economic and social factors: “There was a triple-bottom line.”
But now the term environment has transformed into something that invokes omnipotence, “which you must not question”.
He said that was seen in many “ludicrous” examples of green tape now like farmers not being able to farm their own freehold land.
The ownership of trees has been taken off them without compensation and absurd requirements for vicarious environmental issues such as when the constructor of a dam had to fund $1.5 million in shark research to get their project approved, he said.
“It feels like you are living in a Kafka novel,” he said.
Senator Joyce said the productivity growth in agriculture had reversed over the past decade from being one of the strongest performing sectors to one of the poorest.
“A large part of that must be due to the encroachment of green tape which stops farmers from innovating to grow more at a cheaper cost,” he said.
“If we keep on the path we are going we will lose the opportunity to be Asia’s foodbowl.”
Regular readers know that there is far, far more to the story of the mining tax, and the knifing of popularly-elected PM Kevin Rudd, than what has been presented by politicians and the mainstream media.
Indeed, it is a veritable cesspool of international intrigue, plutocratic coercion and bribery, treason, and geopolitical manipulation.
So I am confident that many readers will, as I do, closely identify with the profound sense of frustration felt by all those who are awake to the far-reaching implications of the lies and deceit at the core of Australian politics; a frustration well enunciated here by Daily Telegraph writer Joe Hildebrand (h/t readers “Kevin Moore” and Twitter follower @Prronto for the link):
It became quite apparent that the journalist was trying to contact me. There had been two phone calls, and a text message, rather Alice-in-Wonderland-like, saying ”please call me”.
So, in respect of the public’s right to know, down the rabbit hole we went. She asked the question, ”Do you support your party’s baby bonus policy?” I will confess, I didn’t know what our baby bonus policy was or, rather more pointedly, didn’t know we had one. Ah, here lies the trap, I thought, there will be an article written about me: ”Barnaby unaware of Nationals baby bonus policy.”
I tried the usual political evasiveness. I told her that babies are wonderful, that they are our ”most important resource”, that the Nationals support, indeed have always supported, babies and, in particular, support those most inclined to have babies, women.
She then went on to tell me that our policy was to double the baby bonus.
That took me back a step, because the reality is that the original baby bonus, which was paid as a lump sum, was a ridiculous policy that caused immense damage.
Sending $5000, in a lump sum, to a household experiencing problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction, was not a solution but a disaster.
Last week, I visited areas where these social problems are quite apparent by the green cans adorned with two initials on the front lawns of indigenous housing in one of our most remote areas. No doubt the same problems exists in the non-indigenous areas of some of our urban centres.
The journalist accused me of mumbling and I was.
I was desperately, with the phone to my ear, trying to think where and when this policy came about.
Anyway, she had me. I was girding my loins for the inevitable banner.
However, the next day the banner didn’t decry my ignorance; in fact, it proclaimed my effusive endorsement with the headline: ”The big push for $10,000 baby bonus by Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce.”
The article went on to say that I had been pushing Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to double the baby bonus. I must admit this was news, especially to me.
Not at any time, sober or otherwise, have I ever broached the topic of doubling the baby bonus with Abbott, and there was certainly nothing that I had said to the journalist that could possibly be interpreted that I personally was pushing for it.
Editorials were written, it was time for me to be ”put back in a box”, which, on this topic, I had never crawled out of.
While I was sleeping, a poor Treasury clerk had been jerked out of the Holy Grail and sent to work to open Microsoft Excel and cost my policy, to which I remained happily oblivious.
Then, on the back of my presumed maternal benevolence, came a retinue of forthright condemnation by a whole bevy of media commentators, government ministers and colleagues of an idea that I never had. I was tempted to join the conga line myself: ”Barnaby condemns Joyce.” Later in the day, I did.
After putting out a statement denying that I had ever lobbied Abbott on doubling of the baby bonus, some emails from constituents who perhaps paid more attention to Insiders than to my media statement asked whether I had lost my marbles and why did I now advocate a doubling of the baby bonus.
The next day, despite my attempts to douse the flames created by my friendly incendiary scribe, I had to deal with the headlines that ”Joyce backflips on baby bonus position”, with a sneering incredulity on the subject of whether I had in fact lobbied Abbott to double the baby bonus.
Two days later, it was my ”apparent” position. Where did this story come from? I know the journalist is competent, so she would not have just made it up. It is highly unlikely she would have believed the Labor Party if it said I had been lobbying Abbott. So where did this credible source come from?
I have had curt exchanges via email with the journalist concerned, and even though we still ”adore” one another, we have decided not to talk to each other for a little while.
One widely popularised by warmageddonists, who have never conscientiously considered the simple truth spoken by Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”
In recent days, Wayne Swan has once again been loudly touting the latest IMF forecasts. He wants you to believe that what the IMF says, is somehow proof that the Australian economy under his management is doing great, and will do even better in 2012-13.
But there is a very interesting, little known fact about the way in which IMF forecasts are put together. One that every citizen should be aware of.
Here is the Unconventional Economist Leith van Onselen, who has previously worked for the Australian and Victorian Treasury departments:
Click to enlarge
So, pointing to an IMF forecast is really nothing more than a deceitful argumentum ad verecundiam put forward by dishonest politicians, who negotiate with the “authority” they appeal to concerning what that authority’s report/forecast will actually say!
Indeed, one only need read the latest IMF report to see that its forecasts for Australian growth are really nothing more than parroting of the government’s own wildly optimistic budget forecasts:
Click to enlarge
Remember this little piece of information.
Tuck it away near the front of your mind.
Ready and waiting for the next time you hear Wayne … or any politician … or journalist … appealing to a “report” by some Higher Authority like the IMF, or the World Bank, or the UN.
“(But) we have matched all of our expenditure with savings since mid-2009 – that’s the hard work of government.
No, that’s two lies in two sentences.
First, as we have seen previously ( Wayne’s “Per Cent Of GDP” Lies Debunked, Our Media In $140 Billion Lie For Wayne ), “our” total government revenues have actually gone up, by $23.67 billion in 2010-11 vs 2007-08 (pre-GFC). And for this year 2011-12, the government’s November ’11 forecast was for an increase in Total Revenue of $37.41 billion vs 2007-08. The truth is, the only thing that has been “hit”, is the Treasury department’s wildly exaggerated May Budget forecasts. You know … those grand annual smoke ‘n mirrors performances, where the Treasurer tells the nation what a great job he is going to do in the next year, using deceitful words that project an appearance that he has already achieved it … and then, never actually does it.
About Gillard’s second lie.
As we have also seen previously, the government’s Expenditure has blown out by a whopping $91.64 billion versus 2007-08. But in Gillard’s statement, she claimed that the ALP has “matched all of our expenditure with savings since mid-2009″.
Oh really?
In the 2009-10 financial year, the government spent $339.23 billion.
In the 2010-11 financial year, the government spent $356.1 billion.
And this year, the government most recently forecast that they will spend … wait for it … $371.74 billion.
So, they spent $16 billion more in 2010-11 than they did in 2009-10. And they expect to spend $31.58 billion more this year, than in 2009-10.
But Gillard claimed that Labor has “matched all of our expenditure with savings” since mid-2009?!
If we took her words 100% literally, we would rightly ask, “Ok, show us where you saved $356.1 billion in 2010-11 and $371.74 billion this year?”
But let us be generous.
Can Gillard show us where the government actually “saved” $16 billion in 2010-11, and $31.58 billion this year? That is, savings equivalent to the extra government spending in those years, versus the year she referenced, 2009-10?
Of course not!
The simple truth is, this government has spent more (borrowed) money, every single year since coming to power.
Far more.
And, they are bringing in more Total Revenue than ever before.
This government’s mode of lying about the budget is very simple.
Every claim they make about “falling” revenue, or “write-downs” to revenue, or “hits” to revenue, or revenues supposedly “lost” to “global economic turmoil” or “the floods” or this or that or the other, is a lie.
Actual government revenue in total, is UP. It is only “down”, or “lost”, by comparison to their wildly exaggerated annual May budget “forecasts”.
And every claim they make about government spending, is also a lie.
They are spending literally tens of billions more money now, four (4) years after the GFC, than any Australian government has ever spent.
Every statement uttered by this government about the budget, and its economic management, is a lie, distortion, or misdirection.
I have never witnessed a more corrupt, more blatantly and repeatedly dishonest pack of politicians in this country in my lifetime.
And I will certainly be watching the subsequent weekly episodes.
Following is an excerpt from a (Western) news article about the show.
I wonder how many eyes will be opened, and minds awakened, as a result of the opportunities Assange’s show will evidently bring. To observe the demeanour, and hear the perspective of those whose opinions and beliefs our media either ignore, or censor, or misreport.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday made his debut as a chat show host on a Kremlin-funded channel with a deliberately shocking choice of first guest — the leader of Hezbollah.
While still under house arrest in London, the founder of the whistle-blowing website spoke via video link to Hassan Nasrallah, whom both the United States and Israel consider a “terrorist.”
Russia aired the show, called “The World Tomorrow,” with fanfare on its international RT news channel.
The multi-lingual channel, which makes no secret of giving the Russian take on world affairs and has the slogan “Question More,” built up anticipation by promising the first guest would outrage many.
“I won’t be surprised if after the first show the hawks want not just to shut down Assange but us as well,” channel director Margarita Simonyan wrote on her Twitter account, while stressing the guest was Assange’s choice.
Your humble blogger recently sought legal advice from a prominent constitutional barrister, specifically concerning clauses 109A and 110 of the Clean Energy Act 2011.
Like the mortgage-backed derivatives that blew up the world financial system in the GFC, carbon-unit-backed derivatives are simply the next form of wholly unregulated, unmonitored, shadow banking artificial “money” creation that has had bankers licking their lips in anticipation from the moment the(ir) draft legislation was released:
14 July 2011, Business Spectator — Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.
Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market….
I have now been informed by the eminent barrister referred to above, that I am right.
If it is judicially accepted that the Clean Energy Act 2011 is a bill “imposing taxation”, then the two cleverly worded little clauses buried within 1,000+ pages of legislation that I have long identified as those that specifically allow the shadow banking industry to begin creating and trading (unlimited quantities of) carbon dioxide derivatives, are, in the barrister’s opinion, in breach of section 55 of the Constitution:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55
As we have seen previously, there are numerous other areas of the legislation whose constitutionality is highly questionable and thus contestable, under section 55 and other sections too.
Unfortunately, I am advised that private citizens have no legal standing to mount a challenge against the legislation in the High Court.
[EDIT: For the reason that private citizens are not directly subject to the legislation. This perhaps answers the question many have asked, as to why the government still refuses to release a definitive list naming who exactly are the "biggest polluters". If those who will have standing to challenge the legislation in the High Court do not have confirmed proof of this, it would appear that they could not prove legal standing in order to file an injunction to prevent the bankster scam starting up in the first place. Doubtless this key information will not be made known until after the government has sent out billions in "compensation" bribes to households in May, and parked $10 billion in the banksters' Clean Energy Finance corporation in such a way that it cannot be retrieved.]
Those in the best position to mount a legal challenge, who do have standing before the High Court, are the State governments.
Having campaigned heavily for our vote on the back of a solemn promise to “fight” the carbon tax if elected, Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman have now shown their true colours.
As two-faced standard bearers.
For the predatory, parasitic banking industry that they depend on to help finance their election campaigns, thanks to our rigged and decrepit system of governance that means political parties do not get their hands on the public cash in proportion to their share of the popular vote, until after the vote count has been determined at each election.
For a political leader to promise not to foist a predatory bankster scam on the public, and then do it, is an unforgivable crime against basic human decency and integrity, and, an unforgivable violation of public trust.
But to present yourself as a saviour, and plead for our vote with a promise to fight a predatory bankster scam, only to weasel out of actually doing anything to fight it once elected, is, in the firm opinion of this citizen blogger, a far worse crime.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that on this issue, Julia Gillard is arguably one rung higher from the bottom of the rancid sewer that is politicians’ “integrity”, than Barry O’Farrell, Campbell Newman, and any other politician who has deceitfully gained political capital by falsely presenting themselves as an opponent of and a fighter against the banksters’ CO2 derivatives scam.
UPDATE:
Speaking of constitutional expert Greg Craven, here’s an excerpt from a column he has written for The Australian today -
“MEAN” is never a good word. There are mean dogs, mean great-aunts and mean parking inspectors. They all bite professionally, and enjoy their work.
Take X-rated state election results. Kristina Keneally was the bad premier of a bad government, but the last act of public vengeance rivalling her defeat was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Anna Bligh was the fairish premier of a decrepit government, but she copped worse.
Federally, in terms of a normal electoral cycle, the Gillard government should now be contemplating whether a third term will be merely tough or downright heroic. Instead, ministers stockpile cyanide pills along with press releases.
It is easy to dismiss all this as the result of poor leadership, bad policy and weak personal hygiene. But the reality is that Australian politicians everywhere are now faced with a terminally jaded electorate, less inclined to pass judgment than automatic sentence of death…
#^&%(^$! oath.
UPDATE:
By Abbott’s own words, Liberal Party premier of NSW Barry O’Farrell and Liberal party premier of QLD Campbell Newman stand condemned.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Comments