You know those Liberal Party state opposition leaders, who promised to fight the carbon tax if only you would elect them premier?
As predicted here on this blog, they are all talk, no action, when it comes to actually fighting the bankers’ CO2 derivatives scam, despite plenty of expert legal advice that there are solid grounds to challenge the legislation in the High Court.
From the Age (emphasis added):
NSW drops carbon tax challenge
THE passage of the carbon tax has received a boost, with legal advice to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell suggesting that a High Court challenge to block the tax would fail.
On Friday, Mr O’Farrell said NSW would consider joining a potential bid by Queensland to block the July 1 implementation of the carbon tax in the courts.
Note well: O’Farrell’s original, loud and oft-repeated pre-election promise was not conditional on having another State premier to hold his hand.
But The Sun-Herald understands Mr O’Farrell has already abandoned any thought of leading an assault on the Gillard government. Sources confirmed advice had come back that a legal challenge would be likely to fail in proving the carbon tax was unconstitutional.
So, advice that you are “likely” to fail is sufficient reason to not fulfill your pre-election promise, hey Bazza? Sounds like a convenient excuse from a twisting and turning liar to me.
Mr O’Farrell has made political mileage out of the carbon tax since it was announced. Last week, the NSW Energy Minister, Chris Hartcher, blamed the upcoming impost for the 16 per cent electricity price rises approved by the independent pricing regulator.
The reluctance of NSW to challenge the controversial tax is likely to slow momentum for a High Court bid. Victoria, like NSW, has said it would consider joining a Queensland bid.
The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, has stated publicly that his advice is that a bid would fail. The Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, said he would not act without at least one other state with him in alliance.
The fix is in.
Unsurprising. And just what this blogger predicted.
Because when all the major political parties are beholden for the loans they need to run their election campaigns, to the banksters who are behind the global drive for a new, legal, yet wholly unregulated, unmonitored CO2 derivatives casino, you know in advance what the outcome will be.
Know thy real enemy.
Barnaby Is Right 
What would be most interesting is just where did this “likely to fail” advice come from?
Yes very disappointing stuff. The advice from lawyers on this issue seems to be split, so that tells me a challenge is worth a shot. Remember Bowen said the Government had “strong legal basis” for their Malaysian deal, and look how that turned out. Looks like Campbell Newman is the last hope of the side.
No, I suspect Clive Palmer is the last hope of the side. Campbell Newman has also intimated that he would want co-support from other states to spread the legal costs. With no other states coming to the party, he has his “out” as well.
http://chadlelliott.com/quotes/money-quotes
“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again… Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1928 – 1941.
Kevin, a bank monetises debt, that what banks have always done. That is in itself NOT “the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented”.
Where the sleight of hand comes in is where the banks monetise bad debt & are then given the protection to continue to monetise bad debt, by the GOVERNMENT. If you don’t like that, what are you going to do, take the government to court?
Note that your quote was from Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England. The Bank of England is the government bank, always has been, since 1650, or thereabouts.
I should add; Why does the government give its protection to banks monetising bad debt? Because banks are able to monetise the debt of the government, the worst debt of all. Government debt is JUNK.
“The rich ruleth over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender”
http://truthintaxation.us/?tax_inform=whereTaxesGo
The IMF was created at the United Nations Monetary and Financial conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 12, 1944. Per Title 22, Section 286 U.S. Code, the U.S. became an IMF member in 1945.
Standring followed checks naming the IRS as the payee. He claims the checks go to a Federal Reserve bank, a private banking institution that has never been audited. The money then goes to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and is deposited into what is called a “Quad Zero” account. It is from this account that IRS tax refunds are distributed (per 22 USC 286 and 31 CFR 11, section 214.7).
According to Standring’s research, whatever is left over is then transferred to the IMF. From there the money is redistributed among countries throughout the world—including the U.S.—in the form of loans. These loans must then be paid back to IMF bankers at interest.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt, Americans were in the red $1.663 trillion in 1984. Twenty years later the debt has increased nearly five-fold to $7.1 trillion.
Inferences
1.Government waste is no secret.
2.In 1984 the Grace Commission accurately predicted $multi-trillion government debt by 2000.
3.The IMF, not the American people, is funding the operations of government through loan capital it receives, in part, through taxation of Americans’ wages.
4.With every dollar paid to the IRS in taxes, America’s debt to the IMF increases—with interest.
5.Paying wage taxes supports global banking, not the U.S. government or Americans.
What about schools and roads?
Schools, roads and bridges are not funded by income taxes at all. Property taxes fund schools; roads and bridges are funded by gas taxes; airports, sewer and water systems are funded by user fees.
Why would not lawyers create doubt on the success of a challenge to CO2 tax. After all many of them are in a position to partake in the potential trading, along with investment bankers. Many judges fall into the same category. There are a few honest ones but finding them is like buying a lottery ticket. You can never be certain until you are committed in court, which can be very expensive. Take it from one who bas been there and done that, albeit in a small way
Spot on Geoff. My own thoughts exactly.
Swan may get help from working families rather than going to the Banks for his next big loan.
I recently heard Swan patting himself/Gillard government on the back for their handling of the GFC, and actually stated…slipped.. that the Super funds were a major factor in our soft landing from the GFC.
One has to realise the reality of this in that if we bailed out the “banks” and the government, noting the massive profits obtained since the GFC, when are the contributers to the super funds going to be compensated… repaid with interest for the “loan” of their super???
Considering government’s attitude to the super funds, how long will it be before the “guilded carrot” of the $1.3 trillion dollar currently available will be “spirited away” for nefarious uses???
We also need to be very concerned as to the creation of the National Disability Insurance fund.
Source for above –
http://www.sosnews.org/
What can I say other than that this is very disappointing, but as TBI points out, not at all surprising. This will not end well.