Mark Riley, the Seven Network, to [Greens] Senator Brown: “You must know you played into the sweet spot of all conspiracy theorists today with your support for a Global Parliament. I’m wondering how you would see such an organisation operating: are you talking about an international treaty organisation that might sign up to collective commitments on certain issues, or something that might legislate and then come into conflict with national parliaments?
And a little bit of a self-interest [question], if it’s going to be in Australia, can it be at Jarvis Bay? Because that’s where Canberra should’ve been, surely.”
Senator Bob Brown: “Yeah, but Jarvis Bay is so beautiful I’d like to keep that National Park right like it is, and nuclear power station-free might I had.
I was doing my Windsor knot (starts fiddling with tie) before I came here thinking of the House of Windsor, and of course they always get wound into these conspiracies, don’t they. No, uh, look, uh, we are moving towards a globally informed community that’s got to live with itself, and we have always espoused democracy. I can tell you that the two moves the Greens have made for a Global democratic umm… support for moves in the United Nations, have been voted down by all other parties, both in 2002 and earlier this year – this is conceptual.
But I’m talking here about vision. Why should Australia not be the center of what is inevitably going to be a Global Parliamentary… uh… Governance, down the line. If we human beings are going to live with each other on this marvelous planet of ours, as we go on the joyride of the future, of course we’re going to have to make consensus decisions. And representative democracy – as Winston Churchill noted – is full of flaws, but it’s the best we have. The point I was making, if we can invade Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan in the name of democracy, surely we can peacefully get behind moves to have a Global Governance on such things as financial transactions, which with a Tobin Tax could put an end to poverty, really, uhh it’s a great prospect.
It’s not going to happen in my lifetime, but I’m very happy to help build up the concept.”
Video from December 11, 2010 at the University of San Francisco. Filmed by John Parulis.
Key Note Speaker: Kevin Bracken
Kevin Bracken is the Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Victoria Branch and President of the Australia Victorian Trades Council Hall, which represents 400 000 workers. He will be speaking, in a personal capacity, on “Corporate Media, The Trade Unions, War and 9/11”. Bracken is one of the leading trade unionists in the world, who has publicly challenged the US official explanation of 9/11, and the political use of “terrorism” by governments internationally to escalate the attacks on democratic rights and repression of the labor movement and working people around the world.
For more about Kevin Bracken and his questioning of the official 9/11 story, check out:
Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken calls 9/11 ‘conspiracy’
From: The Herald Sun
By Shannon Deery, Stephen McMahon with Ewin Hannan
Kevin Bracken, the president of the Victorian Trades Hall and secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, sparked anger this morning after claiming the attacks were not the result of terrorist activity.
“I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny,” Mr Bracken told ABC talk-back host Jon Faine.
“In my mind the buildings were imploded.”
…
“I challenge you to a public debate,” Mr Bracken said.
“Aviation fuel doesn’t get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire.
“I stick to scientific fact.”
…
This is not the first time Mr Bracken has voiced his controversial opinions on the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.
In 2006 he told The Australian he believed the attacks only worked because the American government was in some way involved.
“If they want to stop terrorism they’ve got to look at who was really behind September 11,” Mr Bracken said at the time.
“It couldn’t have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services. I am not saying the whole lot were involved. But I believe the official story for September 11 doesn’t stack up.”
Mr Bracken said in 2006 his views on the terror laws and September 11 were his own, and he was not speaking on behalf of the union.
JULIA Gillard has dismissed as “stupid and wrong” a senior union official’s belief that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy but has refused to discipline him.
…
The Opposition opened parliamentary question time on the matter today, with Victorian MP Josh Frydenberg asking the Prime Minister what action she would take against Mr Bracken “to send a message that such remarks are unacceptable”.
“Obviously I don’t agree with the remarks, obviously they are stupid and wrong,” Ms Gillard said.
KEVIN Bracken is a genuine bit-player in Australian politics, as president of the Victorian Trades Hall Council and a Labor Party member of the inner city Port Melbourne branch.
But yesterday he was propelled on to the centre stage of national debate when the Coalition used him to kick off the daily Question Time ritual in Federal Parliament.
Josh Frydenberg, a former Howard government senior staffer, is a Liberal Party politician to watch – smart, savvy and he can carry an argument.
He was let down by his own leadership when the tactics group, which plans the Question Time attack, handed him a piddling question to ask Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Frydenberg referred her to a comment from Bracken about the al-Qa’ida attack on the World Trade Centre which he said was a US Government hoax.
Frydenberg wanted Gillard to discipline him and “send a message to others that such remarks are unacceptable”.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Gillard brushed the question away, saying the Labor Party was a big organisation which included people who said things that were “stupid and wrong”.
The Prime Minister finished by telling Tony Abbott that if he wanted to set a precedent under which members were expelled for saying stupid things, she could whip up a long list of qualified Liberals in quick time.
This question betrays the lack of real tactical focus by the Opposition.
TO suggest that the al-Qaida terror attack on the World Trade Centre towers on September 11, 2001 was actually a US conspiracy is nothing short of appalling.
Even worse is the fact that the person publicly spruiking the theory yesterday was Kevin Bracken, president of the Victorian Trades Hall as well as the secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia. He claimed the buildings were “imploded”.
Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard reacted appropriately in question time yesterday when asked about the inflammatory comments by the senior trade union office bearer. She replied that the remarks were “stupid and wrong”.
There were several angry responses from callers after Mr Bracken rang Jon Faine to air his opinions yesterday.
Back in 2006, Mr Bracken said the attacks “couldn’t have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services”.
He declared: “I believe the official story for September 11 doesn’t stack up.” At the time, he emphasised that these were his personal views and that he was not speaking on behalf of the union members he represented.
But whether Mr Bracken realises it or not, the 3000 people who perished in the World Trade Centre buildings were workers, just like the very people he represents.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister distanced herself from Mr Bracken. “Obviously I don’t agree with the remarks, obviously they are stupid and wrong,” Ms Gillard said. “The Labor Party is a large organisation, people join it as individuals … we don’t dictate what people think.”
Thankfully, Mr Bracken’s extreme views are not shared by Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd, who said: “It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it.”
Conspiracy claims are all clap-trap?
From: 2UE News Talk
Posted by David Prior
Steve Liebmann thinks Kevin Bracken is a goose! He claims the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were a set-up. Who were the conspirators? Are these people simply doubters? What do you make of it?
Kevin Bracken, the senior Victorian unionist who claims that the 2001 World Trade Center collapse was not caused by terrorists, called talkback again today to demand a right of reply.
Kevin Bracken made it clear that this time he was calling as a private individual, not as President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.
Yesterday Kevin Bracken called Jon Faine’s Mornings program claiming the official story of the 9/11 attacks ‘doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny’.
His comments attracted worldwide attention and earned rebuke from Prime Minister Gillard and the Secretary of the Trades Hall Council.
Today he attacked Jon Faine himself for dismissing his claims out-of-hand.
“Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long,” said Kevin Bracken
He called Jon Faine a bully and challenged him to a debate on the issue.
Jon Faine refused the debate.
Kevin Bracken’s initial call was in response to the Parliamentary debate on the Afghanistan war.
“What we should be doing is calling for a proper investigation into the events of September 11,” says Kevin Bracken.
“I believe that the official story is a conspiracy theory, that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny,” he says.
His comments were brought up in Federal Parliament during Question Time where the Prime Minister called them ‘stupid and wrong’.
Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy
From: Herald Sun
By Shannon Deery, Stephen McMahon
VICTORIAN Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken remains unrepentant after his controversial comments about the 9/11 attacks made news around the world.
…
Mr Bracken stood by his comments and said he had the support of 50 per cent of the community.
…
In Victoria, Shadow Attorney General Robert Clarke said Mr Bracken’s comments were a direct insult to Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.
“It strikes at the very heart of the West’s struggle against terrorism and it is a disgrace that while Australian soldiers are serving and dying in Afghanistan that Mr Bracken make these wild claims that undermine the very reason for their presence in Afghanistan,” he said.
Mr Clarke called on Premier John Brumby to condemn these comments in the strongest possible terms and for the outspoken union leader to be disciplined.
“The Trades Hall Council needs to consider Mr Bracken’s future as its president and the MUA needs to consider his future as their secretary,” he said.
“These comments can’t stand they need to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.”
Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd said Mr Bracken did not speak on behalf of the organisation.
“The official Trades Hall position is not to entertain that theory,” Mr Boyd said.
“We had almost 3000 working people killed in that terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it.”
Mr Boyd said Mr Bracken’s views had caused many debates behind the walls of Trade Hall.
“He is welcome to his views and we’ve discussed his theories,” he said.
“But I totally disagree.”
Mr Boyd said he stood by his colleague despite his extremist views.
“99 per cent of the time Kevin’s a very good president,” he said.
MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin distanced the union from the comment, releasing a statement saying its position on the attack was “unambiguous”.
“The 9/11 tragedy was a result of a terrorist attack by international terrorists who claimed responsibility,” he said.
“It is the MUA’s position – one that I passionately support as national secretary – that this attack is one of the greatest affronts and abuses of human and civil rights in contemporary history.”
On the 28th of March, 2008, the Victorian Trades Hall Council passed this motion after lengthy debate supporting a thorough and independent inquiry of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. From the minutes of the meeting on the 28th of March 2008;
“That this meeting of VTHC Executive Council calls for a thorough, independent enquiry into the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11.
The events of that day have been used to start pre-emptive wars “that will not end in our lifetime”. They have been used to attack civil liberties and legal principles that have been the cornerstone of civilized communities.
There is an urgent need to reassess the way we view the world after September 11 and we call for proper investigation into the events around that day.”
E-mail the Victorian Trades Hall Council: hatkinson@vthc.org.au
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!
To many the name Kevin Bracken is a new one in regards 9/11 Truth. The reality is that Kevin has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth cause since 2006 by disseminating information throughout the Victorian Union Movement and the Maritime Workers Union of Australia. He has distributed DVD’s, shown films and shared information regularly with his associates and the people of Melbourne and he achieved motions calling for a new investigation from both the Victorian Trades Hall Council where he is the President and the Victorian branch of the Maritime Union of Australia of which he heads as Secretary. Kevin has also attended numerous conferences on 9/11 and has been the facilitator of such in Melbourne, Australia. Over the years Kevin and I have developed a close working relationship, both striving for the truth 9/11 to come out to bring end to the wars and to get our rights back that have been eroded since 9/11!
This is the motion passed on the 28th of March of 2008 at the VTHC;
“That this meeting of VTHC Executive Council calls for a thorough, independent enquiry into the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11.
The events of that day have been used to start pre-emptive wars “that will not end in our lifetime”. They have been used to attack civil liberties and legal principles that have been the cornerstone of civilized communities.
There is an urgent need to reassess the way we view the world after September 11 and we call for proper investigation into the events around that day.
On the 20th of October 2010 Kevin was asked to ring into ABC 774 Mornings with John Faine although Faine disputes this. This was following an email that was sent to Faine by Kevin questioning 9/11 in the context of Australia’s ongoing support of the Afghanistan occupation. After the recent Australian Election it was demanded by the Australian Greens in a “balance of power” deal that the Australian involvement in the Afghan War be debated in parliament in it’s first sitting. This debate had been going on this week and it was the first time any such debate had happened since 9/11, which is simply outrageous.
This interview by Faine was possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken’s questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. A reasonable explanation of what happened and also with attached audio can be found here. This story titled “Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken Stands by his 9/11 Conspiracy” has been reported all around the world and included a poll which started off running at around 50/50 asking if Kevin’s questions about 9/11 were “reasonable” but has continued to move in his favour ending up at the time of writing these notes at 75% in favour of Bracken.
Kevin has received literally thousands of thank you’s from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was “stupid and wrong” and having his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees if the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual all media presstitutes have refused, as there is obviously “no debate to have”. It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called “journalists” dare to tread such a path.
Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy.
The battle for 9/11 Truth is far from over and as long as the fools in power maintain their policy of occupation of Afghanistan they will remain exposed and at risk of criminal prosecution due to the lies of 9/11. Lets hope it comes soon or they realize and stop the bloodshed.
WeAreChange Western Australian applauds and congratulates Kevin Bracken on his courage and conviction in publicly questioning the official 9/11 story in a reasonable and rational manner, and urges all those who disagree with him – including the Prime Minister – to take up his invitation for a public debate on the matter. Read this appreciation from a New Zealand blogger.
WeAreChange Western Australia’s Reference of Kevin Bracken’s comments
No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
In the the aftermath of WTC7′s destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
10. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
"Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building
before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire. I stick to scientific fact."
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
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.
“In the current system, the Prime Minister and executive can take the country to war. This threshold is too low and does not give the electorate a voice through their elected representatives,” Senate candidate Mark Walmsley said.
“The Liberal Democrats believe any commitment of our military should require a two-thirds majority vote of a joint sitting of Parliament.
“This will require every Senator and House Representative to vote on the war. In doing so citizens can make representations to their local member and will know how their local member and senator voted. This provides for true democratic accountability.
Since the initial Iraq engagement there have been two Federal elections, resulting in two new Parliaments taking office. However there has been no parliamentary review of the initial decision.
“The Liberal Democrats believe that following an election, all ongoing Australian military engagements should be re-affirmed as a priority by the new Parliament.
“Unless two-thirds of Parliamentarians vote to stay the course, plans should be drawn up for a prompt withdrawal,” Mr Walmsley said.
Media contact: Mark Walmsley 0417 111 433 or mark@wa-ldp.org.au
WeAreChange Western Australia endorses the Australian Liberal Democrats call for a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament to authorise war, in particular the requirement for every new Parliament to vote on Australia’s military engagements.
