by Viv Forbes science writer
‘They that take the sword shall perish by the sword’
Speaking following reports of multiple shootings at two Mosques in New Zealand earlier today, Senator Fraser Anning has responded with strong condemnation.
“I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman,” he said.
“However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence.”
“As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all clichéd nonsense.”
“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”
“Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the
perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an
“The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot
masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who
opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates.”
“The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless.”
“As we read in Matthew 26:52, ‘all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword’ and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind,” Senator Anning concluded.
Letter to the editor
How sad is this. Having to give up your job so you can get more money. AND they tell us they do it for their constituents NOT FOR MONEY!!!!!! By the way check out what pensioners get in this country.
The real reason behind 60 Elected MPs not seeking re-election
Sixty elected members of the federal government have now reported they have made the decision not to run in the upcoming next election!
It’s a very high number compared to previous elections. Some of them tell us that it’s for family reasons, others for their desire to serve their fellow citizens in other fields and many other great stories to make us cry for them.
Besides all the tear jerking that politicians have been giving about retiring here is something else to consider.
In 2015 a change in the pension for MP’s ensures that the age of full retirement for an MP having served at least 6 years, will no longer be 55 years but 65 years. Thus any MP not yet 65 and who wants to benefit from the present pension scheme need only not run in the next election and thus will draw for 10 years longer a government pension of over $100,000/year.
For an elected MP approaching 55 and who is not running, that means about $1 million that he/she would not receive should he/she run and win again. One should also add the severance premium (between $80,000 and $125,000) upon his/her departure.
You can now understand better all these sudden “family emergencies”, appreciate the newfound desire to advance his/her career in a government job or a committee of some sort and have two or three salaries (and possibly two or three pensions).
Not bad as a justification to not run eh?,
G J May
Harry explains the podcast site sudden shut down. He chats with Rod Culleton who updates his case with the Australian Parliament illegally dismissing him as a senator, his submission to the British privy council to address our out of control political system which is circumnavigating our constitution…. and more.
To listen to this APR Podcast [CLICK HERE]
Watch this exclusive interview with Lex Stewart, Chairman of Vote Australia expose the corrupt Australian Electoral commission and why Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t do anything about it.
In his 2018 budget Scott Morrison announced a ban on cash transactions over $10,000, originally to come into force in July 2019, but now January 2020.
With this measure, Australia has joined what outspoken former Liberal Party economics advisor John Adams, who is forecasting an impending economic Armageddon, calls the “war on cash”—nations deliberately moving to a cashless society.
Going cashless is commonly promoted as an efficiency measure driven by technology, but it coincides with the global push for “bail-in”—the policy of averting bank failures by seizing the savings and investment funds of depositors and other classes of creditors.
Bail-in is one of a number of sinister developments in the international financial system, including negative interest rates, which drive people to keep their money in cash.
If it’s not in the bank, it can’t be bailed in.
And you can’t be charged for having it there, which is how negative interest rates work.
Morrison snuck a bail-in law through Parliament in February last year, the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Act 2018, with only a handful of MPs and Senators present when it passed and no recorded vote.
It authorises the “conversion or write-off”, a.k.a. bail-in, of so-called hybrid securities which are better known as bail-in bonds, which have been sold to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting mum and dad investors and self-funded retirees. They are at risk of losing, collectively, more than $40 billion.
But the law included a massive loophole that the Citizens Electoral Council’s legal experts, as well as John Adams, Digital Finance Analytics Principal Martin North, and former APRA Principal Researcher Dr Wilson Sy, identified could be used to conduct a back door bail-in of deposits by stealth.
When Pauline Hanson’s One Nation senators notified the government they intended to close this loophole with an amendment that explicitly excluded deposits from any bail-in, the government and Labor Party opposition rushed the bill through the Senate when the One Nation senators weren’t present in the chamber.
Now, as the CEC revealed 4 March, the International Monetary Fund is saying that the 2018 law isn’t enough, and is demanding the government enact a full statutory bail-in regime that explicitly includes deposits. Moreover, the IMF is demanding that the government scrap all democratic safeguards over the bank regulator APRA, by which the Treasurer can give APRA directions and the Parliament can disallow an APRA policy. The IMF wants these safeguards scrapped, so that in the event that APRA orders a bail in of bank deposits in a future crisis, the government will not be able to block the order to protect the public.
This bail-in policy is guaranteed to destroy the public’s confidence that their banks will keep their money safe, and will drive people to take their money out and hoard it in physical cash or other forms.
So what are we seeing around the world coinciding with the rollout of a global bail-in regime? A massive and draconian crackdown on the freedom to use cash.
This is most obvious across the European Union, where the EU bail-in system called the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) came into force in January 2016.
According to a 25 February 2019 post by John Adams on his website entitled “The New Global Push for Negative Nominal Interest Rates”:
- France has legally prohibited cash transactions above €1,000;
- Spain has legally prohibited cash transactions above €2,500;
- Italy has legally prohibited cash transactions above €3,000;
- the European Central Bank ended the production and issuance of its €500 note at the end of 2018.
Also, the government of India eliminated 86 per cent of all physical cash throughout the Indian economy in 2016 by banning popular denominations of the currency. This created a political uproar in India, and fuelled suspicion of India’s bail-in law which was introduced the following year, the same time as Australia’s. The backlash was so great that the Indian government was forced to withdraw its bail-in law—the first time that has happened.
Sweden is 95 per cent cashless, and Vietnam has a plan to become 90 per cent cashless by 2020.
Another common justification for the war on cash is the need to crack down on the black economy, which is the Morrison government’s excuse. But this isn’t genuine. There are adequate measures in place to track cash-based criminality, which CBA and other banks have ignored, and the same Morrison government shamelessly protects those banks from real scrutiny and real consequences.
The fact remains that limits on cash trap people in banks where they can’t escape bail-in.
Join the CEC’s fight to defeat bail-in and force Parliament to pass the Separation of Banks bill that Senator Pauline Hanson introduced on 12 February, for a Glass-Steagall separation of banking from speculation, which will fully protect deposits from financial dangers and bail-in, and restore confidence in the banking system.
What you can do—fight for the Separation of Banks bill to stop bail-in
- Make a submission to the current Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry in support of the Separation of Banks bill. The submissions deadline is 12 April, but do it straight away. Click here for instructions on making a submission.
- Call the chairman and deputy chairman of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to demand they hold public hearings on the Separation of Banks bill, so that the inquiry is transparent and they can get a proper understanding of the need for bank separation from real experts who are not beholden to the banks.
Chairman: Senator Jane Hume – Liberal
(03) 9428 1773
Deputy chairman: Senator Chris Ketter – ALP
(07) 3881 3710
from Firearm Owners United
A section of One Nation firearms policy for NSW
Firearms Consultative Committee
NSW One Nation supports the establishment of a Firearms Consultative Committee as proposed by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW). This would assist Government in developing legislation that is evidence-based, supports law-abiding firearm owners, is in the public interest and targets the criminal use of firearms.
One Nation strongly supports law-abiding firearm owners who deserve greater public recognition for their role in storing their guns as safely as possible, keeping them out of the wrong hands. Our four priorities are to:
- Recognise that as a matter of principle, licensed firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens for legitimate business purposes (such as farming) and recreational pursuits is a right in a free society.
- Maintain the 1996 national gun laws that have played a role in preventing public massacres in Australia for 23 years, allowing shooters to get on with their sport without constant calls in parliament for gun law tightening and increasingly Draconian restrictions on gun ownership.
- Crack down on the illegal importation of guns into Australia as a vital public safety measure.
- Minimise the chance of radical Islamic terrorists getting hold of weaponry in Australia for their evil purposes.
When you open with the usual false binary comparison about “USA vs Australia” you know it’s only going one way.
Stating that firearm ownership is a right but first prefacing it as licenced is contradictory – it’s either a right or it’s not. Cracking down on extremists and illegal imports are vanilla statements and plain old common sense.
In fairness, supporting development of shooting facilities and pest control in regional NSW is a good thing, but how they go about this (particularly with the current debacle) is another matter. David Leyonhjelm was able to secure a long-term lease for Malabar in Sydney while also advocating for getting rid of the NFA.
There’s nothing in the policy about self-defence, castle doctrine, eliminating appearance laws, reining in NSW Police’s rampant authoritarian stupidity on firearms and a whole slew of important firearm issues.
To be quite honest, this policy just reads as the usual token nod to firearm owners but maintaining business as usual – explicitly stated with the “maintain the 1996 national gun laws” which aren’t national anyway.
To Latham’s credit, he did go to SSAA Sydney and try out shooting to see the other side of the argument. However, the gun-grabbing elements of the current Labor Party are on display here. The Labor Party of old would never have stood for this, but the Labor Party died long ago.
PHON forget their history and their roots of being elected in 1998 on the back of the 1996 laws in Queensland, as part of the wipe-out of the Nationals in response to the NFA. Now they’ve gone full circle and become Liberal-lite.
Note to political parties trying to capture the shooting vote: any reference to status quo or upholding Australia’s gun laws won’t win you votes, unless they’re Nationals fudds.
Liberal Democrats, SFFP, Fraser Anning’s National Conservative Party and Katter’s Australian Party are the only ones with the track record and subsequently, worth voting for in this space. It’s not worth splitting the vote further.
If PHON are serious about firearm owners then they’re going about it the wrong way – the policy needs a serious rewrite. It’s better than the major parties’ but not by much at all.
You can’t claim to advocate for the working class of NSW while disarming them PHON.
Katters Australian Party has never wavered on removing the registration of long arms.-Editor
The facts behind Aboriginal recognition and Clinton’s insidious influence over indigenous land owners claiming 60 per cent of Australian land area
from Gil May
Why have Australian governments tipped money into Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation helping to kill our coal industry? That it gave Julia Gillard a job and effectively a platform to continually spruik Hillary Clinton for president shows just how this very dodgy Foundation works.
The Australian taxpayer shovelled at least $88 million into the Clinton Foundation and associated entities from 2006 to 2014, reaching a peak of $10.3 million in 2012-13, Gillard’s last year in office.
On the Clinton Foundation website, AusAID and the Commonwealth of Australia score separate entries in the $10 million-plus group of donors, one rung up from American teacher unions.
In 2009-10 Kevin Rudd handed over another $10 million to the foundation for climate research, part of $300 million he squandered on a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
Gillard also donated $300 million of our money to the Clinton-affiliated Global Partnership for Education.
Lo and behold, she became chairman in 2014 and has been actively promoting Clinton as president ever since — in a campaign video last December slamming Trump, in opeds trumpeting the next woman president and in appearances with Clinton spruiking girls’ education.
The Abbott government topped up the left-wing organisation’s coffers with another $140 million in 2014, bringing total Australian largesse to $460 million, according to a press release from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.
And yet, apart from the beautiful friendship with Gillard, what did Australia get from the Clintons for all that cash?
A whole lot of trouble is what.
Wikileaks emails released at the time shows that Australian green groups have been secretly funded to destroy our coal industry by environmental activists connected to the Clinton campaign.
The email account of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta reveals extraordinary details of the sabotage of the $16 billion Adani coalmine in Queensland, which has damaged Australia’s national interest and denied cheap electricity to millions of poor Indians.
Last August John Hepburn, former Greenpeace activist and founder of Australian anti-coal group the Sunrise Project, sent a crowing email to his American paymasters, the Sandler Foundation, which is also a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. (Founder Herb Sandler and mate George Soros funded another Clinton-aligned progressive group, the Centre for American Progress, previously chaired by Podesta.)
“The Adani Carmichael mine and the whole Galilee Basin fossil fuel industrial complex is in its death throes,” Hepburn wrote in the email forwarded to Podesta.
“I am going to buy a few bottles of bubbly for a celebration with the (Environmental Defenders Office) legal team, our colleagues at GetUp, Greenpeace, 350.org, ECF, Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Mackay Conservation Group, Market Forces and the brilliant and tireless Sunrise team.”
In another email forwarded to Podesta, Hepburn panics about a then Abbott government inquiry into environmental charities and discusses hiding Sunrise’s sources of funding to safeguard its charitable tax status.
Hepburn boasts about the latest legal blow to Adani, when the Federal Court overturned its approval and the Commonwealth Bank quit the project.
In it he now wants to “escalate the campaign towards the other 3 big Australian banks”.
And he mocks miners who “try to claim that there is some kind of foreign-funded and tightly orchestrated conspiracy to systematically destroy the Australian coal industry. (I seriously don’t know where they get these wacky ideas from!)”
The Break-up of Australia: The Real Agenda behind Aboriginal Recognition.
As if it’s not bad enough that foreign-funded activists are meddling with our largest export earner, Podesta’s emails also detail their insidious influence on indigenous land owners who blocked the Adani mine using powerful native title rights.
This alliance of green groups with native title owners is a frightening development detailed in a new book by historian Keith Windschuttle, The Break-up of Australia: The Real Agenda behind Aboriginal Recognition.
He reveals the imminent expansion of native title claims, either approved or quietly being processed, stretch across a whopping 60 per cent of the Australian continent, an area twice the size of Western Europe.
Already 6000sq km of the Kidman cattle empire in the Kimberley has been given, via native title, to green activists to be converted from productive cattle country to a wildlife conservation area.
“In return, the Yulumbu people get a paltry $50,000 a year royalty,” Windschuttle writes.
“As a flora and fauna sanctuary it is economically defunct for the foreseeable future.”
At worst, writes Windschuttle, the mooted referendum for indigenous constitutional recognition, proposed by Gillard in 2012, could pave the way for a separate Aboriginal state on native title land, funded by taxation, royalties and lease payments — passive welfare in another guise.
At the very least, the alliance between foreign-funded green groups and indigenous owners gives environmentalists the opportunity to take whole swathes of Australia out of the productive economy and shut down industries they don’t like, from coal mines in Queensland to cattle farms in Western Australia.
Thanks for nothing, Hillary and Julia.
As the Clinton Fund is now under investigation in the US, what has the Australian government done to recover our money?
Many people worked hard to pay in taxes, that would have gone a long way to building new dams for our drought stricken farmers or new hospitals.