Researched & Written by Cel Eden
Edited by Andrew Middleton
Barack Hussien Obama is the current president of the United States of America. During his campaign for the Presidency, it was thought that he was a catalyst, a signal of changing times, as he was the first African-American candidate to be elected. When it was announced that he was to become the 44th president of the USA, there was a public outpouring of emotion screened on televisions around the world, celebrating the perceived step forward.
To become the President, the United States Constitution states candidates must be natural born citizens. Section 1 of Article 2 in the United States Constitution states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
There have been several reports that bring into question [1], and lawyers demanding that Obama proves, where he was born, as the birth certificate he presented was obtained in Hawaii through the clause that only one family member needs to be a witness to claim a birth there. This is a hot topic because his grandmother in Kenya is on record as saying he was born there and she was in the delivery room. [2] There are also several pictures in existence showing his visits there over a period of time. If Obama was born in Kenya, it would make his rise to the presidency one that broke the Constitutional laws of the United States and therefore void his position.
While being sworn in as an attorney of Illinois, Obama stated he had never been known under any other names. However, there is factual evidence that he attended Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia, as “Barry Soetoro.” [3] This fact has been conveniently and constantly left out by the mainstream media up until recently when a report surfaced that his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, had ties with the CIA and suggested Obama’s rise to power may have been manufactured. [4]
Certain policies and decisions he has made in his term as President have been controversial and made headlines around the world. Some of these include: an Executive-ordered internet ‘killswitch’ [5], declaring the H1N1 virus a ‘national emergency’ – which violated parts of the Constitution [6] and saw him able to force people to take a flu vaccine at gunpoint if he felt it necessary – and the fact he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize within months of deciding to send a 40,000 strong contingent of soldiers to Iraq over 2010 [7].
Many Australians may ask what Obama’s Soetoro’s constitutional ineligibility & agenda has to do with our country. The United States of America seems to dictate policies to the rest of the world through its agenda and Australia traditionally – but particularly since 9/11 – been quick to align itself with that dictation and rarely question it. For evidence of this, we can look at the agendas of Australian & USA Governments since 2001 and find similarities in the “War on Terror” (including Afghanistan, Iraq, and defence/intelligence agreements), the aforementioned push to vaccinate entire populations in response to the swine flu “pandemic,” the push for a price on carbon emissions, the nationalising of healthcare systems, and general attitudes towards other countries, just to name a few. With so many of these issues commonly arising in national politics World-wide, it is important to know who the leaders around the World really are, and not just accept what we are told about them.
JULIA Gillard has dumped her election promise to deliver a citizens assemby to debate a carbon price under today’s formal deal with the Greens to support a Labor government.
The lampooned policy, which was condemned by the Coalition and the Greens at the last election as nothing more than a talkfest, has been replaced by mutual agreement with the Greens by a parliamentary committee.
But no agreement has been reached on a timeframe for a carbon price, which the Greens and Labor agree is vital to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by 2020.
The Greens this morning struck a formal deal with Labor to govern but the fate of Australia’s next prime minister still lies with the independents.
“The Greens will ensure supply and oppose any motions of no-confidence in the government from other parties or MPs,” leader Bob Brown said at a media conference in Canberra a short time ago.
Independent Andrew Wilkie is looking ever more likely to claim the previously safe Tasmanian Labor seat of Denison and join three other independents holding the key to power in Australia’s new federal parliament. (ABC Election Results for Denison)
…
A former Duntroon cadet, he rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and worked for United States defence giant Raytheon.
He continued his defence career as an intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessment.
But he caused a huge storm in 2003 when he resigned and spoke out against the Howard government on the Iraq war, saying there was no intelligence to indicate Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
…
Mr Wilkie ran against Mr Howard for the Greens in the seat of Bennelong in 2004. It was a remarkable transformation for a man who was once a young Liberal. He also ran for the Greens on their Tasmanian Senate ticket in 2007. He was unsuccessful and resigned from the party in 2008, criticising them for a lack of professionalism. Privately, some in the Greens are just as critical of Mr Wilkie and say he was too demanding in pushing for campaign resources.
National
* Introduction of maximum $1 bet and $120/hour loss limits on all poker machines in Australia.
* Urgent action on climate change, including a price on carbon.
* Honouring the word and spirit of the UN Refugee Convention.
* Federal whistleblower legislation.
* According the same funding priority to mental health care as afforded currently to GP and hospital services.
* Including dental care in Medicare.
* Overturning the recent Federal Government decision to extend to 2014 the review of the Federal funding model for education. Instead complete the review by 2012, and implement the recommendations as soon as practicable. Increased funding for tertiary institutions.
* Increasing all Government pensions, allowances and other payments to levels people can actually live on. Enhance the method of indexation so as to ensure they genuinely keep pace with inflation.
* A conscience vote on same-sex marriage.
* Increased funding of aged care facilities.
* The introduction of a national disability insurance scheme.
Local
* Replacement of the Royal Hobart Hospital. In the interim, leasing of sub-acute beds in private hospitals to help reduce the RHH occupancy rate to the national level.
* Stage 3 of the National Broadband Network complete by end 2012.
* Withdrawal of all Federal Government approvals for Gunns’ Tamar River pulp mill.
* Immediate release of the $20 million relief funding for Tasmanian forestry contractors pledged by the ALP and Coalition.
* Stage 1 of the Southern Councils Transport Plan implemented.
* The northern suburbs light rail funded and developed.
* Re-alignment of the Brighton bypass to protect the Jordan River levee Aboriginal heritage site. Upgrade of the Brooker Highway and Plenty Valley link road.
* Upgrade Hobart inner port infrastructure.
* Realisation of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery master plan.
* Stage 1 of the Glenorchy Sports, Recreation and Community Precinct funded and developed.
Office
* Adequate staffing and office space to deal with the workload of an Independent Member of Parliament
ANDREW Wilkie has declared fixing the Royal Hobart Hospital and pokies reform are the two issues that will decide who he backs to form government.
Reserving the right to not formally support either political party, the independent MP for Denison would offer the party he backed a guarantee not to block supply or support any “reckless” no-confidence motions.
He reserved the right also to vote against a minister if he or she acted grossly irresponsibly and unethically and would fiercely defend his right to vote on each piece of legislation the new government put forward on its merits. His support could not be relied on for its entire program.
…
He would support only an “ethical” government and was not interested in which side had the most votes or the most seats.
“I’m still to decide whether any one party or parties is going to do that,” he said.
“I reserve the option of backing no party or parties and letting the other 149 members come together and stand up a government and opposition.
“I note that in the last few months the Labor government has been neither stable, competent or ethical and I’m yet to be persuaded that the opposition can do any better.”
Mr Wilkie, who went to dinner last night in Canberra with the three rural independents, criticised their decision to act as a bloc.
The former army officer said of his list of 22 priorities that there were “at least two” that “I have said both to the Prime Minister and to the Opposition Leader there must be reform on”.
…
The former intelligence analyst, whistleblower and retired lieutenant colonel denied the list represented demands, rather his “priorities” in negotiations.
He met Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Melbourne yesterday and presented her with a list of 20 issues that are important to him.
While his stance on the Afghanistan war is not part of that list, Mr Wilkie has made it clear he is against troops staying there.
“The war in Afghanistan and what is being said by the Coalition and the Labor Party is one of the great lies of this election campaign,” he said.
“Both Labor Party members and Coalition members continue to perpetuate this nonsense, that we’re only there to fight terrorists to prevent them coming to Australia, to prevent them committing terrorist attacks here.”
He says politicians need to be honest about the reasons Australia is still in Afghanistan.
“They at the moment are trying to implement a policy put in place by, I think, incompetent politicians and this continuing lie about why we are there,” he said.
“Let’s be honest: let’s say we’re there to help the people of Afghanistan and to bolster our bilateral relationship with the US.”
He says he did originally support the invasion in November 2001 and he still backs Australian soldiers “100 per cent”, but there is no need to stay.
“I don’t know the solution from here. If we stay people will die, if we go people will die,” he said.
“But I do know peace will only come to Afghanistan when foreign troops are out and I think they should get out as soon as possible.”
Two more soldiers died last week in Afghanistan, taking the total number of Australian troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 21.
INDEPENDENT MP Bob Katter says the new PM will have more power than previous prime ministers after being anointed by independents to form the next government.
The north Queensland MP said he and fellow country independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor would be able to invest the new prime minister with greater political muscle than previous prime ministers John Howard and Kevin Rudd. To illustrate his point, he said Mr Howard and Mr Rudd had both agreed with him that competition reform had hurt Australians. But despite leading governments, they lacked the power to act.
“Well, we will deliver to one or the other that sort of power,” Mr Katter said.
Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan says he is sorry for identifying himself as “the devil” during a phone conversation with the wife of independent MP Rob Oakeshott. Mr Oakeshott is one of the key independents who are deciding which party to support in a hung parliament.
…
Mr Oakeshott said the phone call was weird and had chipped away at the confidence he was prepared to show in Mr Abbott. “So that has been unhelpful,” he said. He said Mr Abbott’s capacity to control rogue elements within the Coalition would be a factor in his decision about which party to support in a minority government.
This led to Liberal MP Julie Bishop leaping on Gillard’s ‘measure’ of a mandate when it came to the two-party preffered majority (exerts from ABC News, 31 August 2010):
Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop says Prime Minister Julia Gillard has lost her mandate to form government after Labor has lost its lead in the two-party preferred vote.
…
Ms Gillard had been using Labor’s lead in the two-party preferred vote to claim a mandate for Labor forming government. Now Ms Bishop has used the new figures to attack Ms Gillard’s argument.
“Julia Gillard set it as the bar. She said that was the plank for Labor being able to form government. Well that plank is now falling away,” she told Lateline.
But then at 12:48PM (exert from The Australian, 31 August 2010)…
“The latest counting showed Labor ahead of the Coalition by 3724 votes – a 50.02-49.98 per cent split – with 80.93 per cent of the vote counted. Labor snatched back the lead from the Coalition in the closely watched vote this morning.”
The ABC reported the same around the same time. Yet it’s Anthony Green – election analyst expert from the ABC – who says we won’t know for weeks anyway. Will the two-party preferred vote count matter in terms of the decisions made by the Independents? Should it matter? And if it does matter to the Independents, how long will it take to ascertain a winning majority?
The Labor Party is not ruling out a legal challenge to the result in the marginal Federal South Australian seat of Boothby, after another turn in the count.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has accepted legal advice to exclude 2,977 votes from the count.
The decision has reduced the lead of the sitting Liberal Andrew Southcott by 339 votes, but he has claimed victory with a current lead of 1,394 votes more than ALP candidate Annabel Digance.
The excluded votes were cast at an early voting centre at suburban Oaklands Park.
They were later deemed to have been handled in a way which contravened provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act when they were removed from a box and placed into another by an AEC employee.
A 2-to-3 week delay in forming a new Government, as appears likely, will not noticeably effect our economy and arguments are thin on the ground for how it relevantly could. As everyone seemed to acknowledge during the global financial crisis, the overall performance of Australia’s economy in the 21st century is influenced by far more than just actions taken by our Federal Government and was very much at the mercy of external factors. Indeed, a popular cliche in 2008 was “When America sneezes, the rest of the World coughes.”
However, leaving “the devil” Bill Heffernan and his phone calls aside, headlines and claims have come thick & fast in the mainstream media and from business leaders that a hung Parliament is particularly “bad for business” and the “gang of 3″ Independent MPs should come to their decision quicker than at their own pace, in their own way. Today we’ve seen Dominic Knight, a contributor to popular ABC comedy The Chasers and writing on a also publicly funded ABC website, attempting to ridicule the “gang of 3″ (Windsor, Oakeshott, and Katter) in his article titled, “Australia voted, now the independents should too.” (31 August 2010, ABCs The Drum) This is a curious paradigm to frame his article in, seeing as his first charge of the “gang of 3″ is:
“And unless they slept through the Rudd years – for which they could, admittedly, be forgiven – they must have a firm view about whether they’d rather see Gillard or Abbott as PM.”
Unless Knight hasn’t looked at the actual results of the election, or even realise what he was talking about in that instance, the voters didn’t actually have a firm view about whether they’d rather see Gillard or Abbott as PM at the conclusion of a six-week election campaign. So you’d think it’d make complete sense that these Independent MPs would also take their time in coming to a decision that they previously wouldn’t have anticipated having to make in their wildest dreams.
However, funny man Knight is seemingly outraged (and this author acknowledges it’s probably a tongue-in-cheek article) that these 3 Independent MPs dare gather some more in-depth information on the situation and the policies of either Party before making a well-thought out and reasoned decision. A decision which could actually have massive ramifications for the Australian economy and the future of its People and sovereignty, when it comes to the implementation of a carbon tax and a mining tax as currently desired by the Labor and Greens Parties. Knight thinks that decision should’ve been made “about a week ago,” with no actual reason is given for the frustration outside of the ABC’s Election Analyst Anthony Green needing a holiday…
A good example of the “bad for business” argument, which is just as thinly reasoned as the previously discussed article, can be seen in the following Sydney Morning Herald article titled, “Hung parliament ‘bad for business’” (22 August 2010), which begins with:
A hung parliament poses a risk to the economy and will dampen consumer confidence, business groups say. With counting set to continue for days, Labor and the coalition are in a deadlock for lower house seats and the balance of power looks likely to rest with three independents and one Greens member.
“For financial markets, a hung parliament probably is the worst possible outcome,” JP Morgan economist Stephen Walters said on Sunday.
Financial markets are possibly the best example of a market which Australian Government measures scarcely effects and which Australian Government policy or lack there-of barely scares off those looking to invest. This point is seemingly acknowledged by the same JP Morgan economist:
“A layer of persistent political risk … against a backdrop of heightened uncertainty over the state of the global economy, will weigh on investor sentiment.”
Would the same uncertainty over the state of the global economy weigh on investor sentiment more than the formation of any Australian Government? Well, for any savvy investor not taking advice from JP Morgan, it might. The next interest-group spokesperson acknowledges that the Greens Party getting the balance of power in the Senate is bad for business. So you’d expect it to be a good thing that there isn’t be a Government in place which can be lobbied to or even work in coalition with this new force in Australian politics, right? Apparently not:
Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout said the prospect of a hung parliament, plus a Senate where the Greens hold the balance of power, was a worrying outcome for businesses.
“It will potentially lead to instability, uncertainty and short-termism in policy development, all of which poses risks and challenges for the economy,” Ms Ridout said.
Surely Ms. Ridout can acknowledge she can’t have it all and this is better for her than a Labor Party Government already formed, for instance. While we had a JP Morgan economist speaking on behalf of investor sentiment, we had the Australian National Retailers Association speaking on behalf of consumer sentiment:
The Australian National Retailers Association also believes continuing political uncertainty will be bad for its members and the economy.
“Continued political instability will have a negative impact on the sector as consumers stay away from the shops,” chief executive Margo Osmond said.
“Election campaigns traditionally generate a brake on spending and the lack of a clear outcome will extend that effect beyond polling day.
Are you shopping less due to it being a “hung Parliament”? Has anybody thought of it when going to spend a dollar since August 21st? After the doom & gloom introduction, however, the August 22 article concludes far more positively with two very credible and objective voices when it comes to the matter of how the hung Parliament situation will affect Australia’s economy on the whole:
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Anderson called on businesses and consumers to carry on as normal despite the uncertain political landscape.
“A caretaker period in national politics does not put the economy on hold,” he said.
“Australians need not see the tightness of political combat as anything but an expression of a working democracy. Neither the business community nor the public should put economic or investment decisions on hold during this period.”
Commonwealth Securities senior analyst Craig James said Australia’s economic strength would not be jeopardised by the election outcome, with many key factors remaining stable no matter which party won government.
“We still will have, in our view, a credible economic manager, whether its Labor or Liberal,” he said.
If only those views made the introduction of the article, maybe the headline would’ve read: “No concerns for economy during Hung Parliament.” Yet surely the most reflective headline for the content would have been “Mixed thoughts on economic impact of Hung Parliament.” Not nearly as sensational, however.
Recent economic figures and commentary highlight the above points:
1. Australia’s economy is far more dependent on economic, environmental, and political situations around it, than it does on Government action or inaction:
This week’s post-election financial market action – shares down, the dollar off by a couple of cents and easing long-term bond yields – has been driven by fears that the US economic recovery is stalling.
2. The likely alternative (and still possible conclusion) to the current hung Parliament situation from the August 21st election, would be the incumbent Labor Party holding office with the Greens Party holding a “balance of power” in the Senate from the 1st of July, 2011. This would more than likely lead to new taxes – possibly at a higher rate than what the Labor Party campaigned for at the election – which would majorly effect the main industry which can quickly bring us out of deficit, the mining industry. The possibility of this tax is now delayed as we have the proverbial “draw” with the same big tax concerns that existed pre-election, but without a Government who can act upon or be lobbied on such proposals:
Stocks in Australia’s biggest mining companies rose Monday as the government’s plans for a new tax on their profits were thrown into doubt after the nation’s closest election in almost 50 years delivered no clear mandate.
3. This author is just an average Australian, and for the average Australian, having no Government in power to implement/increase taxes or remove civil liberties has to be a most desirable outcome out of possible outcomes that can be thought. The Australian public also get to hear from a wider array of voices and opinions than it otherwise would have without the Hung Parliament scenario.
How long in limbo?
Who knows when Australia will have a Government exactly! Check this website for a recent update on whether or not it does. But the limbo does eventually have to come to an end:
Legal experts from the Australian National University said election rules allowed Gillard to carry on in her caretaker role for up to three months while she struggled to enlist a majority.
Also keep in mind that another election – at least for the House of Representatives – is still a possible outcome from the current negotiations. Indeed, it’s a possibility the major parties are currently preparing for:
Ah, Australia, the lucky country. It seems like her people won’t even have to put up with a Government for the start of the traditional September footy finals. The only people disappointed are those believing we need urgent action to reduce human carbon emissions, those people will just have to hold their breath for the time being. But surely the most important thing to come up from this scenario is the chance for change and the chance to question, where there previously was not. From going to sleep on August 21st to waking up August 22nd, the major party politicians who so obviously uninspired the nation during the election campaign, saw the focus move away from them and onto otherwise unheard voices with some previously unheard and certainly not listened to views.
This could well be a trend in the political atmosphere in Australia, or certainly could be if people want it to be. As not just in this Hung Parliament scenario, but in the short-term future, battle lines will be re-drawn in what’s a dramatically altered Parliament already with the Greens having the “balance of power” in the Senate for the first time. So if you demand change on an issue of importance, or in the Australian political system in general, get informed, get active, and get your voice heard.
Clarke & Dawe have done a comedy skit on the hung Parliament situation, as seen on the 7:30 Report 26th of August, 2010:
It is a story the corporate media, with the notable exception of one lone Fox News affiliate, refuses to report. A former FBI agent, Don Adams, has compelling evidence Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate president John F. Kennedy. Adams was assigned to an FBI office in Thomasville, Georgia, on November 22, 1963. Adams was responsible for investigating Joseph Adams Milteer, described as a radical with connections to the States Rights Party and KKK. Milteer, according to Adams, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination.
As revealed by the Church Committee in the mid-70s and according to internal FBI documents the agency controlled the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists beginning in the 1960s. More recently, it was revealed that racist radio talk show host Hal Turner operated as a “national security intelligence” asset for the FBI, thus demonstrating the agency still has its hooks in the lunatic fringe movement.
The racist Milteer “was reportedly one of most violent men in the country,” Adams told Fox 8 News. Years later, Adams discovered that Milteer had threatened to kill Kennedy on November 9, 1963, and the FBI had lied about Milteer whereabouts. In order to make his case, Adams played an audio recording of Milteer for Fox News. In the recording, Milteer tells an informant the best way to get the president “is from an office building with a high powered rifle.” Asked if he was sincere about a plot of kill Kennedy, Milteer responded: “Oh yes. It’s in the works.”
Despite the threat and possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the president, the FBI and Secret Service allowed Kennedy to travel to Dallas. “[They] should have stopped the President from traveling instantly,” said Adams.
“You thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high powered rifle,” a “jubilant” Milteer” told the informant following the murder.
Adams points out that Milteer was in Dallas on the day of the assassination and has a photograph to prove it. In the photo, Milteer stands near the presidential limousine prior to the shooting. Adams notes this fact was not mentioned in the Warren Commission report.
Other, more well-known personages were also photographed in Dealy Plaza on that fateful day, in particular George Bush Senior. The future CIA director and president was photographed standing outside the Texas Book Depository building where it was said Oswald single-handedly shot the president from the sixth floor. Gerald Ford appointed Bush to head-up the agency when the House Select Committee on Assassinations was investigating CIA-FBI links to the murders of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.
During Gerald Ford’s funeral in 2007, the elder Bush attacked theories straying from the official version. “After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness,” said Bush. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.”
After Adams told the FBI he believed it was impossible for Oswald to have fired three shots with a bolt-action rifle in seven-and-a-half seconds while taking aim through a scope, he was warned by his superiors not to pursue his findings. “Don, be careful what you say and how you say it,” an agent told him.
Mr. Adams’ assertions contribute to a huge body of evidence revealing that Kennedy was not murdered by Oswald in the fashion described by the government.
In 2007, a study conducted by a former FBI scientist put to rest the Oswald-as-lone-gunman theory. William A. Tobin, a former FBI lab metallurgist, and colleagues published a study the Annals of Applied Statistics demonstrating that at least one other shooter was involved in the assassination.
Also in 2007, former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admitted in an audio recording that he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK. The tape was released by the late Hunt’s son, Saint John Hunt, and aired on the Coast to Coast radio show in April, 2007.
“E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a ‘bench warmer’ in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.
Saint John Hunt said that his father indeed resembled one of three “bums” arrested and photographed in Dealy Plaza following the assassination. The elder Hunt told his son he was “deeply conflicted and deeply remorseful” that he didn’t blow the whistle on the plot at the time and prevent the assassination. At the time Kennedy was hated by many government officials, especially officials at the CIA. Following the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation and his failure to support military action in Cuba, Kennedy had promised to “shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter the remnants to the wind.”
Kennedy’s enemies in the CIA and the FBI are well documented. He fired the Chief Executive of the CIA, Charles Cabell, and among his enemies were Richard Helms, former CIA director Allen Dulles, and Gerald Ford, who would later become the default president of the United States.
In May of 2007, Saint John Hunt went on the Alex Jones Show and revealed that his father would have “finish[ed] the job” and killed Teddy Kennedy. “In the context that JFK had already been removed, RFK was gone and his motto was ‘let’s finish the job,’” Hunt told Jones. He said his father was pleased when Robert Kennedy was assassinated.
In 2008, the BBC aired a documentary offering evidence that the CIA was responsible for Robert Kennedy’s assassination. Three men were positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA’s Miami base for its Secret War on Castro. “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard,” David Sanchez Morales, aka “El Indio,” who was involved in CIA efforts against Castro and the CIA’s 1954 overthrow of the Guatemalan government, reportedly bragged after the RFK assassination.
In his audio confession, the late E. Howard Hunt said Morales and Lyndon Johnson were involved in the plot to kill JFK. Hunt said the code name for the assassination operation was “The Big Event.”
Johnson’s former mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, told author Robert Gaylon Ross prior to her death in 2002 that Johnson was involved in the murder, a plot that had its origins in the 1960 Democratic Convention, where John F. Kennedy was elected as presidential candidate with Johnson as his running mate. Johnson, according to Brown, colluded with oil tycoon H. L. Hunt to have Kennedy eliminated. “It was a total political crime and H.L. Hunt really controlled what actually happened to John Kennedy — he and Lyndon Johnson,” said Brown. “It was a political crime for political power.” Johnson had allegedly said on the night before the assassination: “Those SOBs will never embarrass me again.”
A preponderance of evidence points to government involvement in the Kennedy assassination. However, due to the intelligence practice of compartmentalization — and the murder and disappearance of key witnesses — we will probably never know the exact details of how the government killed not only John F. Kennedy, but also his brother Robert and the civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
WeAreChange Western Australia does not accept the Warren Commission’s “findings” into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. View this good summation of the situation from comedian Bill Hicks [WARNING - Contains explicit language]:
After the tight Australian Federal Election result, it is more than likely that 3 (possibly 4) independent elected members of Parliament will figure largely in the configuration of the new Government. Issues such as “climate change action” and internet censorship may well be key to the discussions these men hold with both major parties, and public statements from at least one of the Independents – Robert Oakeshott – are that an emissions trading scheme would be “a priority” to him (22 August 2010, Herald Sun). Please e-mail Robert and/or any of the independents involved in these negotiations with your concerns and thoughts on the situation:
Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, NSW): robert.oakeshott.mp@aph.gov.au
Tony Windsor (New England, NSW): Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Bob Katter (Kennedy, QLD): bobkatter@gmail.com
Andrew Wilkie* (Denison, TAS): wilkie.andrew@bigpond.com
* Probable – see latest vote count.
Read my letter below and feel free to grab ideas and links from it.
Hello Robert,
I appreciate that you would be endlessly communicating with people all over Australia, so may I just congratulate you on your re-election as the member for Lyne and list 5 points with references for your consideration, largely in response to your focus on combating apparent climate change as I read about here:
1) You say you’re happy providing anyone the “relevant documents” regarding human-based influence on the climate if they have their doubts. I would certainly appreciate being provided with that, and I’ll offer some of my proof as to why I’m sceptical of your point of view:
The Sceptics Handbook: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ The weather stations can’t be trusted: http://surfacestations.org Former NASA Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer’s thoughts & satellite tempreture stations:
31 500 scientists don’t accept your point of view:
http://petitionproject.org
CLIMATEGATE: The Mother of all Scientific Scandals: (did you hear about this when encouraging the implementation of an ETS last November?)
“On November 19, 2009, climate science was severely shaken by the release of a collection of email messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the key centers of global warming research. These emails and text files have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.”
So what exactly is it that you’ll be sending me that completely outweights all of this and more..?
2) You say: “I would personally say, let’s go back to the Garnaut report and try and get something through based on that. The template is there, stick to the script, keep it simple.” Garnaut however, appears accepting of the fact that Australia acting alone would be pointless:
Accepting these two points as fact, why would you, and for that matter the next Parliament of Australia, be so hell bent on an ETS? We’re not out of that global recession yet by any means, are we Robert..? Or would that also depend on whether “Garnaut says so”?
3) An ETS would be so open to manipulation I’m surprised anyone who wants to see People before Profits would support it. I personally have been to the Walk Against Warming community events (http://www.walkagainstwarming.org) and there was far from a consensus amongst those who believe the man-made global warming theory on any sort of a carbon price/trading scheme, and after speaking to my group of friends and myself, some were even in more doubt about it being a worthwhile venture in achieving carbon emission reduction. Lets have a look at how it has gone in Europe in regards to corruption in their trading scheme:
[The flyer I handed out at the Walk Against Warming] http://wearechangewa.com/downloads/documents/pdf/Flyers—We.Are.Change—ClimateGate.pdf
4) The Greens suggestion for climate change action are the most extreme out there, of course. What many are not aware of is the Global Governance agenda behind the talk. Please read the Greens “Global Governance” policy off their website: http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/global-governance
They also have related Global Governance measures in their other economic policies, such as:
15. At the international level, support the implementation of a currency transaction tax (Tobin Tax) to discourage global currency speculation and to provide an independent tax base for international institutions.
24. establish mechanisms to prevent the debt crisis from recurring, such as introducing the potential for penalties for surplus as well as debtor nations.
5) This is an agenda backed up by the United Nations, as seen at the Copenhagen Summit and announcements since:
“A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.”
The 4th benchmark for success at Copenhagen of UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon writing for the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=4
Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework:
So do you understand what’s at stake here negotiating favourably with the Greens and for a carbon reduction agenda? The erosion of Australian sovereignty. The Liberals aren’t totally against a carbon tax or trading system but in the position you’re in, you can influence the possibility of it in any future Government structure. Consider your position and possible assumptions carefully, because initial indications show you’re being led down the Greens Garden Path…
I have a book called “The past and future of Climate” by Professor David Archibald along with DVDs to send you if you’d like.
Alternative rock megaband Muse have urged their millions of listeners to take the “red pill” and reject the babylon system of mindless popular culture and meaningless music – by inviting people to visit Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com and Infowars.com via links on the band’s official website.
Muse’s links page features their own Facebook and MySpace pages as well as some fan sites, but a special section contains just four links, two of which lead to Prison Planet and Infowars.
Why does any of this matter? Because even before the release of their latest blockbuster The Resistance, Muse had sold 10 million albums worldwide and won countless awards, including five MTV Europe Music Awards, five Q Awards, eight NME Awards, two BRIT awards and four Kerrang! Awards. Muse’s The Resistance album is the culmination of their increasingly public vocal opposition to the new world order agenda, and has topped the album charts in no less than 19 countries worldwide.
The fact that one of the most popular bands on the planet right now is using its gargantuan public platform to encourage its listeners to educate themselves about the agenda for world government shows how deeply woven into the fabric of society the real resistance is becoming.
As we have previously documented, music and popular culture is the most powerful weapon the elite wield in keeping the masses distracted, dumbed down and morally bankrupt. Amoral, vacuous and nihilistic drivel from the likes of Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna and Katy Perry keeps young women obsessed with meaningless drivel while thinking that it’s mandatory to dress and act like a whore to be accepted by their peers, while the endless parade of moronic hip-hop artists, people like Puff Daddy, Kanye West, Jay-Z, 50-cent and Lil Wayne brainwash young men into thinking that acting like a superficial, moronic, money-obsessed, sex-obsessed thug who wears their pants round their knees and treats women like pieces of meat is cool.
That’s why it’s so refreshing to see a truly talented band like Muse singing about important and cutting edge issues and being successful in the process, reaching millions of young people who might otherwise have been trapped in the babylon system of popular culture that is warping young people’s minds and turning them into depressed, disenchanted, powerless, and soulless creatures whose manipulated mindlessness prevents them from even being able to think straight amidst the ceaseless din of the psychological attack they are under from music and popular culture in general.
The new world order attack on our society is about more than politics, money, and power – it’s about stealing the minds of our own children and filling them with self-destructive, humanist, post-modernist, spiritually devoid crap that destroys their innocence, their hope, their strength of character and their moral compass.
Featured below is Muse’s video for Uprising, which has received over 16.5 million views on You Tube. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the message behind the song.
Mark Walmsley is a highly qualified ex-RAAF test pilot now working in executive management. Dr Mark Dixon is a small business owner providing specialist software services to industry. Both are married with two children.
“I’m proud to run as a Liberal Democrat candidate for the Senate at the coming election,” Mark Walmsley said.
“It is important that voters who believe in less government, lower taxes and greater freedom should have a political party to represent them in the Parliament.”
“High taxing, intrusive government is brake on economic growth. Big government monopolies are inefficient, for which we pay through higher taxes and lower quality services. Every dollar wasted by government on pet projects or incompetent management is a dollar of extra taxes paid by voters. This is money that can’t be used for R&D, infrastructure, or returned to taxpayers.
“I also believe in stong civil liberties and a much reduced role for government in our everyday lives. The more government tells people what to do, the less responsibility people take for their own actions. I am also opposed to recent police stop & search powers and the proposed internet filter.
Mark comes from Moonyoonooka near Geraldton. After joining the Royal Australian Air Force he completed a Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering before graduating as a RAAF pilot. After several years flying C-130H Hercules transports Mark and family moved to Manchester, UK to complete experimental test pilot training. Returning to Australia, Mark worked as a test pilot on several programs, flew C-130J Hercules aircraft operationally, and was Commanding Officer of a 60-strong airworthiness, engineering and training unit.
In 2005-06 Mark served as the Commonwealth chief test pilot for the $3.4 billion Wedgetail AEW&C program in Seattle. He was a key contributor in ensuring the aircraft was a safe and capable weapon system.
WeAreChange Western Australia endorses Mark Walmsley (Liberal Democratic Party) as a Federal Senate Candidate for WA. Find him on your white Upper House voting ballot paper this Federal Election, August 21st.
SUNDAY AUGUST 8: STREET WALK – PERTH
Community Housing Coalition of WA
Join this fabulous event through Perth, WA
Time: Noon
Venue: Forrest Place, Murray Street Mall, Perth
Mark Walmsley is a highly qualified ex-RAAF test pilot now working in executive management. Dr Mark Dixon is a small business owner providing specialist software services to industry. Both are married with two children.
