Jacob's Soap Box

19 December, 2009

Last week a lawyer working for a Palestinian activist organisation sought an arrest warrant against the Israeli Opposition Leader, Ms. Zipi Livni, under the International War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity’s Universal Jurisdictions provisions, in relation to her alleged part in the Israeli Cast Lead operation in Gaza last January.

Although it is apparent to any fair minded person that it was, what is known in Legalese, a frivolous claim, the Westminster Court granted the request and issued an arrest warrant for the Opposition Leader who was due to visit London on a private capacity (hence not entering on a diplomatic passport).

Apparently the Universal Jurisdictions of British law permits any person to bypass the prosecutor and request arrest of any person, for alleged war crimes, something which is not permitted under any other Law.

(the arrest warrant was subsequently withdrawn when it transpired that Ms. Livni would not come to London).

This case is not about war crimes, it is not even about intimidation of Israeli officials and it certainly not about Zipi Livni. This case is about political correctness riddled justice system, which is not uniquely British.

We don’t know who was the judge that stupidly granted that frivolous warrant which, rely on liberal media reports and left wing blogs as something that vaguely resembles evidence. I wonder how many arrest warrants request for common criminals this very judge declined the Metropolitan Police for lack of sufficient evidence or for a missing comma somewhere on the applications form? Just a thought!

This is not the first time that activists Eurabian judges issuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials. In 2000 a Belgian judge had issued an arrest warrant against Ariel Sharon which was subsequently ruled by the International Court of Justice in Hague as contravening international law and ordered to be withdrawn.

In 2005, Maj. Gen (ret) Doron Almog ( a retired IDF Chief Of Stuff) was tipped that there is an arrest warrant against him for “war crimes” as he landed in Heathrow Airport. The general escaped arrest by remaining on the (El-Al) plane and return with it back to Tel-Aviv.

Last September (2009), an arrest warrant was sought against Israel Defence Minister and Deputy PM, Ehud Barak, whilst in London on official duties but deputy district judge Daphne Wickham, whilst accepting Mr Barak’s diplomatic immunity said that the allegation of war crimes (in Gaza) were well documented (oh really?).

Hey Charley, how many MUSLIM terrorists were arrested and trialled in Europe? How many? I thought so!

Most of the Palestinian terror organisations openly kept offices in London, came and went as they pleased using diplomatic passports issued by Arab countries (Libyan and Syrian mostly)

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally closer to Europe than any Arab country, why is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the European-Arab Dialogue. In her book Eurabia, Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

Can you now understand the ease by which an arrest warrants are issued against Israelis in Europe compare with the wheeling and dealing in an attempt to bring the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir to justice for his involvement with genocide in Darfur? Sure you can!

Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT opposed to universal jurisdiction for REAL war crimes and REAL crimes against humanity that was put in place to overcome the ability of REAL criminals to escape justice in countries with a weak or nonexistent legal systems. What I am incest about is the hijacking of universal jurisdiction by the human rights industry and the PC brigade.

The British government undertook to amend their laws to ensure that universal jurisdiction cannot be abused political activism. We shall patiently await the outcome. But bear in mind that, when (and if) the Brits will close the loophole, the problem will simply shift into another country in Eurabia that adopted the universal jurisdiction, not all EU members have.

The term crime against humanity is a modern version of an old legal term hostis humani generis, Latin for: the enemies of mankind (before it was politically corrected to “humankind”) that originated in the first true international Law, the Admiralty Law .

The Admiralty Law specifically referred to sea piracy as hostis humani generis. Slave trading was added to the definition some time later but recent attempts to include terrorism so far failed due to the objection of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the under-developed countries bloc in the UN which control the voting of the General Assembly and in turned is itself controlled by Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), surprise, surprise.

As a matter of interest, the Admiralty Law was introduced by Eleanor of Aquitaine (Richard the Lionheart’s mother) in 1160, hardly a new concept.

Whilst the Admiralty Law is still widely used in governing international shipping today, the piracy provisions have been transferred into the Law Of The Sea.

And indeed there is universal jurisdiction, albeit not by that name, in the sea piracy provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Low Of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 105 (in Part IV) says:

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the personsand seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

[Emphasis are mine]

As you can see both universal jurisdiction and crimes against humanity has their origin in medieval maritime law.

Question: How many captured MUSLIM Somali pirates were brought to justice in British (or any other European) courts under UNCLOS universal jurisdiction? NONE!!!!

I must clarify that Islam is NOT what makes these scum bags Somalis, pirates, there is no evidence of that whatsoever, no Somali pirate has ever board a ship shouting “Allahu Akhbar” but to point that they are getting a “pass” from the EU ships (in particular) BECAUSE they are Muslim.

So the enemy of humanity that cause havoc in international shipping in the Gulf of Aden, the East African Coast and deep into the Indian Ocean go scot free while human rights industry and the PC brigade are busy trying to arrest Israeli dignitaries, whose only “crime” was protecting their civilian population from terror.

Can someone please point out a human right that surpasses LIFE?

Whilst the European politicians, knowingly, or otherwise, mislead their public by saying that there are no legal grounds to arrest MUSLIM Somali pirates, their real concern is that according to the UN Conventions Relating To Status of Refugees, once a pirate is on a European territory (European flagged ships included) they can claim the status of asylum seekers.

Yes my friends, indeed, the inmates are running the asylum.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009 — all rights reserved

14 September, 2009

Recently I came across a snippet of news that on the advice of its fund’s Ethics Council , Norway state’s pension funds (previously Oil Fund) divested themselves from share holding in the electronic company Elbit Systems Ltd. Elbit is an Israeli hi-tech corporation heavily involved with defence projects.

The Norwegians cited the reason for divesting from Elbit that apparently, Elbit supplies components that are used in surveillance on the fence between Israel and the West Bank, the fence specifically built to block easy passage of suicide bombers into Israel.

You see, it is all about ethics, another term that has been hijacked by the loony left and liberal activism. No longer ethics is a set of values, axiomatically a force of good but it has become a spin intended to indoctrinate students of activists liberal professor into their political agenda, after all no one likes people who behave unethically.

Once upon a time ethics was about decent behaviour, personal or professional. These days the term imply activism, particularly, but not limited to, the environment.

Whilst originally ethical investments may introduced by the environmentalism movement in an attempt to encourage investment decisions towards companies which are doing the “right” thing by the environment, the eco-whackos quickly moved from encouragement to penalty, They no longer “pushing” investments in “worthy” enterprises but instead they “punish” those who they, the “ethics police”, consider unfriendly to their (environmental) cause.

About twelve out of some twenty six banned corporations from the Norwegian Pension Fund are American including Boeing, General Dynamic, Lockheed Martin and Wal-Mart. The reason vary from participation in the production of nuclear weapon, cluster bombs, land mines to alleged breaches of Human Rights and environmental “crimes” that cover both (real) pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

To this impressive list of causes the Ethics Council now added a new cause, Palestinianism, a term coined by Bat Yeor, the author of the book Eurabia and describe the European anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Israel.

Heading the Corporate Governance of the Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) until 2007 was Dr. Henrik Syse, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO), a man with no qualification in banking or investment whatsoever who is suppose to look after a fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars, some ethic!

Question: What is common to environment, peace human rights and Palestinianism causes?

Answer: Marxism! But somehow, unlike Stalin’s one, an ethical Marxism, are you kidding me? Some ethics!

Once more we see is the infamous environmental watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Let us just examine those causes and those who are pushing them;

One of the causes pushed by NBIM and its “peace scientist” head was anti- nuclear weapon. The Norwegian central bank took the high moral ground “punishing” American corporation that are alleged to be involved with the development of nuclear weapon whilst at the same time, Norway, as a member of NATO, is quite prepared to accept the outcome of such developments and stay under the nuclear umbrella provided by the USA to its allies, some ally, some ethics!

The front line jetfighter aircraft of the Royal Norwegian Air Force is the F-16 (Falcon) developed by General Dynamic and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, BOTH are excluded corporations by the investments Ethics Council of Norway. Do you get it? American corporations that are so crucial to Norway’s national defence are banned as unethical, some ethics!

Norway’s so-called Oil Fund (now renames “Pension Fund” has been established to preserve the wealth that comes from Norway’s North Sea oil and gas. The idea is that as oil is finite resource, thus the benefits it brings must be preserved by a special fund for future generations.

In order to avoid the new riches affecting the Norwegian economy (how?), by law the fund is prohibited from investing in Norway. In other words the people of Norway are denied their oil and gas wealth developed by their own tax money through a government owned (now privatised) Statoil, hopefully their children or grandchildren will. In other words, the current generation paid for the development of the resource but is not allowed to participate in the wealth it brings for ethical reasons, some ethics!

The echo-whackos call it sustainability, hardly a day pass that we don’t hear the word, what is sustainability? The concept is simple to explain, suppose you go to the supermarket to get your favourite bread, when you get to the bread shelves you see the last of loaves sitting lonely on the shelf. You are now suppose to leave that loaf of bread to someone “more deserving” who will come later, who that someone is or why that someone is more deriving then you is never explained, it is a question of sustainability and ethics, some ethics!

And let us not forget, the source of that investment funds, fossil fuels, the villain of global warming. Yes, I agree, global warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind but I don’t go around selling oil then wagging fingers at corporation who use it describing them as unethical for burning fuel that I has sold them, some ethics!

And if we are talking about global warming (aka Climate Change) let just concentrate on one aspect of it, ethics. In a recent BBC’s HARDtalk program, Stephen Sackur interview the CEO of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold, who incidentally calls himself “climate scientist” watch:

Global Warming Lies (aka emotionalism)

Now do you want to get more emotionalised, do you want to see some photo of “cute” polar bears? Perhaps some seals cubs? But never the two together because polar bear EATS seals cubs.

SOME ETHICS!

* * * * *

Let us now turn to Palestinianism. According to Bat Yeor, who coined the term, Palestinianism is

… the moral justification for the elimination of Israel

One does not have to look far into the histories of anti-Semitism in Europe and United State, to understand why Palestinianism has become so successful in Europe.

This is not to say that Israel is beyond criticism, nor anyone who criticise Israel is anti-Semite as not everyone who disagree with president Obama is racist but there is no doubt an anti-Semitism element ma

The divesting of $5 million out of Elbit represents less then 1% of Elbit’s capital, thus is financially meaningless but not so symbolically. It support the Arab propaganda that the wall represents some sort of apartheid.

Here is what apartheid looks like:

Apartheid sign on Durban beach

You will not find signe like this on any beach, or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. There are no laws in Israel forbidding sex between Jews and Arabs or segregating Arabs citizens in any shape or form. The fence was erected primarily to stop suicide bombers cross over into Israel, yes, to save innocents lives. Yet the Ethics Council seem to think that monitoring the fence is somehow unethical, some ethics.

(By the way, the fence has brought another benefit to Israel, a drastic decline in car theft. May I ask the ethics council what happened to their level of car theft since their gates were opened to Muslim immigration? Hmmm? Just asking!)

From a cultural point of view, Israel is largely a European county. It has more in common with Europe than with the Middle East, any feminist, homosexual, atheist, trade unionist, whether incorporated in one person or more, can walk the streets of Israel with safety, something they cannot do in any other country in the Middle East. Yet the Ethics Council find the fence that contributes to that safety objectionable, some ethics!

For crying out loud, we have just seen a female journalist arrested in Sudan for …. Wearing “inappropriate” trousers, This is the same country that arrested a British teacher because of “inappropriate” teddy bears. But you would not hear a peep from the ethics council about Sudanese Human rights, the reason is a question of ethics, some ethics!

* * * * *

It is fair to say that Norway is not alone in having either ethics council, supporting Palestinianism or displaying anti-Israeli sentiments. The situation is very across the border in “neutral” Sweden and to lesser extent across the water in Denmark and France with the rest of Europe not far behind.

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally so close to Europe, is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the Euro-Arab Dialogue. Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

In other words, the EAD does not only cements the Arab ant-Israel policy with Europe in exchange for oil (surprise, surprise), it also set European policy apart from America for the purpose of being apart, and oil and, of course ethics, SOME ETHICS!

If you never heard of EAD, do not despair, you are not alone the EU is doing its best to hide the EAD in an assortment of euphemisms and diplomatic jargon. One of the main reasons why Israel has never agreed that Europe be part of the peace talks is the EAD. You see, Israel interpretation of ethics is different.

Have I got the meaning of the word wrong?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer, 2009 – All rights reserved.

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

12 February, 2009.

When I wrote the original Thank God There Is A Global Economic Crisis about two and a half months ago, I did not expect my cynicism to materialise, or at leat not so soon.

It was a mere two weeks after another self-proclaimed fiscal conservative Barack Obama joined the host of fiscal conservatives world leaders, including our own hollow man, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Fiscal policy is about government active involvement (or not) in the economy through government revenues (taxes) and expenditures (services such as the law and order, security, social security etc.), fiscal conservativism is keeping the government books balanced.

The collapse of the American Sub-Prime market had little direct affect on Australia, thank to the pervious conservative government who had paid off all of its successive Labor governments debts and left office with nice cushion of budget surpluses, shovel ready for new socialist government to put to waste.

Despite its love affair with globalism, The Howard government ensured that Australian banks were regulated sufficiently to shield them from the effect of the collapse sub-prime market as act of prudence, long before the ugly sub-prime raised its head.

This is not to say that we have not been affected by the economic downturn that followed the financial meltdown on Wall Street, but to spell out that our state of affairs is a lot different from that of the US and Europe by a country mile.

* * * * *

However, being in a better situation does not suit our illustrious hollow man Kevin 747 who wants to be like the big boys on world stage so he can play with them. He wants to appear doing something BIG, anything, thus stimulus out of all proportion to our size is the way to go.

We are going to get it, whether we need it or not, just because Kevin 747 wants to grand stand on world stage as if he is a decisive statesman.

The new buzz word is stimulus. It is a code word that describe how YOUR MONEY and mine is wasted by our governments without any accountability on social agendas, supposedly to create economic activity.

The idea is that a dollar that is spent by our government on building a bridge, as an example, may circulate a number of times and create economic momentum through what economists call the multiplier.

Say, the government build a bridge. They hire workers, buy cement, steel and other components and put it together. To have cement, there must be a cement factories that convert mined limestone, soda ash and other chemical and energy into cement.

To have still, we must have steel mills that need iron ore, coal, scrap and other trace metals and energy to make steel and they also all need ships trains and trucks to move raw materials and bridge components.

The workers on the bridge, the cement factories, the still mills, the ships, trains and trucks get paid and buy food, clothing, cars and plasma TV which in turn need more factories, shops and transport.

In other words, a dollar spent on, say, building a bridge, is spent a number of times through the economy depending on the multiplier of building bridges. This is the theory anyway.

This theory was developed by an English mathematician, turned economist and INVESTOR, John Maynard Keynes and what later became known as Keynesian Economics. Keynes believed that government should make the most of its economic powers and use it to achieve socio-economic goals.

On the other side of the scale is Milton Friedman was an economists who believes in the exact opposites, in free market with minimal government interference in the economy, also known as Friedmanism.

Whilst there is no decisive evidence that Keynes himself was communist or a communist sympathiser, nevertheless, Keynes is the darling of communism, socialism, liberalism and all other social engineering isms. Keynes has given them the left side of politics “scientific” all the excuses to interfere with the economy they need and, as we see, they use.

Here we have two diametrically opposing theories that beg the question “which is the correct one?” The simple answer is: none!. There are many conceptual contradictions and “cherry picking” of “facts” in both theories.

Economics is not a science, it is a set of theories based on empirical studies using (selective) quantitative and non-quantitative observations. Unlike science, economic theories are not results of proven hypotheses, they are just that, theories!

Some say that economics is the science that explains why its last prediction did not maderised.

Some goes as far as describing the economy as a power station and the people in charge of it as engineers who open and close valves, turn dials, switch pumps on and off, whereas the valves, dials and pumps are interest rates, taxation rates, government spending, surplus or deficit and so on – absolute crap!!!

In many case one cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a particular economic measure. Increase in official interest rate may be inflationary or deflationary, there are recent historical example to both. The same goes for other deliberate measures.

Just before Christmas Kevin747 use a stimulus of $ 14 billons and paid Australian age and disable pensioners a one off bonus. The idea was that because government pensioners are one of the poorest people in the land their propensity to spend is high thus most that money will be spent.

Wrong, whilst I had no objection to the bonus as such, stimulus it was not.

As it turned out , although there was improvement is Christmas retail sales, it was a oncer. Much of the money that was spent on Christmas presents ended up in China where it was only a drop in the ocean in tern of stimulating anything but Kevin’s standing in the opinion polls.

* * * * *

I cannot recall so much identical rhetorical hard sell of policies in so many countries, although the circumstances in each vary dramatically. Do you really believe that there is the one, and only the one, medicine that cures all economic ailments? Come-on!

Stimulus will “kick-start” your country’s economy, create employment, unfreeze credit, eliminate toxic assets, get rid of inflation, improve your country’s terms of trades, balance of payments etc. etc. etc. If you believe in it, I have bridge across Sydney Harbour and a fancy looking opera house to sell you.

Although Keynesian economics was dead and buried for many years in many countries, its flame kept burning in the corridors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after all John Keynes was one of its founding father. Together with global socialism, which is now in control the governments of most developed nations, they all got this dead theory out of its grave, polished it, resuscitated it so it can be reused and push the socialist agenda once more.

Indeed the IMF has been used as a fig leaf for the socialisation of the western democracies . The IMF, the bastion of globalisation, an organisations with no electoral accountability or allegiance to anyone but itself, is cited by our politicians as the economic authority for enslave us, our children and grandchildren in gigantic debt.

Just look at the proposed “stimulus” of your country and you will quickly realise that it is no more then a badge social engineering agenda. Most, if not all, of the proposed expenditures covers IDENTICAL ITEMS of socialist agendas and common budgetary expenditure that belong in a regular budgetary process. Much like it all came from one place, well it has, the IMF.

Repairs to infrastructure, particularly bridges, “investments” in schools, Internet infrastructure, buildings insulation, alternative energy are no doubt familiar to you from debates about the so-called stimulus in your own country. BUT you may not realise that the actual items that make the stimuli in all countries (that have one) are identical.

So is the rhetoric about the “urgency” to adopt the stimulus measures. Our very basis of democracy, the parliament is being portray as obstruction, that may bring a “catastrophe” upon us, only because it wants to do what houses of parliaments do in democracy. Cesar does not like it when the senate asks question.

Incidentally, if you listen carefully, you will quickly notice the similarity between the scare mongering of the stimulus and that of global warming. The connection is self evident, both are spins of a socialist agenda.

Would you buy a car when the salesman pushes you to hurry up and sign on the dotted line, not ask too many question because you would loose this unique, one in hundred years, opportunity?

Remember these are the very people who want you to live in a dark and have cold showers to save the planet from a looming global warming.

By and large the global financial crisis and the subsequent global economic downturn is a direct consequence of globalism. It is the free market that enabled the toxic assets to freely move across borders among countries as contagious disease would spread across an hospital without an isolation ward.

Now that we have nearly all the hospital’s patients and staff infected, the cure, we are told, is to give them all the same medicine BUT NOT isolate them because they must all get well together, or not at all. This is what globalism is all about.

* * * * *

One of the few idea that made any sense to me in the American stimulus proposal was that stimulus money must be spent on American made goods. After all the idea is that the steel and cement used to construct a bridge should come from home production and generate employment.

The idea that American money (I use America as an example, the same is true to any contry), borrowed by the American people, which the American taxpayer would need to repay back is used to create American Jobs by using it to purchase American goods horrified the globalists who opened a scare campaign about “trade wars”.

Suppose that you may fall on hard times and may consider to severely curtail this year’s Christmas presents for your kids, but the government tells you: “Oh no! don’t even think about as much as symbolic cut in the level of presents you have been giving to your neighbours kids, if you do we’ll call you protectionist or, God forbid, isolationist” – this is in fact what the IMF saying to every country these days. We don’t care what you do to your own people but you must continue and protect other people.

In a recent speech to the governors of the South East Asian Central Banks (SEACEN) the Managing Director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Khan said (inter-alia):

Some countries are trying to make government support of banks conditional on their giving priority to domestic borrowers, to the detriment of financing across borders. This will hurt emerging economies, whose growth depends on access to foreign bank financing. It is protectionism in the financial markets, and its consequences could be as damaging and dangerous as the trade protectionism of the 1930s.

Bull dust!

What got America out of the great depression of the 1930’s was not globalism, but the American manufacturing industry production efforts for the war AND the fact that by the end of WWII American industry was the only one standing. Beside, traditionally America always knew how to protect its own interest.

For years American aid was contingent on the fact that the recipients of such aid must use it, as much as practicable, to purchase American goods. For years, at least 50% of American aid MUST be carried on American flags ships, although freight on American flag ships were twice as dear as other flags – those were the rules.

Anyone who tell you that you can stimulate your economy and remain globalist at the same time is a liar, a fool or both. Throughout history you will not find a single instant of economy developing into world class without actively pursuing protection.

Britain of the industrial revolution until 1846 when they repealed the Corn Act, the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan, Korea, and India of after WWII and of course China of today all pursue protectionists policies. As a matter of interests all four American presidents carved out in Mount Rushmore, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were protectionists.

In the face of “cheap” imports from the USA and Continental Europe, even the darling of the stimuluphiles, John Keynes, advocated tariffs barriers in 1930 to protect British industry.

As you see, stimulus is not about kick-starting the economy, it is not about job creation and protection, it is all about IDEOLOGY.

* * * * *

Yet we the people can only watch in horror how our elected representives allow our governments condemn us and our descendants to generations of economic turmoil of debt, high interest, high taxation and inflation. Is this the planet we suppose to save from global warming?

When all those obscene amounts of money be wasted, nothing much will change except we each have national debt of colossal proportion. The so-called stimulus will not work because it cannot work. If you want to rebuild our economy, rebuild our own productive capacity first.

We cannot have economy without a strong manufacturing, construction and agricultural industries. Serving each others’ drinks and making each others’ bed is not an economy.

14 June, 2008

You have to give it to Irish, they saw right through the bullshit of the country’s major political parties’ heavy campaign for a “yes” vote in the ONLY referendum in the EU on their reconditioned constitution, cleverly named “The Lisbon Treaty” to circumvent further referenda in EU member states. Ireland voted “no” for the second time! Those Europhiles don’t give up, do they?

Three years ago France and Holland rejected the European Constitution in another rounds of referenda. It was then widely believed at the time that had the question put before voters in other EU states, they too would have rejected it. I suspect that, despite the rhetoric, this time the situation is similar, had the question been put in a referenda to other countries in addition to Ireland the result would have been a resounding “NO” of global warming proportion.

It goes to show that if all the major political parties are in agreement, you better watch out, they are protecting their own interest, not yours – good on you Ireland!

The pundits will no doubt try and explain the “no” vote in Ireland as a “yes” vote except that middle class, middle age, middle blond women voter or whatever spoiled it for the rest of the country – well, maybe so but the result is still no.

Why should I care about the EU? I care because since Britain joined the EU we Aussies, Kiwis and other member of the Commonwealth have to queue up in the Aliens line in Heathrow, shock horror! Isn’t that a good enough reason? 🙂

No it is not, BUT, seeing that our illustrious hollow Prime Minister, Mr. Kevin Rudd (aka Kevin07) is running around Asia proposing a “union” of Asia and the Pacific similar to the EU, I thought that I better take a look at what Kev has for us.

I realise that this is just another of Kevin’s stunts, after all the man could not arrange an orgy in a whore house, let alone deal with our problems at home, such as inflation, petrol prices, food prices to name a few. Thus he packs up his loyal journos in his VIP plane and over prawns (shrimps) with Champaign hands them their next reports that portray himself as a great statesman, grandstanding on the world stage fighting climate change and arranging a union of …. Listen to that … according to The Australian of 5 June Mr Rudd said that:

“We need to have a vision for an Asia-Pacific community, a vision that embraces a regional institution, which spans the entire Asia-Pacific region – including the United States, Japan, China, India, Indonesia and the other states of the region,” said the Prime Minister.

Who are those “other states of the region“? Apparently the Prime Minister is talking about adding India to the 21-mambers states of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation states (APEC). According to APEC Internet site, they are (in alphabetical order):

Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; Viet Nam.

Did you see what I did? Is he serious? The United States and the Russian Federation together in a union a-la EU? With Canada and Mexico in it too what about the NAU? Actually why not? After all Russian is only 92 Km (58 Miles) from the USA.

This is turning more and more into the bizarre world of George Orwell’s 1984 which is divided to four super states, albeit arranged differently than Kevin Rudd’s has in mind but just as bizarre, he continued:

[The body would be] “able to engage in the full spectrum of dialogue, co-operation and action in economic and political matters and future challenges related to security”.

“The purpose is to encourage the development of a genuine and comprehensive sense of community whose habitual operating principle is co-operation,”

(What does it mean?)

And a bit of alarmism borrowed from the climate change rhetoric:

“The danger of not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict within our region may somehow be inevitable.”

[Brackets and emphasis provided]

Well, according to local media here in Australia, at least one of the US presidential hopeful, Mr. McCain, is “greatly in support“; Greatly? had John McCain actually seen the full proposal before he welcomed it or did he smoke something that day?

When further queried by The Australian, John McCain said that:

“I believe the more closely that the countries in the region work together for free and open trade and the more agreements with the United States, I’m greatly in support of.”

Frankly I regard Kevin Rudd’s stunt proposal, as a pie in the sky, at least in the way it presented. This is not to say that there no powers to be who support globalisation by creation of super states. Although, thanks to rejections by the people of Holland, France and now Ireland, the EU is not, as yet, a supers state, leave it to the politicians and the Eurocrats it will turn into one tomorrow.

The history of the EU is going back to the humble European Coal And Steel Community (ECSC) that was founded in 1951 by the Paris Treaty signed by the “original six”: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Nederlands and Luxemburg. It was later turned the European Economic Community (EEC), commonly known as the “Common Market” and since the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, The European Union (EU).

The object (in 1951) was to create a framework of cooperation on steel and coal production and to promote lasting peace in Europe. The selection of these two commodities was not accidental, they are both with paramount strategic importance at times of war. Little is known that USA actively supported and encouraged the idea of a European union . America was weary of fighting wars in Europe and saw such arrangement as serving its own interests, beside they all had a new threat to worry about, Stalin and Communism, a good reason to unite irrespective of other reasons.

Britain was excluded from the original plan and its first attempt to join in 1963 was vetoed by France’s General De Gaulle who regarded Britain as a “Trojan Horse” for USA influence.

American influence on France? God forbid, Has mon général objected to the “American influence” on the invasion of Normandy? In any event France’s objection ended with the end of De Gaulle’s presidency and Britain finally joined the EEC in 1973 under the stewardship of (the Conservative ) Prime Minister Edward Heath.

I note that when it comes to European Globalism the socialists do not have monopoly. Even half American, like Winston Churchill supported some form of united Europe although he was not clear on whether Britain should be part of such union.

In the meantime (in 1960) seven non EEC European countries formed the European Free Trade Agreement zone (EFTA), these included Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, they were later joined by Finland (1961 as associate and full member in 1986), Iceland (1970) and Liechtenstein (1991). Today only Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland remained in EFTA whilst the rest have all left and joined the EEC/EU.

Today the EU includes 27 member states, 23 official languages, a European Parliaments with two locations, 785 Member of the European Parliament (MEP) roughly allocated pro rata to members’ population. The European Commission, a sort of executive branch that comprises of one appointed commissioner for each member state, the European Council which is an assembly of the 27 heads of the EU member states. The Presidency of the Council is rotated on a six monthly basis. The “European Council” is not to be confused with the “Council of the European Union” that is a council of ministers. Confused? (I told you not to be! 🙂 So am I.

Only 15 of the EU members adopted the Euro as their currency, this group is also known as the “Euro zone”, who are (in alphabetical order) Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta, Nederlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. Notable in their absence are Britain, Sweden and Denmark who elected to retain their own currencies in or out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)

The original European Treaty (Rome 1957) obligated member states to strive for:

” … an ever closer union among the people of Europe …”

This wording mandates the Europhiles to go the whole hog for a “United State Of Europe” no matter how they spin it. We often hear that the EU is an assembly of countries with “shared sovereignty” which sounds a lot better than “Surrendered sovereignty” , I must confess, that to my mind the former is a misleading term – if you have the right to enter my house at any time and do as you pleased in it without my permission, I surrendered my sovereignty and we share nothing! Because I don’t have the same right.

In his book, Not Quite The Diplomat, Chris Patten, a former (Conservative) minister in Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s governments, the last (British) Governor of Hong Kong a former EU Commissioner and (naturally) an avid Europhile describes the salami tactics employed by the Eurocrats in conquering sovereignty from member states. In his book Mr. Patten quotes the then Prime Minister of Luxemburg, Jean-Claude Juncker in an interview to “The Economist” magazine, he said:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

[Emphasis provided]

I call this modus operandi “a conspiracy”

Another EU plot was to rename its constitution a “Treaty”. The reason being that many of the member states governments have the power to ratify treaties with or without their national parliaments approval, but such powers do not extended to constitution that in all cases require referenda.

This is a trickery aimed at avoiding facing the people!

There is little doubt that given the opportunity, the people of other European countries would have reject the “Lisbon Treaty as did the Irish people. As this so-called “treaty” can come into effect only with ratification by ALL members, the Lisbon Treaty is now dead! Any further ratifications by government are futile exercise if public relations and declines of further (but unlikely) referenda would merely kill a dead horse but would further embarrass and weaken the case of the Europhiles.

Mind you, this trickery is not the sole domain of the Europhiles, the Globalists of the UN often use the “treaty” tricks to circumvent national constitutions.

Chris Patten’s comments on the 2005 France and Nederlands rejection stands today in light of the Irish “no”:

“…. [the people of Europe] dislike the feeling that Europe is made over their heads … [and] … there is clearly a sense that the European project has gone too far, too fast for many of Europe‘s citizens …”

Frankly I have no objection that the people of Europe establish the “United States of Europe” (USE) if they so wish, the problem is that they clearly do not want to, yet our Prime Minster jumps in half cocked with a similar suggestion for us. Well, take heed America, this is what you will get if vote in a hollow man.

In a different context, I already said that I don’t want to be ruled from Beijing this is still the case now, by the way where would we pout the Pacific parliament? Washington, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Canberra or should it be a travelling road show as the European Parliament.

I find it hilarious that approximately once a month, the European Parliament, packs up, lock stock and barrel, down to the last filing cabinet and moves from Brussels to Strasburg (France) and back again.

Where can I sign up to become a Parliament removalist?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008