Jacob's Soap Box

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

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.

26 November, 2008.

Those of us who served time in the corporate sphere know only too well how the financial skeletons are hidden from shareholders and the market until they can be buried in an avalanche of unrelated bad news or can be “explained” by “circumstance beyond management control”.

For example, if a company had overextended credit to a customer that later went bad, such bad debt will stay on the books as normal trading debt until something else happens, something that will enable a quite write-off, no ‘irritating’ questions asked.

The current economic crisis is a godsend opportunity to many management teams allowing them to clean out their closets and they do. Take a look at how many skeletons that are bought out are bone dry, they have been dead for years but now is the time to bring them out and blame the death of the respective bodies on the current global financial crisis as if it had just happened … Thank God there is a global economic crises.

In corporate politics, as in political politics there are two simple rules, the first is that your success are in facts your boss’s successes and your bosses stuff-ups are yours. The second rule is that no matter how certain the anticipated benefits are, you ONLY take actions that you can “EXPLAIN” should thing turn sour. Global economic crisis is an ideal excuse, it is big enough to bury just about anything in it. … Thanks God there is a global economic crises.

* * * * *

No difference in politics. Our illustrious PM Kevin707 who is just back from yet another globe trotting exercise embraced the global economic crisis with both hands with the normal clichés such as “global challenges require global solutions”, “acting now will cost less acting later” (hey didn’t we heard this argument in relation to global warming?) and of course the continuing mantra about “free” trade, but that is another issue.

In the midst of all this, our Government is rushing through legislation, that although part of their election campaign, is strengthening the unions and have the potential to increase unemployment.

Until now the government was reluctant to introduce that legislation, to the great infuriation of the unions, because of the risk that it may increase unemployment and as we all know Kevin707 is a fiscal conservative, at least a self professed one (didn’t I hear this term elsewhere? Yes I did!) .

So you can now see, when we all busy watching and reading about government assistance, guarantees, bailouts, stimulus, insolvent banks, crushing car makers etc, Kevin707 slip this stunt on us and sure enough, I bet my bottom dollar that the resultant unemployment will be blamed on the economic crisis. Thank God there is a global economic crises.

Similarly, our government is pushing ahead with their Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) which apart from being a total deception, going it alone is and economic suicide bomb. What would happen to the little manufacture base left here if they have to pay such heavy fine for the privilege of having factories here? You got it! The will offshore themselves more people out work but …. Thank God there is a global economic crises.

And that is not all. The socialist have some more “progressive” policies such as (government) paid maternity and paternity leave. I bet you that we are going to get an influx of “family reunions” from the Middle East shortly, but … Thank God there is a global economic crises.

* * * * *

How is that relevant to my friends outside Australia? As I showed in my previous blog The Hollow Man there is very little differences in socialist policies no matter where you are. It appears that with the election of Barack Obama in the USA he is not only the first African-American president but also the first Labour president of the USA. from January 20^th 2009 we will have wall to wall Labor governments in USA, UK and Europe as well as Australia, all following similar policies which are to economic depression what gasoline is to bushfire, but … Thank God there is a global economic crises.

The rhetoric is virtually identical, global warming (climate change), fiscal conservatives, free trade, stimulus, Keynesian economics (of government intervention) etc and are not unique to Australia. What also is not unique to Australia is when such socialist policies will do what socialist policies normally do our politicians around the glob will be quick to point out to the global economic crisis with or without some more summits, but … Thank God there is a global economic crises.

Amazingly all our Labour governments, since the 1970’s all suffered from global economic downturn that led a government of a population equal to that of New York City, to a debt of $90 billion in 1996. It took our conservative government 11½ years to dig us out of our of hard labour sentence, pay our debts and build some nice cushion surpluses, the Asian financial meltdown of 1997 notwithstanding, but a mere year in our current hard labour sentence we already hear something we had not heard for a decade and that is the “D” word, DEFICIT but … Thank God there is a global economic crises.

8 November, 2008

Once upon a time there was a hollow man with a large ego who, since he was ten years old, dreamed that one day he would become the leader of his people.

Not much is known the man’s childhood because the man had been quite vague about these days and in some cases downright deceitful.

From the little we know, the man’s father died, some said from effect of alcohol, when he was a young boy, leaving the men’s mother to car for him. Notwithstanding the hollow man did well at school and proceed to one of the best universities from which he graduated with high distinctions.

University life also served as a stepping stone for politics for the hollow man. Like some many student his age, he joined the student branch of the party that believe in social reform, trade unions, redistribution of wealth and socialism albeit the word itself does not form a portion of the name of The Party.

After graduation the man went to “work” on his dream. He carefully selected his place of employment on the basis of their political potential; mixing with powerful and wealthy people who can advance his ambitions. He was particular careful to avoid real responsibilities as those can lead for the occasional failure that may blot future résumés.

The hollow man was elected to the legislature when he was in his early forties. His arrival was marked by his famous inaugural speech, hollow or not, his self publicity machine went to work as he waited the opportunity to spring into the limelight.

Indeed when the opportunity arrived he challenged the “establishment” of the party for the party nomination and despite “family ties” and the experience of his opponent the hollow won his party nomination. A bitter election campaign followed.

The hollow man’s opponent now was a conservative man named John, much senior in age and with over 25 years experience as an elected member who also enjoys the benefits of incumbency. The hollow man would need all his wits to and a lots of money to win this battle.

The ensuing election campaign was one that was never seen before. The conservative opponent experience and age were portrayed as stuck in the past, the same old failed policies of the past in clear reference to his opponent’s age whilst the hollow man himself was portrayed as “young” and “cool”.

The hollow man has prove himself as a great orator although despite the hysteria of the young generation, his rhetoric was somewhat lacking when it came to the older generation. He was further greatly assisted by the mainstream media who almost in unison were all openly actively supporting him.

He opposed the war in Iraq but supported the War in Afghanistan (and saw no inconsistence in that) he supported socialistic program but described himself as economic conservative in fact many people said that he walked the two sides of the streets on just about any issue as he modified his policies to suit his audiences

He stuck to meaningless, yet emotional slogan such as change, hope and working families. He was the first to exploit the power of the Internet for political campaigning.

He won the election in the following November decisively, although not in what you would all a landslide.

*****

No, my friends, this is not the story of Barack Obama, that was the story of the election of Kevin Rudd in November 2007 as the Prime Minister of Australia by removing John, Mr. John Howard from office.

*****

I was struck by the similarities between the two from the first time I heard Barack Obama and I often mentioned it to my American conservative friends. As we down under have an handicap of 12 months on you Americans, let me tell you about the “achievements” of our hollow man whilst you were busy with your elections, a sort of Back To The Future, as I dubbed it at the time.

Firstly soon after taking office, our government ratified the Kyoto Protocol an utterly symbolic step but nevertheless gained a round of applause by the world greenery convention in Bali. You see our hollow man LOVES the world stage.

At the same time, and in an attempt to further impress the global eco-whackos, our illustrious Prime Minister and our Minister for the environment and stupid statements, inflated their chests and ordered the Australian Navy into the Southern Oceans to chase away the Japanese Whaler to discover that, according to the Antarctic Treaty to which Australia is a member, no military vessels are allowed – what started in a blast ended in a whimper by sending a “Custom Vessel” to “monitor the whaling.

This was only the first of making policy on the run as we have learned since.

Next the government celebrated a sorry day to the indigenous people of Australia, another divisive feel-good symbolic act that socialists are really good at. You see, this was our equivalent of the race card or the coming together cliché we often hear (and I thought that coming together is something people do in the privacy of their bedrooms 🙂

Next we had a funfest summit of one thousand of the brightest and smartest in the country to “recommend” future action Australia should take in the 21^st century. Before the election Kevin07 had told Australians that he had a plan for the country, after the election he needed Kate Blanchett and her like to tell him what to do.

In fact he did not need them to tell him what to do, going by the list of invitees, he needed them to tell him to do what he wanted to hear – the diversity of opinion was limited only by Kevin Rudd’s opinion. It was totally a Kevin07‘s scripted event.

Talking about Kevin07, Within a few month after taking office, our PM was dubbed Kevin707 after the RAAF (the Australian air force) Boeing 707 that used by the PM. By last September, when he was in office for merely 10 months, Kevin707 had accomplished 16 overseas trips, the man really likes the world’s stages which he spins to portray him as international statement. He enhances his image further by selectively leaking private conversation he has with word’s leaders to big note himself.

And of course there is climate change, the imaginary “crisis” that politicians love to exploit by spreading fear that enable them to push their agenda. Until about one year ago, it was only Australia and the US that stood firm against that global deception, Australia “fell” last November with the election of the Rudd government and the USA will no doubt follow under Obama.

It will not be long before we all can play the “spot the difference” game between Kevin07 and Obama08, In the meantime I have placed my bullshit detector on “silent”

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008

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

12 February 2008

Reading MySpace friend Pirate’s excellent blog Even Bigots have Freedom Of Speech I realised that watching the Obamination of America  I get a déjà vu feeling vis-à-vis the “Ruddicalisation” of Australia that culminated last November with the election of a “Hollow Man” one Mr. Kevin Rudd to be the Prime Minister of this country for three years.

The parallel between Rudd and Obama is astounding; Both relatively new to their political position, both have attempted to “re-right” their biography to portray a  more “suitable” story, both targeted the young voters with bumper sticker slogans and whilst one will not wear the American Flag on his lapel, the Australian Flag stood out in its absence in all Labor Party campaign ceremonies.

There must be a school for socialist aspirants to the highest position in the land in which students recite the “how-to-do” manual in the morning parade, immediately after singing The Internationale.

Just imagine Barack Obama get elected as the president, lightly hops on the White House steps, clapping hands and chanting yes we can …. And then what?

My guess is that he would be lost; Obama, who is a junior senator, has never held an executive or an administrative position in his life is now seeking to become the most powerful man on earth; making him the Commander in Chief is akin to putting a man who has never driven as much as a car, with automatic transmission, behind the wheel of a 12-gears-transmission, 18-wheeler semi-trailer and expect him to drive it proficiently.

My suggestion to my American friends is to go back to the future. What I mean by that is watch America’s future Obamination through the Australian current Ruddicalisation. It might give you a guide on the answer to the “then what” question.

With the notable exception of industrial relations, climate change and “me too-ing” our former Prime Minister, Mr. John Howard, Kevin Rudd was elected on a sleek promotion campaign that included bumper stickers, Kevin07 tee-shirts, YouTube  and empty slogans such as “working families”, “fresh ideas”, “embrace the future” and the like.

Senator Obama follows the same script almost to the letter.

Having won the election the very first Ruddical (or should I say “Ruddish”) act of our newly elected PM was to save the planet by ratifying the Kyoto protocol, a symbolic act which its timing has nothing to do with its ranking of importance (if you believe in that nonsense) but it had all to do with the fact an international conference on climate change was in progress in Bali when Rudd took office, a “not to miss” opportunity for Kevin’s applauded appearance on the world stage.

The second most important “achievement” of our new PM was to divide the nation and say “sorry” to the Aboriginal people for something that happened (or not) a few generations ago and to the left wing imaginary-cross generation guilt conscious we all must have. How much “reconciliation” such apology will bring is a matter of conjecture, but a good distraction from our real problems it certainly is.

I don’t know what would be Obama’s first action, if elected, but I grant you this: it will be a stunt, just as symbolic and just as meaningless.

With the opening of parliament this week the pattern of the Ruddicalisation is emerging, which is governed by stunts. Within the first week of Parliament sitting, Mr. Rudd announced that parliament will sit on Fridays but without government ministers (himself included) thus there will be no Question Time on Fridays.

Having just won a $100,000 increase in salary the new Prime Minister (who is married to millionaire wife), also announced this week that there will be no increases in parliamentarian salaries for the next 12 months, another “anti-inflation measure”.

For the 12 months prior to his election, we heard the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Rudd, calling himself an economic conservative whilst  acknowledging the accomplishments of the government of the day in term of a robust Australian economy. During the campaign Kevin07 had never criticized the Howard government for any of their economic policies – not even once! Instead he campaigned on undisclosed fresh ideas ,embracing the future and supporting working families, a term he plagiarised from an American Democratic election campaign.

Had you expected that after 70 days in office, Mr Rudd would have revealed what are his fresh ideas, you would be greatly disappointed. Instead, Kevin Rudd is going to invite one thousand (1,000) of the brightest minds in the country to convene in the Australia 2020 Summit and to come up with policy suggestions for the country. What has happened to Kevin07’s fresh ideas?  Did he forget them, or, more likely he had never had any to start with. Obviously it was just another one of his rhetorical campaign stunts.

I am not sure whether “2020” refers to the year 2020 or to hindsight vision of 20/20, in any event the list of invitees includes the usual suspects whose views are well known to agree with Kevin’s and with Labor Party policies. Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald-Sun hit the mark by naming this charade  as The Charge Of The Bright Brigade.

Kevin07 now has to deal with it as continuing increases of interest rates by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) as a precautionary measure of, what the RBA sees as, coming inflationary pressures following the election of a Labor government; it reminds us all of the previous hard Labor terms we served (under Whitlam, Hawke and Keating) – if indeed inflation will materialised and interest rates continues to rise, it may well cost Kevin the next election which is due in just under 3 years.

The new Rudd government has quickly moved into immediate anti-inflationary measure and appointed a committee to count pencils and staplers and report to the PM himself, citing the Howard government “mismanagement” of the economy, 10 consecutive budget surplus produced by the Howard government notwithstanding.

(By contrast, in the last 30 years, only one budget surplus was produced by a Labor government, that was Paul Keating’s 1989/90 budget).

Hey mister, nothing much has changed since your election campaign, you knew what you were getting into, remember? Further, you were going to stop the blame game, remember? You said that you will take responsibility, remember? So stop whining and do what you suppose to do, GOVERN!

Wake up America, put down that Cool-Aid.