Jacob's Soap Box

4 March, 2010

The mere mention of the word “Mossad” immediately ignites the imagination and with good reasons. In fact to many, particular those who know little about it, the Mossad has become a legend, a story in which the fiction tend exceed facts.

The recent assassination in Dubai of Mahmud Mabhouh, a founder and a senior commander in Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades (the military branch of the Hamas) is an example.

The media, right around the world, was quick to point a finger at the Mossad, even before the Dubai police came up with, by now well publicised, an EDITED CCTV footage, allegedly depicting the Mossad agents movements, before and after the assassination, but not glimpse of “during”.

Israeli response was no different than its normal response as to alleged activity of the Mossad, “neither confirm nor deny”, a response you would expect of any government when asked about covert activities of their own security services.

Irrespective of whether this particular mission was carried out by the Mossad or not, it serves Israel’s interest to have the suspicion casted on the Mossad. Israel’s policy of “targeted elimination” ,as they call it,  intended to disrupt the operation of the terrorists, particularly their leadership ability to move freely. It serves Israel’s purpose that they all feel targeted, irrespective of whether they are or not.

True, initially this killing, at least on the face of it, seem to have the Mossad’s fingerprints all over it, but the more information comes out of Dubai AND if indeed that information is correct, a BIG IF, it looks less and less a Mossad operation.

Firstly, there is NO WAY under the sun that the Mossad (or the CIA or MI-5 or ASIO or any other competent security organisation for that matter) would send 27 agents into an Arab country on a covert mission, not even to capture or kill Bin Laden, NO WAY! 27 agents in a small place like Dubai is not a covert mission, it is a traffic jam.

Secondly, there is no way that any covert agents will stay back in Dubai for TWO DAYS after the mission was accomplished,  thereby tremendously increase the risk of being captured, it is sheer madness. One may argue that it was necessary to keep some agents back because the need to spread the departure of 27 operatives, but that only serve as one of the reasons why no one in his right mind would ever send 27 operatives on a covert mission.

(There is the more plausible possibility that there were 27 passports used by a much smaller team, but is not what the Dubai Police is saying.)

Thirdly, two of the agents (with Aussie passports) were reported leaving Dubai by a ferry to Bandar Abas (Iran) and travelled by land to Teheran to take a flight out. This is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, Alice In Wonderland stuff!

A quick Google search reveals that indeed there is the only one ferry service from UEA and it goes to Iranian ports. The World Travel Guide Website also says about this service:

Ferry services operate to ports in Iran from Sharjah, although these are not recommended for tourists and timetables are erratic.

[Highlights are mine]

Would you plan evacuation of agents, not only via Iran, but also on a an erratic timetable when there are less risky routes such as crossing by land over to a less hostile country and flying from there?

The apparent concentration of the Dubai Police on Israel in a complete exclusion of any other scenario, points only to two possibilities: 1. Incompetence 2. Prior knowledge, or at least more knowledge than they (the Dubai Police) are willing to devalue.

According to the Israeli Debka Files (Hebrew) website, that has proven itself as reliable source when it comes to Israeli security, The Dubai Police has no single piece of evidence that can identify the perpetrators.

Repeating (Israeli) intelligence and anti-terror sources, the Debka Files says that the Dubai Chief of the Police, Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Al Tamim, that they found the assassins’ DNA and fingerprints taken from Mabhouh’s room, but not in their own rooms, is strange to say the least. And even if he has such DNA and fingerprints, the sources say, it is utterly useless without a database to match such fingerprints and DNA.

I would add that if indeed, the perpetrators left DNA and fingerprints behind, it is not theirs own but intended to send the Dubai Police into a wild goose chase, apparently successfully so.

Much was said in the media about the speed in which the Dubai Police came up with CCTV footage, and the apparent oblivious attitude of the team to the security CCTV cameras. Some Israel haters went as far as citing that as a “proof” of the agents “incompetence”.

Not so, say the Debka sources, the team, according to them, had shown high electronic sophistication evident by their ability to enter Mabhouh’s room by electronically overcoming the security lock and latching the inside door bolt from outside the room ON CAMERA.

But, there is 19 minutes gap (between 8:24pm and 8:43pm) in the CCTV footage, the presume time of when the assassination took place. This indicates that the team in fact had the equipment to control the security cameras of the hotel and what is shown was only what the team wanted shown.

The reason, according to the Debka sources, is that whoever carry out that operation WANTED to show their ability to penetrate secured areas, even when it is secured by CCTV, anywhere in the middle east. In any event, the “terminators” were disguised from head to toe making the footage is useless for the purpose of identifying them.

If you look at the video on my site, towards the end, the woman is seen looking at the camera with a smile.

* * * * *

All that is not necessarily a proof that Israel was not involved in the assassination but it certainly shows that the information that comes out of Dubai is anything but a proof that it was a Mossad operation, No identities, no method, no murder weapon, no idea how they got into the room, nothing!

The question is Why? Is it just a populous claim, or is it a purposeful “engineering” of facts and there is more behind the “proofs” that came out? The answer is open to conjecture, your guess is as good as mine but I’ll give it a shot.

So far the only link to Israel lays in the forged passports the perpetrators said to have used. 15 of which bore the names of known Israeli citizens with dual nationality, living in Israel.

On the one hand, if it was the Mossad, it makes sense that it “borrow” identities of real people, people who are, for certain, not using their passport during the operation. One can assume that the Mossad has the ability to detect, through border control records when such person leaves Israel, thus may be using his or her non-Israeli passport, and warn its agents do dump such  identity. The question remains how the Mossad got the details of such passports.

Indeed Israel permits it citizen to have dual nationality, but the foreign nationality of an Israelis with dual nationality is null and void (by Israeli law) once the person is in Israel , they are Israeli citizens and only Israeli citizens, for all intent and purposes. I know, I am one such a person.

By law, Israeli citizens, must enter and leave Israel on their Israeli passports and at no time they are required to produce their foreign passports, Never, except when they enter Israel for the first time as “olim” (immigrants) and during their naturalisation process — yes it is a possibility but only if these people still holding the same passport they naturalised on, I don’t know if this is in fact the case here.

I can tell you with certainty, that in 35 years of having dual nationality, I have never been asked to produce my Australian passport in Israel, or my Israeli passport in Australia, for that matter.

But, passport details are held on many computers, other than immigration; travel agents, airlines, hotels, banks, you name it. Any competent security agency, not only the Mossad, has the capability of braking into such computers and pulling out such passports details. Is there another common denominators to all those passports?

Further many counties, but not Israel or Australia, require arriving passengers to declare ALL their nationalities, if they have more than one. Indonesia is one I am aware of (still I was not require to produce the passport I was not entering on).

In any event the speed in which these forged passport were traced into Israel, raise questions, at least.

Yet, as soon as it transpired that three of the forged passports are Australian, our illustrious Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister, paraded the Israeli ambassador in front of the waiting media into the Foreign Minister’s Office for “an explanation”. It could not have come at a better time for uncle Kev who was up to his eyeballs in a domestic scandal and it gave him a media respite.

“This is not an action of a friend” said the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, revealing his conversation with the Israeli Ambassador, “I am not satisfied with Israel’s explanation” said the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, as if he got any explanation. There was no question in their mind, or so they gave the impression, that indeed it is the Mossad who forged the Australian passports, as the PM publicly dispatch the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to Israel to “investigate”.

(As earlier explained, the people in questions, by Israeli law, are Israeli citizen only, thus the government of Israel has the powers to prevent its citizens from being questioned by a foreign country — Israel did not take such action on this instance in a stark difference when, a few years back,  Israel was prevented from interviewing Australians with dual Israeli citizens. It was when Mr. John Howard was a PM and I doubt that he would have sent the AFP to Israel on such useless mission, but I am digressing).

The Australian mission to the UN was instructed to change Australia’s vote on the Goldstone report from “against” to “abstain” despite the fact that just a few weeks back Australia had voted “against” on a similar resolution.  It was also quite a departure from Australia’s usual pattern vote in unison with the USA on Middle East issues.

Naturally, the DFAT (Dept Of Foreign Affairs and Trade) denied that the vote was a punishment of Israel. Australia is one of the few avid friends Israel has, that has been true irrespective of the colour of our governments since the inception of Israel, thus if this vote was not “a punishment”, it represents a marked departure from an Australian long term standing policy.

It is no secret that Kevin Rudd is trying to get Australia a seat on the Security Council in the next rotation, it is also no secret that Mr. Kevin Rudd has personal aspiration for a UN high position (Secretary General, has been suggested) both which can only be achieved  with the support of the None Aligned Movement (NAM) bloc in the UN, which in turn is controlled by the  Organisation Of Islamic Conference (IOC) block, do you get the picture?

(You may care to get further information as to how the UN works in here.)

Whilst our foreign Minister says that “this was not an act of a friend” (or words to that affect) and the Australian abstention in the UN was not a “punishment”, what was it then? An act of a friend? Well Mr. Smith, with friends like you who needs enemies.

And … it had to come. Our version of the New York Time, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that ASIO (The Australian Security Organisation) is investigating Australian with dual Israeli citizenship. Quoting the AAP the Sydney Morning Herald said that:

ASIO began investigating dual Australian-Israeli citizens suspected of spying for Israel well before last month’s assassination of the Hamas operative Mahmud al-Mabhuh, intelligence sources say.

Give me a break!

I would be surprised if there are more than 15,000 Australian citizens with dual Israeli nationality living in Australia (the question is not asked in the census, not that I recall). Let us see; how does that stuck with the “M-word” on our lefty media? For crying out loud, there are probably twice that number of Australians with dual Lebanese nationality in our jails, but they are not Muslims, just “persons with Middle East appearance”.

* * * * *

And finally, back to Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Al Tamim, the Chief of the Dubai Police; according to the New York Time blog of 2 March, 2010 the generals said  that

It is easy for us to identify [Israelis], through their face or when they speak any other language.

By their look general? I was born in Israel and I can’t do it! Israeli can be black (Ethiopian Jews), with a Scandinavian look and all in between, you must have some extra-perceptional abilities, sir.

True, I can generally pick up an Israelis when they speak English but only native Israelis, not those who immigrated into Israel. My ability to do it, as most native Israelis, comes from years being with NATIVE Israelis, we surely have a distinctive accent but it mostly taken as French (from my experience) for some reason, except for those people who spend a lot of time amongst NATIVE Israelis.

What is you reason sir? Where and when did you acquired that ability general? Hmmmm, food for thoughts, isn’t it?

© Copyright: Jacob Klamer 2010 – All rights reserved.

10 October, 2009

We made it, our trendies and left wing whackos has managed to draw the world attention and copy-cat the American Marxists activism with a “proof” that Australia is an evil country and all Australians are a bunch of racists.

It started with TV show, resurrected from memory lane of the 1980’s and … oy-vei included a parody on the Jackson Fives and Michael Jackson, played by … get that! White people who painted their fact black.

The PC brigade shouted to high heaven “gotcha!” demanding apologies on behalf of people who really don’t live here and more important, could not care less. A member of the Jackson family said that they did not find the parody offensive but who cares? The PC brigade pushed on anyway.

The so-called international traction has been exaggerated by our narcissist media, but the issue apparently got some traction in America.

The matter was raised on the “Culture Warriors” segment the Fox’s O’Reilly Factor with Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. Whilst Bill O’Reilly saw it for what it was, Australian having fun, both ms. Hoover and Ms. Carlson demonstrated their utter ignorance, which caught me by surprise – not the ignorance part but the fact that both ladies expressed opinion without any real facts or understanding of out culture to back their opinion, or making up the facts to support their opinion. The verdict of most Australians was a yawn.

Watch the part that starts at about 3:35 minutes into the clip

Ms. Hoover:

Australia is a little bit behind the US insofar as has human rights is concerned …

She then continues and talk about the white Australian policy (that was finished in the 1960’s not in 1973 as Hoover claimed) and brought in our “issues with Aboriginal culture and integration of Aboriginal culture” and therefore, she concluded that Australia is racist and behind on human rights as she put it.

For crying out loud, we are talking about a short segment of a TV show, in poor taste some will say, yet Ms. Hoover (with the active support of Ms. Carlson) had no qualm vilify a whole nation. This is when the TV show itself stops from being an issue.

Let us start with white Australia policy (it was not a law, Ms. Hoover) that had its root in the beginning of the last century as it sought to limit Asian immigration viz-a-viz Europeans for demographic reasons. whether you agree with the motives for the policy or not, it had nothing to do racism and indeed Asians who had come to Australia during our gold rush were not affected by the policy.

White Australia policy had nothing to do with the Aboriginal people, nothing! Nada! Gurnischt! tipota!

As to Australia being a “little bit behind the US” let me remind Ms. Hoover and Ms. Carlson that Australia has never had neither slavery nor segregation against Aborigines, Asians or anyone else for that matter, either by law or by custom, NEVER! Asian who had come to Australia during the gold rush were totally unaffected by the policy.

The issue here is not racism, human rights or even human rights comparisons between Australia and the USA, the issue is purely a demonstration of political correctness by stupid individuals.

If political correctness is the yardstick for our human rights progress or otherwise, I am surely glad that Australia stayed behind.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009.

02 October, 2009

Last week we saw one of the most frightening exposition of the end of our individual (respective) national sovereignties as we have been accustom to know it. Last week was the watershed in what our politicians often refer to as “the journey” towards global governance. Call me “scare monger” or “conspiracy theorist” if you wish but I am here neither to scare you nor to advocate a conspiracy theory, I merely seek to highlight certain facts that are unfolding right in front of our eyes and ears and propose their significance, as I see it.

But first let me explain, global governance is not the same as global government. Global government refers to the establishment of one world-wide government, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations (or a similar organisation yet to be established), that would govern the whole world as if it was one single country. Although there are some who aspire to it, world government is not going to happen, not without a lot of bloodshed anyway.

On the other hand global governance is the action of governing under common global set of rules. Instead of blue helmets “policemen” and Black Hawk helicopters with blue UN emblem enforcing the rules of a global tyrant, under global governance, our own, friendly (or not), policemen and women will continue enforce the laws of the land, except that increasingly the laws of the land will be the laws of the globe and will come from a global governance bodies such as the UN and its agencies, proposed and drafted by faceless UN bureaucrats and rubberstamped largely by Non-Aligned Movement’s countries who hold the majority voting power in the UN.

Those of us who live under democracy will still have democracy of sort, we shall continue to vote for our respective national democratic institutions except that those institutions will be subservient to the global governance body. In other words our national governments of the future, in time, will have as much powers as the current federal powers of your local municipal council, the powers given to it by Agenda 21, more about Agenda 21 later.

Within a week, the week ended on 28September, 2009, we saw the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change in New-York (Sept 22), the United Nations Security Council Meeting (25 September,2009, chaired by president Obama, the general debate of the opening of the 64^th session of the General Assembly of the United Nation in New-York (on 23-28 September,2009) and the Pittsburgh G20 Partnership Meeting (on 24-28 September, 2009). Whilst none of these events, in themselves, are anything new, apart from a lot of symbolism, it was the first time that leaders of the western democracies not only spoke in such unison on all raised issues BUT the all push the “Global” part above the interest of their own countries.

Our so-called leaders went to New-York and Pittsburgh to represent us, one would assume, but instead they ended up pushing their own global governance agenda through climate change, G20 or straight out UN speak, here are some example:

Barack Obama in a speech to General Assembly, highlights provided:

We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

He later said:

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Go and tell the brainless idiot Marxists anti-globalisation protestors in Pittsburgh that their Messiah and their activists professors are the champion of globalisation, but hey why lets some pesky fact spoil a good anti capitalists demonstration, beside, who said that riots need have a good reason?

And our illustrious Prime Minister Kevin Rudd aka Kevin747 was at his besting terms of laying grounds for his next job, he said to the very same forum:

And it is on the current challenges facing the global order that I wish to speak to this 64th General Assembly today – the global financial crisis, the unfinished business of the Doha Round, the unfolding crisis of the planet itself, the unresolved question of nuclear weapons 20 years after the end of the Cold War – and of the future of global governance itself.

Dear Kevin, he does not mince his words, does he? He continued:

And a wake-up call that our system of global governance today is in radical need of reform.

You see, to Mr. Rudd, global governance is already in here, all it needs is a radical reform, is that the same person who had told the Australian voters the he, Kevin 07, has plans for Australia? I do not recall any mention of making Australia governed from New-York.

Indeed, in certain aspect global governance is already with us, it has been here for some thirty years, just look at all conventions, declarations, charters, protocol and other euphemisms for RULES, coming down from the UN and ratified by our respective governments under our noses.

Whilst you and I been busy labouring to put roofs over our respective families, and food on our tables, the people who we elected and TRUSTED to protect our interests we busy scheming amongst themselves to bring us a global governance by stealth.

Take a look at some examples, The Lima Declaration of 1975, states, inter alia:

[Solemnly declare] their resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; [para 25]

And

That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis; [para 27]

In other words, we “particularly the developed countries”, must hand our production to under-developed countries. Why? Because we, the developed country are evil and must pay for our sins – nothing about the billions of aid money that was squandered by corrupt leaders, nothing, no one talks about it because they are VICTIMS.

Then we have The Rio Declaration which is part of Agenda 21, documents that, irrespective of our sovereign laws, mandates local government and NON-GOVERNMENTAL organisations (NGO’s) an official status not only in relation to environmental legislation but also, the use of the environment as an excuse for all left wing doctrines – indeed a masterpiece of left wing activism, here are some examples (from the Rio declaration):

Principle 20

Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21

The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23

The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24

Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

[Highlights provided]

And we had thought that looking after the environment means to ensure clean air, clean water and rain forests. Oh no! Agenda 21 makes it clear that just about any left wing activist can become a police officer.

When your local council require an environmental impact study before it approve your car port, say Agenda 21, when you council declare you town Nuclear Free Zone, say Agenda 21, when your council put up signes calling for the protection of the Tasmanian rain forest, say Agenda 21 – in fact when you council involves itself with issues outside its boundaries chances are that it is Agenda 21.

Charity organisations such as Oxfam or World Vision, supposedly established in order to assist the needy in poor countries (but not in their own for some reason) are getting vocally involved in issues such as global warming or join in condemning Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force, say Agenda 21 – You see my friends, the misery industry, just as the watermelon environmentalism, green on the outside and red on the inside.

The way it works is that the UN organises a convention on the issue, the UN bureaucrats, most come from under-developed countries, who prepare the final outcome and name it as a convention, protocol, declaration, agenda or whatever, it automatically passed by two third majority of the so-called non-aligned bloc with 113 votes of which about Half (56) are also members of the Organisation Of The Islamic Conference (IOC) and now you have it a “UN resolution” that your government rash to ratify as a good global citizen – It is for your own good, even the UN said so ….. hmmm hmmm hmmm.

I am sick and tired hearing politicians using “other countries” excuse as if the monopoly on wisdom lay in other countries – I like it here as it is, thank you very much but when I see politicians from all over the world using the same speak about global governance I get frightened.

whose side are they on?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, 2009

26 July, 2009

I must confess, I got it wrong, it seemed a good idea at the time, but it turned out like all other ideologies, WRONG!!! I am talking about the ideology of free trade, the philosophy that says that it generate wealth to all that practice it. As it turned out it does not!

The principle of free trade is simple, if I can grow tomatoes better (more efficiently, as economists say) then my next door farmer, who in turn can grow cucumbers better then I do, then we are both better off by I growing all the tomatoes and my next door neighbour growing all the cucumbers and we trade tomatoes for cucumbers between us. In this way we each get better products all around.

In real life, more efficient usually means cheaper, we all agree that if we produce widgets here for say, $4.00 a piece and the Chinese produce them for 10 cents each, it is a prima facie evidence that, the Chinese are more efficient in producing widgets thus we should stop making them, buy all our widgets from the Chinese and concentrate on producing something that we are more efficient at, say gismos, sell them to China and we would all be better off for it, or would we?

Let us pause and look at the “efficiency” again, suppose our workers produce 10 widgets per hour and a Chinese worker can manage only 2 widgets per hour, wouldn’t you say that our workers are more efficient then the Chinese? On this example, of course they are! So you can see that “cheaper” is not always synonym with more efficient, here is why;

If our widget wage costs (actual wage paid to workers and on-costs) amounts to $40.00 per hour whiles a Chinese worker equivalent cost is only $2.00 per 10 hours day,  the vast gap in wage costs completely obscures our advantage in terms of efficiency.

Therefore, we get rid of our workers and produce all our widgets in China albeit it would take five times the number of Chinese workers to produce the same number of widgets.

And in order to further obfuscate the treachery to our more workers we use the euphemism outsourcing. Hey man, you are not sucked, you are just outsourced. (How strange, you never hear of outsourcing the CEO’s of large corporation, do you?)

Further, in order to ensure that outsourcing is REALLY successful, the free traders call on our governments to remove all import duty our forefathers put in place for the very reason of protecting jobs. They even go as far as demonise the word “protection” as a dirty word, something to be avoided at all costs. No politician OF EITHER SIDES, wish to be called “protectionist”, oh no! As if protecting our jobs is the wrong thing to do.

Whose side these people are on?

And so we are handing over our manufacturing expertise to under-developed nations, lock stock and barrel, some of whom don’t even like us. We are quickly reaching the point that whole sections of manufacturing industries are disappearing from our local landscape. What is going to replace lost employment in apparel, steel mills and food canneries that disappeared in recent years?

The economic rationale of free trade implies that everybody has some comparative advantage whereas we may not be as good as say the Chinese at making widgets but are really good in making gizmos, so we let the Chinese make all the widgets and we make all the gizmos … but wait, it has not worked like that at all. What in fact has happened is that, China is making BOTH widgets and gizmos.

Slowly and not so slowly we see that the emerging economies, (a euphemism for China and India) China in particular, are taking over sector after sector of our manufacturing industries, it is like slicing a salami- every day a small slice of our manufacturing industry is carved away without any impact until we wake up one day and realise that the salami  has gone.

Few of us ask where does this jobs destruction lead us get the standard spin is that we do not need manufacturing industry to prosper, we can still prosper by being a service economy .  It make no sense whatsoever we cannot produce wealth by producing nothing.

Serving each other drinks and making each others’ beds is not an economy!

One day we shall wake up, not only with no factories and with no manufacturing expertise, then what?

The Chinese will have us by the sort and curly and they will pull, have no doubt about it!

* * * * *

All ideologies, euphemisms and spins do not change one fact and that is that CHINA IS A TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRY. All the Western democracies would be better advised to take this fact into account when dealing with China before we hand over our manufacturing industry.

Whilst we all pontificating on the merits or otherwise of free trade China is forging forward, not by reciprocating our free trade but by practicing protectionism – the Chinese current import duty tariffs may not be high but don’t let it fools you, the Chinese government has achieved protectionism by other means, not the least their by tight control over EXCHANGE RATES, foreign currency restrictions and other administrative and bureaucratic limitations and control, all aim at supporting their emerging economy not ours.

Since 1984, the Renminbi (China’s people’s currency) has been devalued by 200%. This is as “good” as having across the board tariff of 200% increase on all imports at the time when our tariffs are for Chinese products coming down.

Further the Renminbi is not a readily convertible currency. Traditionally Chinese citizen could not receive allocation of foreign currency for imports, unless they had earned foreign exchange in previous exports. (These restrictions have somewhat relaxed in recent times due to large foreign currency reserves accumulated in recent years.)

As you can see, China’s current wealths is a combine result of sever protectionism on their side and the free trade ideology on our side.

In fact China approach is not unique, all historical economic empires were built on the foundation of protectionism, or mercantilism as it was known years ago. England’s Navigation Act of 1651 reserved all English trade, including to, from and between its colonies to be carried only by English ships (or ships owned by English nationals). The Corn Laws of 1815 that prohibited importing grain into England at a price less than 80 shillings per quarter (28 pounds) are some of such examples of protectionism going back to the 19^th century.

Britain before 1846 (when the Corn Laws were repealed), the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan of after WWII and Australia till the 1970’s all developed their economies on a foundation of protectionism.

If free trade is best for nations, how is it that every modern state that rose to prominent and power …. Was protectionist?

Asks Pat Buchanan rhetorically in his book Day Of Reckoning and continues to cite that

All four presidents on Mount Rushmore – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt – were economic nationalists.

[- pp 195]

The apparent discrepancy in the benefits of free trade is simple to explain, free trade is beneficial to both parties ONLY when it is practised between nations of similar standard of living.

There are many examples that prove this hypothesis, not the least the free trades among the states in the USA, Australia, and the EU, as well as our free trade with New Zealand albeit we are competitors on many products when it comes to international trade.

A recent survey done in Australia, has shown that about 80% of shopper SAYING that they prefer Australian products over overseas’ even if it costs more BUT when it comes to action, only about 20%  of shoppers actually put their money where their mouth is.

I suspect that the situation in America and other western democracies is similar. Come on people, put you money where your mouth is, use it or loose it!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

15 July, 2009

The G-8 Plus meeting in L’Aquila, Italy has finished with the usual pre-scripted, tears generating worded declarations which can be summed up along these lines:

We, the one who know best, [rubbing of hairy chests] agree that global problems require global solutions and regardless of what the people who elected us think about [insert issue here] and about spending their money are going spend it on their behalf anyway and by the tonne.

Much of the time and media management (i.e. propaganda) of this charade was devoted to Climate Change, a euphemism for Global Warming, that is much like the tale about Herscheleh from Ostropol, a fictitious folkloristic Jewish comedian, prankster and village idiot figure in !8^th century Eastern Europe:

One early morning, just before dawn, as the folks were on their way to the synagogue for the Shaharit (early morning payer) they notice Herscheleh under the lamp post, circling the post scanning the ground.

“Herschel” said the rabbi “What on earth are you doing here this time of the morning?”

“I lost my key” replied Herscheleh

“Where did you lose it?” inquire the rabbi

“There” said Herscheleh pointing into the darkness away from the light of the lamp post.

“So why are looking for you key in here if you lost it there”? persisted the rabbi with a puzzle.

“Because the light is here Rabbi, not there” replied Herschel with a smug.

The same goes for the leaders of G-8, the eight largest economies in the world, are all in deep economic disarray which they have no idea as to how to get out of it, using climate change as a decoy away from their incompetence.

The G-8 Plus (some of the G-20) leaders declared amongst other things that they

[R]ecognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. [highlight added]

Scientific view, what is it? Science does not have views, sciences has hypotheses which are either proven, disproven or remained unproven. Views express by scientists are only views and are as valid as anyone else’s view, there is nothing scientific about a scientists’ views.

Don’t let them (the scare mongers) fool you, it is not the first time, and probably not the last time, that politicians use science as a fig leaf. We all remember Al Gore’s proclamation that “the science has been settled” and global warming is has been proven by “a scientific consensus” placing science on par with beauty pageant as to picking winners.

Science is never settled and it is not about consensus, science is about selecting hypotheses and proving them (or not). ask Copernicus and Galileo Galilei who, contrary to massive scientific (and theological) consensus, risked their lives and disproved geocentricism. Had science been about consensus, who knows, we may gave still be walking this earth believing that it is flat and that we are the centre of universe.

One can imagine the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Geocentricism warning us of the danger paused by people such as Copernicus and Gallie.

The “science” of global warming is based on two mutual inclusive hypotheses (meaning BOTH must exist) and they are that the increase in CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is THE CAUSE for global warming of the planet AND that the increase in CO₂ is cause by human activities (anthropogenic).

The facts of the matter are that NONE of these hypotheses have been scientifically proven!

Bear in mind, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is 350ppm (parts per million), compare it to a teaspoon of sugar in a standard glass at about 2,500ppm. More important the so-called “carbon pollution” is only 4% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (14ppm).

So what are we talking about? Nothing, nada, tipota, gurnischt! BUT the echophiles always come up with escaper route and their escape route is something called the Precautionary Principle, another non-scientific PC term which is neither precautionary nor a scientific.

Under the pretence of science those echophiles tell although we don’t really know what cause global warming we better pretend and behave as if it is manmade carbon dioxide just in case (JIC).

Absolute crap! We already have scientific (mathematical) tools to deal with decision making under uncertainty, it is the Mathematical branch of Operations Research that deals with such questions.

For example Operations Research is used to determine how many bank tellers or supermarket checkout will be setup given a the pattern of the demand for the service and acceptable level of customer queues. The Bank or the Supermarket does not construct 500 service point just in case a one time unusual demend.

BUT, Operations Resreach is based on sound mathematical rules not some eco-whacko furphies such as the “science” of global warming.

Do you really want to use Precautionary Theory? Fine, go right ahead; lets see: Helmet, sky-divers suit, parachute and ejecting seat for every airline passenger, JIC; mandatory crush helmet and fire suit installed in every family car for every passenger, JIC; a man with a red flag in front of every car (with phosphorous vest and a hard hat), JIC … I guess that you get the idea.

Use the precautionary principle argument when you run out valid arguments for your case.

* * * * *

The last two counties to fall to the global warming hoax was Australia (in November 2007) and the USA (in January 2009). We now have almost a global unanimity on the issue among almost all politicians of all persuasions which is frightening – To me it is a true conspiracy even if I am not one who for conspiracies.

If you think that “conspiracy” is too stronger word for it how about reading of the Declaration Of The Leaders The Major Economies Forum On Energy And Climate that formed a part of the G-8 Plus in L’Aquila meeting which foreshadowed global climate change measures not normally spoken about, not loudly anyhow.

In addition to emission trading (however such scheme named) there is a unanimity on a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, over and above the various stimuli already flushed down the drains, and

dramatically increase and coordinate public sector investments in research, development, and demonstration of these [green] technologies, with a view to doubling such investments by 2015 [Emphasis added]

Simply put this is a hijack of the global economy by putting obscene amounts of money into the “greening” of our economies.

The last ecophile to join the global war4mning asylum, President Obama, glorified Spain and other countries and use them as examples for the USA to follow, for their “progress” in greening their economies, some six moths ago he said in Bedford, Ohio that:

And think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.

This isn’t because they’re smarter than us, … It’s because their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments – investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs – jobs they won’t lose to other countries. [Highlight added]

Not quite Mr. President, a Spanish academic, Dr. Gabriel Álvarez of the Juan Carlos University in Madrid has published a study that shows, amongst other things, that

we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average [Highlight added]

–Summary, No 2, pg. 1

(I strongly recommend that you read, at least, the whole summary on pages 1-4)

The loss of jobs cited by Dr Álvarez is primarily due to high electricity charges, up to 7 times the market level, that are forced on industry, particularly electricity intensive ones, such as aluminium, steel, other metallurgy, food processing and tobacco. They all move their operation to countries who will not have a bar of this stupidity (eg China, India, Vietnam) and who guarantee low electricity charges for years to come – China is connecting a new (coal fired) power station to their grid every 10 days or so.

In fact the actual loss of jobs to the economy is more then 2.2 per each “smart” job but I leave it for now mainly for sake of simplicity.

* * * * *

As important as jobs are there is something even more insidious that I wish to draw your attention to but I need to explain it a bit first;

Suppose that I am a tomatoes’ farmer, growing your normal humble tomatoes and selling them to the local supermarket for years at market prices that fluctuate with supply, demand quality etc. Nothing to write home about.

One day a man from the government comes around and he want me to grew a new type of pear shaped “green” tomatoes which are environmentally friendly thus give me the opportunity to be part of the movement to save the planet – ain’t that exciting?

I tell the man that I love to help but… those tomatoes are hard to grow, the farm machinery that I need for them is very expensive, and has long period of down time, the yield I would per acre is about 12% of I get now and that them eco-friendly tomatoes are very susceptible to the weather and insects. According to a quick calculation I would probably need to charge about three times the prices I get now and all that I don’t even sure that people would like such tomatoes. “Thanks but no thanks, I pass” I conclude.

To my surprise, the man smiles and says that the government is aware of all the difficulties but here is the deal: The machinery and other investment I need will be provided by the government, the government also guarantees the price I would be getting at about 6-7 times what I get now AND most importantly the government guarantee the sale of the whole crop.

I go back to do my sums and discover that with such massive help I would be earning some 17% on my investment compare with 4% that I get now, wow!

Now my friends, instead of tomatoes think of “renewable energy” and you would immediately understand the attraction global warming has to the likes of GE and Suzlon who adopt global warming AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES all heartedly.

So much so that they even “grow” their “tomatoes” in (wind) FARMS, this gives the farming profession a whole new meaning.

If yo were a CEO of any company and had the opportunity to earn 17% return on your shareholders capital, you too will jump on it irrespective of your opinion on the “science” behind it, I know I would, it would be incumbent upon me to do so.

In fact in total subsidies, paid-up and committed, Spain, a country of 46 millions, spent some $36 billions. If America spend the same on a per capita basis it would amount to about $235 billions.

So generous was the Spanish program that it influenced the financial markets and created an investment “bubble” paused to explode in a middle of a global financial crisis that forced the Spanish government to tweak their generosity back somewhat.

And what does that mean in terms of your air-conditioning and hot water regulators? Dr Álvarez worked it out as an increase of 31% in electricity expenses, payable either on you bill or by your taxes.

I hope that now you see why we all going to get carbon trading of some description – much of that money has already been spent. It is now time to pay for it, just watch it coming.

(BTW, has anyone studied the relationship between wind and photovoltaic farms in their states and their state deficit? e.g. California)

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

3 June, 2009

Nearly every Australian knows who Sol Trujillo is, he is the former Managing Director of our 6^th largest corporation, Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra), Market capitalisation above $30 billions).

Mr. Trujillo is an American executive who was brought here by the previous government to run Telstra that was half way through its privatisation program, with a brief to maximize its share price and subsequently the government proceeds from completing its privatisation.

Approximately three and a half years and $31 millions into Mr. Trujillo bank account later, thing have gone sour. Apparently senõr Sol is not too happy with us Aussies. Listen to an interview he gave the BBC recently, apparently after he left Australia.

INTERVIEW WITH BBC

Now you have it, with the active participation of the BBC interviewer, he who has just voluntarily relinquished one the most powerful positions in the Australian commercial scene, he who in the past three and a half years earned $31,000,000 from that position, he who miserably fail to deliver took the easy way out and turned into A VICTIM. Ladies and gentlemen, get your Kleenex boxes out! This is how victim Sol Trujillo concluded his victimhood speech:

… the belief [in Australia] that only certain people are acceptable [for important positions] versus others that is a sad thing.

Hey, senõr no certain Sol, you got the job, didn’t you?!

What is important to note IS NOT the actual accusation against Australia and Australians but the swift and the ease in which a millionaire, by any criteria you wish to apply, portray himself as a victim. A sort of “fiddler On The Roof” in reverse.

You see? Sol Trujillo has taken umbrage at the Australian media, because our cartoonists tend to draw Mr. Trujillo under large sombrero (with or without a poncho) like this:

SOL LEAVES TOWN

This to him is racism but there here is a problem;

In Australia, whether your are Hispanic, Latino or simple Mexican, makes no difference to us, none whatsoever – our PC brigade is too busy with our own illegal immigrants, to include the good people of Latin America in the local victims list.

Perhaps it was what senõr Sol referring to when he described coming here as “stepping back in time”, we are so backward here that we have not even appreciated our Latinos and elevated our entire Hispanic population, both of them, into victimhood.

We take the Mickey out of you senõr Sol because we take the Mickey out of everybody and if you are a tall poppy, we’ll also cut you down to size and you certainly proved to be one.

And when you decided that you need to bring two of your mates to help you to run Telstra, you did not think that we would pass on such a jam as “the three Amigos”. Instead of laughing with us you got mad, how dare the natives be so despicable as to have fun at the expense of the great man himself.

To add insult to injury, when our Prime Minister, who as you know, not on my “admired” list, when asked to comment about Sol’s departure, he did it in a single word: “adios”. Oh well, if my prime minister is racist, I can’t help but being one too. I just wish that my prime minster will show his racist tendencies more often, particularly when it comes to who is allowed into this country and when, but I am digressing now.

Sol Trujillo claim that a few Aussies approached him to express their support, he is right, I wanted to do it too but senõr Sol, has already left. I wanted to spare him the agony of racial discrimination and volunteer to be drawn with a poncho and a sombrero. I even volunteer to grow a Zapata moustache all for a small fee of … say, $1 million? That would still live Sol Trujillo with $30 millions, I don’t mind I am not greedy.

Go home Mr. Trujillo, may peace be upon you in the land of unlimited opportunities, perhaps your emphatic credentials be better recognised at home and you get a nomination for …. the Supreme Court?

Hasta luego hombre.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009, all rights resreved