Jacob's Soap Box

21 May, 2009

Studies have shown that 95% of people die whilst laying in bed. I can no longer remain silent on such mass slaughter of innocent people by the multinational bed and linen corporations, in particular women and children. I therefore resolved to create awareness of the challenges ahead and establish the Coalition For Sleeping On the Floor.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel For Sleeping Change (IPSC), that comprises of the best scientists research funds money can buy and Unocrats, recognised my efforts and produced its First Report On Sleeping Change in preparation for the Bedford Protocol On Sleeping Change.

According to the IPCS report, unless a drastic action is taken to reduce sleeping in beds habits, mathematical models have shown that nearly 40% of all people living today will die by the year 2050 and 99.9% will be dead by 2110, shocking results indeed!!!

In a speech before the Bedford Protocol delegations I said:

There is a sufficient scientific body of consensus, the science is settled, we must act and we must act now! sleeping on beds is no longer a sustainable option. We must come together (but not in beds) and meet the challenge bed-head on and rid the world of beds before we shall all perish.

Former Vice-President, the inventor of the Internet and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, joined my efforts and produced an astonishing docoganda called The Embedded Truth in which he revealed astounding statistics that the death rate per hospital bed is 97.3 times that of a domestic bed actualised the urgency of action. Mr Gore moved for the immediate ban on hospital beds to the applaus of the enthusiastic crowd.

In his docoganda, Mr Gore, holding a hockey stick, pointed to large graphs on the wall behind him showing a steady death rate against number of beds going back to the stone age until the 20^th century when both number of beds and death rate picked suddenly hence the name hockey stick. He added:

The is no doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that the increase death rate is due to manmade beds. As you can see [pointing to the beginning of the graph] the death rate in the stone age is very law indeed, we now know for certain that it is attributable to the lack of beds.

Despite a concentrate efforts scientists were unable to unearth any death certificate from the stone age thus concluded that people did not die during the stone age because there were no beds back then

The Bedford protocol for sleeping change called for a gradual reduction in concentrations of beds to 50% by year 2050, 100% by year 2100 and 150% by 2150 (to be on the safe side). At the suggestion of the Women Against Going To Bed With Men, the habit of two people using the same bed was declared disgusting and banned (unless both bedded are of the same sex).

Ms. Penny Worth, the Australian Minister responsible of sleeping change said:

We cannot allow irresponsible people negating the benefits of reduction of beds by sharing the remaining beds. However, we are cognisant of the human rights issues involving with same sex bonking thus have made some welcome exceptions

* * * * *

Sleeping on the floor has been proven environmentally friendly too. Not only you will be closer to nature and to your ancestors but by us all sleeping on the floor we shall no longer be depended on foreign imports of lead pained beds (ichs) from China carried by foreign own ships propelled by dirty fossil fuel!!! Sleeping on a the floor has a smaller carbon print thus it is considered socially responsible.

It was also shown that as people sleep in floors their lower position viz-a-viz the stratosphere means that the carbon dioxide they exhaling is less likely to reach the stratosphere, thus reducing global warming.

In a teleprompter shattering speech, president Bedvasser said:

America is addicted to its beds, we can no longer sustain such out of control beds. In future American bed manufacturer shall be required to conform to the government smaller SBEU (Single Bed Equivalent Unit – a scientific bed measurement unit) per person.

America can no longer afford irresponsible behaviour such as person sleep alone on a king size bed of 2.75 SBEU’s. I therefore announce a new bedding targets which will come into effect immediately.

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Tucheslaker said me-too and introduced similar measurers in Australia in order to save humanity, as he put it. Somehow the fact that if we all perish tomorrow the affect on the world population would be a reduction of 0.35% escaped him as did the fact China will make up such shortfall by next Friday.

However, member states of the Non-Aligned Movement of the UN, otherwise known as the Third World countries, who in fact controls the voting of the UN General Assembly were allowed to continue to develop sleeping in beds habits. Their UN spokesman, Mr. Bunkie Moon said:

For centuries we slept on the floor whilst people in America and Europe were tucked in beds under worm quits on soft matrasses with electric blankets turned on “max”, it is now our turn to enjoy such luxuries.

(Privately Mr. Moon was concerned that unless there is allowance to his country his first name may be politically incorrect.)

When the USA representative, Ms. Julia Gotobeds, attempted to warn Mr. Moon of the dangers in adopting such risky sleeping strategy, Dr. Shi Tin Bed from China mumbled something in Chinese, a keen simultaneous translator voice was heard whispering in the earpieces a second later:

We don’t care if our people will die, we have too many of the anyway, serve them right for breeding like rabbits.

In order to avoid objections and procrastinations by the all powerful Bedding Industry, the conference decided to establish a new financial instrument Bed Sleeping Credits (BSC) a system by which a Monopoly-like money is transform to real money. Governments will issued large corporations with BSC’s on the basis of contributions in the last elections (when relevant). Those credits will be traded on the stock exchange. People who cannot fall asleep on the floor can buy such credits to compensate society for their anti-social behaviour. The system will be known as Nap And Trade.

* * * * *

One small bald with glasses and goatee German mathematicians, Dr Hans Sensemacher, tried to explain to the conference that the existence of strong mathematical correlation between two variables is not a proof of cause and effect. It is possible, he argued, that laying in bed may be not be a cause of death but a consequence of the more likely causes, such as illness, accident or old age.

He was booed down by angry participants calling him sceptic, right winger, redneck and neo con. Later the conference heard From Congersman Bernie Klieneweewee that Dr Sensmacher been receiving moneys for his research from the giant Gootschluf matrasses manufacture, of Bavaria and the Iranian president’s cousin, Dr Ahmedpeeinbed.

Post scriptum

On the following morning Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and the Wilderness Society raised a strong objection to the elimination of beds altogether because, they claim, it destroys the habitat of bed-bugs and, if such destruction of habitat proceeded with, it will bring bed-bugs to the brink of extinction.

A world without bed bugs is considered even greater environmental disaster than a death of a few people.

The BBC together with the New-York Times, launched the Save The Bed-Bug campaign featuring the great environmentalist Mr David Attengetter shown on TV playing with cute bed-bugs providing running commentary of their contribution to our planter’s fragile eco-system (must have one of those).

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 – all rights reserved.

12 May, 2009

As of  Monday 4^th may 2009, supermarket plastic bags are banned in the state of South Australia (capital: Adelaide). Like it or loath it, it is another landmark win for the green social engineers.

In fact this is a win for emotional mediocrity, shallowness, ignorance and stupidity of the South Australian public that allow itself to be anaesthetised by morally corrupt journalists and their editors. Not to be overly harsh on the South Australian public, I am certain that, had it been another state, the results would have been the same – no one would hit the streets with banners because of shopping plastic bags.

But plastic bags are not the real issue, they are only a stage the takeover of our lives by the social engineers in the name of the environment.

Was it only me? I listen to an interview on the ABC Radio (no relation to the American media organisation with the same name) with the South Australian Environment Minister, whose name escapes me and not sufficiently important to look it up, that proudly bragged that ” now the landfills of South Australia have been saved” (or words to that affect).

Let me just put it in proportion; South Australia is nearly one and a half times the size of Texas (1.4 to be precise) with a population of 1.6 million, or 6.6% that of Texas. Take off 1.1 million people who live in Adelaide that leaves 400,000 people, who mostly live in coastal towns, for the rest of the state and a vast empty desert for hundreds of miles – saving landfills? Who are they kidding?

But wait a minute, by law we are required, at least here, to wrap our house refuse in plastic bags. Most people indeed re-use shopping bags for that very purpose which means that from now on, in South Australia, shoppers have to buy plastic bags to wrap their garbage in. How do landfills get to be saved with purpose purchased plastic bags as distinct from the re-used shopping variety? Anyone? Anyone?

Lesson number one; environmentalists do not care about contradictions in their massages.

On this very issue, it is some 25 years since the paper bags were banned because they damaged the environment, “save the forest” the echo-Whacko told us, yet if you do not wish to buy the “green” shopping bags in South Australia you will be supplied with … wait for it! … paper bags!

How about Dr (PhD on butterflies) Paul Erlich, the guru of population control who wrote in his book “The Population Explosion” in 1968 that, unless drastic measures are taken to limit population growth, by 1980 there will be insufficient food for all of us. We are nearly 30 year past that point and the social engineers are gearing up to fight …. oh no! Obesity!

* * * * *

Let me see, the environmental message is about pollution, right?

How many of you think that the atmosphere is more polluted now that it was 30 years ago? If you do you are wrong! By all yardsticks that measure pollutants in the air, such as the level of ozone (O₃), Carbon Monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), lead and others in the atmosphere, the air quality in the in the developed countries is much higher than it was thirty years ago despite the increase in number of motor vehicles (40% in the USA) during that time.

Yes, the air in the USA and in Australia got cleaner during the tenures of George Bush and John Howard (respectively) but do not expect the media to admit that by all impartial accounts the air quality in the USA in the Bush years was better than in the Clinton’s tenure. In fact the media along with the environmental industry tell you the exact opposite.

Lesson number two; the environmental message is not necessarily true, as a matter of fact it is a pack of lies most of the time.

Greg Easterbrook, an environmental writer, asked a New York Times’ journalist why is it that the paper knowingly misleading the public and allows environmental “news” that otherwise would be edited out as sheer lies? the public would become complacent [about the environment] was the answer. You see my friends, the elitist journalistic profession do not trust you with the truth they need to chew it for you before serving it but what else is new Charlie?

The so-called profession is no longer about impartial reporting, it is about pushing a left an agenda. A left wing agenda supporting the liberal left.

Lesson number three; environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment all to do with social engineering.

In order to facilitate social change, the social engineers need to create a crisis. When people feel threatened they are more likely to agree, or at least no object, to more government control – this is what it is all about, CONTROL!

Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation over policy disagreements provides us with some insight into the movement. In May 2000 he said in the Daily mail that:

“…we have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.

In other words, the movement select unwinnable issues, such as global warming, that enable the perpetuity of their very existence with a healthy sources of publicity and funds. Take Greenpeace which was founded in 1970 primarily resist the nuclear tests in the Pacific by the USA and France – Once the international nuclear test ban can into force, Greenpeace was forced to diversify to other environmental issues to remain in business.

Why don’t you do a small experiment, walk to the nearest environmentalist and tell him or her: I see that the global temperature declined since year 2000, isn’t it great? Watch their reaction. If you think that they will be relieved that “the imminent” perils of global warming been averted, you are up for a bitter disappointment.

* * * * *

Let us examine the largest con ever perpetrated on humanity, global warming or its predecessor in name only climate change. The demonisation of inert, odourless, colourless gas that is naturally occurring in nature and comprises some 0.03% of the atmosphere as the villain that is destroying the civilisation as we know it. Oh sinful people the end is nye!

Let me see if I get it; the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? How does that work? If we go back to live as the stone age Aborigines that came to meet our First Fleet in 1788, our civilisation will be saved?

Do the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? Not at all, they want everything to stay exactly as it is. Remember, they want to fight not to win and they don’t care much for contradictions.

However, in the meantime and with the help of the liberal media, academia, our education systems and … Hollywood, they have created a monster of a propaganda machine that has the world has never seen before, the two Josephs, Stalin and Goebbels, notwithstanding.

What all these bedfellows have in common with the echo-whackos or with each others, for that matter, that they all banded together against us? The answer is simple; ANTI-CAPITALISM! Sounds familiar?

Yes, the green movement is a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. Browse the platform of the various “Green” parties and you quickly see familiar motifs straight out the Communist Manifesto. The reds did not passed away with the death of the Soviet Union, they simply grew green skins.

Now you see the mutual exclusive relation between Communism and environmentalism, every environmentalist is a Communist and every Communist is a greenie and they have one aim which is simply MORE GOVERNMENT. In order to get average Joe and Sheila Citizen to agree, or even demand, bigger government intervention in their affairs, one must create a crisis. Crisis also means more government money for the cause. More money for “research”, more money for “education” (of the public at large) of the impeding “disaster” and the “need to act” NOW!

As The White House Chief Of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently: Never let a serious crisis go to waste, much less if you have gone into the trouble of creating such crisis (the second part is my addition)..

And if we are talking about more crises and more government, who is to say that we mean our own respective sovereign governments, oh no! Global emergencies require global solution. Rather than get tangled with pesky individual constitutions, we need solutions that need not be limited by national laws. So now it is not your elected government who calls the shots, it is the United Nations the most corrupt body of unelected officials on earth who wants to rule the world from New York, Geneva or wherever.

Wait! Just before you decide that you had enough conspiracy theory here, instead of clicking the close button, how about clicking here and check out Agenda 21 and see, amongst other things, how the UN attempt to control every aspect of our lives. If you thought that your local council has to deal with the three “R”, rates, roads and rubbish, you are wrong, chapter 28 is devoted to them.

When recently I demanded to know why my local council waste my rates money on signs that call for the “saving” the Tasmanian forests, not even in my state, Agenda 21 was the answer.

This is how it works, A bunch echo-whacko official UN comes up with an idea and they push it through a committee with fancy name (you bet) till it comes out as UN treaty, declaration, resolution, protocol or agenda and however named such piece of paper that goes to individual members countries, that your country and mine.

Anonymous obscure unelected people in Rio De Janeiro (in this case) decided that my council rates should pay for the greenies agenda in Tasmania, irrespective of what I or any other rate payer think of it.

Our power grabbing politicians, of all persuasions, are happy to push it through because it gives them more powers, how often have you heard that we must adopt one paper or another because even the UN agrees with it? Now and then we see heads of states such George W Bush and John Howard who stand up and refuse to ratify a UN paper, such as the Kyoto Protocol on the ground that it is against the interests of our respective countries, but at great personal cost in term of personal hate campaign by the “companionate” greenies!

And then there is the Kyoto Protocol, a UN agreement to limit the developed (but not other) countries’ emissions by unrealistic levels thus causing untold damage to their economies for … 3% reduction in global warming by 2050. This is a conclusion of a scientist who SUPPORTS the global warming swindle.

Thomas Wigley, a senior scientist with the National Centre For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said in his article The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (scroll down) that:

Wigley concluded that the impact on projected temperature increases, with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual, would be a scant 0.06 to 0.11°C (0.11 to 0.20°F) shaved off the total warming, roughly a 3% reduction [in global warming].

[emphasis provided]

Hey, with conclusions like these who needs sceptics?

But we already know that the echo-whackos are not concerned about the planet, they want to destroy our economies by attacking the very basis for our lives, energy.

* * * * *

And if you still remain unconvinced that Kyoto was a real attempt to address a problem, albeit unproven one, please address the question why is it that countries, such as France, who rely on nuclear energy for 80% of its electricity production, nor would any other country who would go nuclear, can obtain carbon credits for their effort to reduce omission. Here we have a perfect solution, but no, the echo whackos would not have a bar of it. Of course not, if nuclear power would solve our problem, two things will happen: It will prove that carbon dioxide has no real affect on the weather and more important it will destroy the basis for their agenda – no problem no money.

Planting trees to absorb that retched carbon dioxide was originally excluded from approved activities. Can you imagine that? Turning carbon dioxide into oxygen was banned. The echo whackos later relented somehow but with a caveat, the trees must be native to the areas and MONOCULTURAL, do you get that? We are not allowed to interfere with the “culture” of the trees but we must warship multiculturalism when it comes to … people!

Our government can allow in people with culture even abhorrent to us (try “honour” killings of women for size) and we suppose to treat such culture as sacred in the name of multiculturalism but when it comes to trees, oh no! No foreigners allowed.

All of you out there with eucalyptus trees in your countries, your tree are multicultural, pull them out, they belong to us!

These people have no shame!

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009, all rights reserved.

14 march, 2009

It was recently revealed that our Governor-General, our Queen’s representatives down here, Quentin Bryce, is about to take a controversial 18 days 9 African counties trip, apparently canvassing for Australia seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC)

The trip is controversial because, contrary to conventions, our G-G agreed to participate in partisan politics, but this is to be expected when a socialist megalomaniac PM like Kevin 747 appoints a fellow Queenslander, socialist activist republican to represent the queen.

Leaving the constitutional question of the trip aside, it seems that our illustrious PM’s sudden urge to for substantial engagement with Africa has nothing to do with Kumbaya but to pander to the Africans, canvassing their support for Australia’s (non-permanent) seat on the UN Security Council in the 2012 General Assembly vote for 2013/14 tenure.

Whilst there is nothing wrong or unusual about Australia seeking a UNSC seat per se, Australian interests, or world peace, does not appear to be the motive of Kevin747, not in my opinion anyhow.

As an avid Kev watcher, I cannot escape the feeling that this is all done to satisfy Kevin’s control freakishness, megalomaniac tendencies and a further excuses to dance on world stages. I would not be surprised if behind it all is the background of Kev eventual assault on the job of Secretary General when Kev is “elder statesman” former PM and Ban Ki Moon had enough.

My main concern is that, if I am judging the situation correctly, Australia’s interests are about to be trampled on for a personal agenda. Oh, don’t tell me, Kevin does not do it for himself, it is all for Australia. Bull dust!

The UN is the most corrupt organisation in the world, there no revere can come to Australia from associating with such shady body (in it current structure) that is anything but what its founders intended.

How does it works?

The Security Council

The Security Council (UNSC) is the only UN body with “teeth”; unlike the General Assembly, it has the powers to enforce its resolutions (if it wishes) by mastering peace keeping forces, apply sanctions, embargoes or even engage in a military campaign as it did in the Korea War and the Gulf War I.

The UNSC also vets and recommend admission of new member states to the UN for approval (or not) by the General Assembly (GA).

It also select the new Secretary General for member states approval by a vote in the Assembly (or not).

The UNSC is the “executive branch” of the UN, similar to a Board Of Directors (except the veto powers) whilst the general Assembly is akin to the shareholders of a company

The UNSC comprises of fifteen members, fives permanent, perms in UN jargon and ten rotating members, non-perms.

The Five perms are United State, Untied Kingdom, France, Russia and China, each has a veto power on any UNSC resolution.

Every year five of the ten non-perms are voted for a two years tenure, similar to the half senate elections. Their composition is based on the following key:

Africa: 3; Latin America & The Caribbeans: 2; Eastern Europe: 1; Asia: 2; Western Europe & Others: 2.

In addition, there must always be at least one Arab member that comes off either from the Asian or the African allocation.

The “others” in the Western Europe group include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

Israel is the 57^th state member of the UN, in order of joining. Israel Was accepted as a UN member state on 11 May, 1949. It preceded countries such as Austria, Finland, Italy, Portugal Spain and the vast majority of Africa (the exception are Egypt, Ethiopia and South Africa).

Because of Arab opposition, Israel was not accepted as part of the Asian bloc, it became an “untouchable” bloc of itself, a bloc that is not entitled to a seat on the security council.

In 2000 Israel was accepted “temporarily” to the Western Europe & Others bloc ON THE CONDITION that it would not seek a seat on security council, still untouchable.

There you have it, whilst the Arab countries always guaranteed a seat on the Security Council, Israel is “guaranteed” never to have one. What about cultural diversity, social inclusion and other PC spins? Heh?

The United State has requested Israel not to “rock the boat” on the issue of seat on the UNSC in exchange for a US “diplomatic umbrella”. This is the real source for the USA support of Israel in the UN, rather than “strong Jewish lobby” although there is little doubt that USA support for Israel needs no special agreements.

The purpose of these facts are not to present Israel as a victim, just to demonstrate one of many hypocrisies that rule the UN.

To gain a seat on the Security Council, Australia must get the two third of the votes in the General Assembly (GA) or 128 vote out of total 192 members. The fact that Finland and Luxemburg have also put their candidacy forward makes it a three horses race.

The charade has commenced, now let us turn to the working of GA.

The General Assembly

The General Assembly (GA) is the forum of All 192 members states of the UN, practically all the countries in world, except Taiwan and the Vatican.

The voting in the GA is one state one vote, thus the vote of the USA or Russia is equal to the votes of, say, Maldives or Andorra.

Not so when it comes to funding the UN. The UN is funded by its members according to their relative capacity to pay (measure by the respective Gross National Income). The top six of the contributors to the UN provide about 64% of its budget (2006 figures) whilst the last third of members provide less then one thousandth of it (0.1%).

Russia is the only UNSC perm that does not make the first fifteen contributors list, nor would you find any OPEC member in that list.

The GA meet yearly from September to December but may be called for extraordinary seatings. About two third of members, also known as known as G77 (although they are nowadays about 130 in number) or the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) practically control the stage on the assembly when they vote en bloc which is most times.

NAM was founded during the Cold War days by India’s Nehru and Yugoslavia’s Tito as supposedly a bloc of counties that are not aligned with the West or with the USSR. These countries were also known as the third world, developing countries etc. Today, counting observers status too, the bloc includes all the countries in Africa, all the countries of Asia (except Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Israel) and all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbeans (except Argentina).

Like all UN euphemisms, the tern non-aligned is nothing but a bad joke. The phrase suppose to denote a forging policy independent from the USA and Russia; Really? How foreign policy independent is NATO member such as non-aligned Poland? The same question can be asked of former USSR states such as Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan who enjoy the Russian bear hug?

Be that as it may, you now realise that if you want a resolution passed in the UN you have Buckley’s chance of getting it unless you have the 113 votes of Non-Aligned, or about 130 votes if you include “observers” (and hangers on) which is just over two third of the UN vote that will guarantee control on the assembly.

But wait, it is getting even better, 54 members of the non-aligned bloc also belong to the 57 states strong Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) meaning that just about half of the so-called non-aligned countries are the Muslim countries; put it in other words, as there is no veto powers in the GA, the UN General Assembly is in fact controlled by the Muslim world!!!

Now, you don’t really need to be a rocket scientists to see the reasons for the constant obsession of the UN and its institutions with constant condemnations of Israel. Do you really believe that had Mamma Teresa headed the Israeli government the relations of Israel with the UN would have been any better? if you do I have some excellent investment opportunity for you in one of Bernard Madoff’s secured investment funs.

Although the resolutions of the GA are not binding, they are often used as excuses to limit our liberties for the greater good of the planet … or such like similar crap. How many such UN resolutions have been used in such a manner? Let’s look at some examples:

On 6 December, 1973 (in a middle of oil embargo against the West by OPEC, mind you) the UN passed Resolution 307, the LIMA DECLARATION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION, also known as the Lima Declaration in short, that mandated the largest ever transfer of wealth from of the developed word to the Third World. e.g:

25. [The signatories declares that They] 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;

27. 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;

[Emphasis and highlights provided]

(Hey, who needs conspiracy theories?)

Let us look at another issue, the Environment. The REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as the Rio Declaration, The forerunner to the Kyoto Protocol. Again, the UN General Kumbaya agree that we must save the planet but … wait … not if it hurts some poor none-aligned.

Principle 6 of the declaration makes sure that saving the planet is a NIMBY (Not In My back yard) affair.

The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

The futility of global warming aside, the same principle is used by China and India to excuse themselves from taking action on global warming, not because it is a the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on human kind but because the proportionality doctrine that says that it is now their “turn” to emit carbon dioxide.

Perhaps we can also agree that all those nations who missed out on slavery be allowed to introduce it provided it is proportionate to previous slavery, how about it? It is their turn!

And so the Third Word gets away exempting itself from a whole host of UN resolutions due to cultural sensitivities, We, in the west, are prevented from discipline our kids by the UN Convention On The Right Of The Child, whilst third world countries may continue to practice child slavery and deny education to Muslim girls having regard to economic, social and cultural rights as permitted by Article 4 (and elsewhere) in the convention.

Women may be bitten and honour-killed in conformity with cultural sensitivities simply because the Organisation of Islamic Conference control the Third World voting bloc in the General Assembly, the same applies to other human rights that are too culturally sensitive to be adopted in Muslim countries.

The whole travesty they call human rights, in the context of the UN, is an issue by itself, but you can do no more than shaking your head in disbelief observing countries such as Libya, Sudan, Iran and other with abhorrent human rights records leading the Untied Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reprimanding western democracies on the subject.

But don’t think that if you don’t like what you see you have a right to criticise it, you don’t! Take a look at the UN Resolution 62/154 Combating Defamation Of Religions, which has been dubbed as Anti-Islamophobia Resolution. It calls for countries to take measure to stop criticism of Islam.

But I guess that Muslim have a cultural sensitivity that allow them to call Jews and Christians apes and swine.

The UN has ceased to fulfilled its intended functions sometimes in the 1960’s. It has become a tools to drag humanity back to the seven century, limit our sovereignty and rid us of our liberties.

Too often we see narrow and radical self interests within our countries use the UN to subterfuge the democratic process and liberties as if the UN is some sort of a supreme benevolent umpire (*gulp*).

Next time that you see a UN resolution, just before you get all wet an worm on the inside, remember Who the hell is actually running this charade we call the United Nation.

22 February, 2009

Whilst the bushfires in Victoria are still burning, the worst ever in Australia, judging by, at least, the human casualties, and whilst firelighters from all other Australian states, New Zealand, Canada and the USA are here to help, out of ashes THEY come, they, the greenie loony eco-whacko, global warming scare mongers, pointing long fingers at us and saying: Yep! Definitely! Global warming! … I told you so! … [verbal diarrhoea continues].

By now we are used to the idea that, according to the eco-whackos, global warming is the source of all evils from natural disasters such as bushfires and floods to ingrown toenails.

True, southeast Australia suffered a sever scorcher at the time, one of the worst since recording started in Australia 122 year ago. Remember, when we say record we are talking about a record of the last 122 years, not the billion years history of the planet. Less so when we are talking about satellite data we talking about record going back to 1979, And in any event these recent scorchers were not record temperatures.

It was hot but as I understand it, summer temperatures usually are.

What is also true is that bushfires NEVER erupt unless the weather is hot and dry, surprise surprise, thus please cut out the crap about global warming. We know that there are no bushfire during snow storms.

However, the ferocity of these particular set of bushfires that took about 200 lives, destroyed more then 1,800 homes, left some 7,000 people homeless and wiped off a number settlements do have a “green” connection. You see, it was the green policies adopted by all level of government, federal, state and local, that paved the way and created the “ideal” conditions for such human, social and environmental destruction.

The problem is that FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, with the sole exception of the state of Western Australia (capital Perth), environmental policies prevented bushfire hazard reduction such as clearing of trees near houses, clearing fallen branches, trees and other debris from the forest floor, trimming grass either mechanically or by allowing cattle and sheep to graze on it, in national parks and near houses.

(Hey Charley, get your cows off that grass, it is native vegetation.)

To bushfire it all means one thing, FUEL. The heat generated from the fire feeding on such environmentally friendly policies created such heat that firelighters could not get within 100 meter (about 300ft) from the fire to fight it, their protecting gear notwithstanding.

This time these bushfires were culmination of at least 30 years of dereliction of duty of care by the authorities in favour of electoral “care”, i.e. votes. Successive governments submitted to the Greens and their propaganda and put the environment above people’s safety. In fact the destruction to environment that was caused but the bushfires is a monument that such measures are not even eco- friendly.

For 30 years now, fire-fighting authorities could not obtain permits to back-burn during winter to reduce the fuel on the forests floor. They were also prevented from clearing fire trails and maintaining fire barriers. Even average Joe was not allowed to collect fallen branches from the floor of the forest as firewood or just to clear the area adjacent to his property because it disturbs the bio-diversity of a sustainable eco-system under the leaves. Save the planet! Aren’t you getting emotional yet?

Permits to build a houses are contingent on replacing the trees that are taken down in enable construction with species, number and location dictated by the greenocrats, IRRESPECTIVE OF FIRE HAZARD they pause.

Meaningless words such as sustainability, bio-diversity, eco-system, biosphere ruled the corridors of Greenophila. Grrenophiles talk about protecting all species of fauna and flora EXCEPT the most important specie on earth; we HUMANS are pests to the environment. Save the planet! Don’t you feel warm on the inside?

* * * * *

Liam Sheahan a resident of Reedy Creek, Victoria, has his house still standing despite the fact that no other house within a radius of 2 km ( 1.25 mile) survived the fire that engulfed the area. The reason is that in 2002 Mr. Sheahan disregarded the Council’s environmental protection laws and bulldozed 250 trees off his hilltop property as a fire protection safety measure. All hell broke loose.

The Council took him to court, Liam was fined $50,000 (and paid additional similar amount in legal costs) but his property is now still standing as a vindication for his action.

Says Mr. Sheahan:

The house is safe because we did all that ,… We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two kilometre area.

Although we are yet to see the outcome of the foreshadowed inquiry or royal commission, you can already hear the sprouts of the spins yet to come about the government’s dereliction in duty of care as if the actual damage would have occurred in any event even had they exercised fire hazards reduction measures.

Bull dust! The truth of the matter is simple, had there been fire hazard reduction in place, the fire would have NEVER reached the temperatures it did.

Bushfire, or any fire for that matter, has tree elements in it, ignition, oxygen and fuel, otherwise known as the fire triangle. In a case of bushfire, the ignition may be deliberate (arson) or accidental, we cannot do much about either of the ignition types. Nor can we do anything about oxygen in the atmosphere which leaves fuel as the variable on which we have peridial control.

The fuel includes the trees, shrubs, grass, the undergrowth and the forest debris (branches leaves etc). We cannot eliminate the fuel altogether but we can reduce it. Reduced fuel means reduced fire temperatures thus giving the fire-fighters much better chances of control it and control it earlier, meaning less damage.

There is nothing new about it and for nearly 30 years post-bushfires inquiry after inquiry came up with similar findings. Piers Akerman writes in the (Sydney) Daily Telegraph of 16 February 2009 that:

Start with Judge Leonard Stretton’s 1939 inquiry into the Black Friday fires, fast forward to the 1984 review of the Ash Wednesday fires the previous year, the report on fire prevention by the Auditor-General in 1992, the CSIRO fire management paper prepared by Phil Cheney in 1994, the Victorian inquiry and the federal inquiry – A Nation Charred – in 2003 [in Canberra], and you will find that the principal problem constantly identified over the span of your life as a determinant in the ferocity of the fires is the level of fuel available.

Note that Pierce Akerman is talking only about the state of Victoria and the ACT, There were similar outcomes from inquiries in all other states of which Western Australia is the only one exercising an effective fire hazard reduction schems. He continues:

Each of the inquiries I have mentioned made note of the fuel levels with your predecessor, Judge Stretton, noting: “The amount of (controlled) burning which was done was ridiculously inadequate,” in 1984, the level of reduction burning was found to be “too low”, in 1992, the “failure” of the Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment to meet its fuel-reduction targets was found to have made the forests “more susceptible” to fires, and this story is repeated in various forms right through 2003 and, without pre-empting your findings, remains the case today.

The Victorian Government, and local councils, have ignored all the warnings.

Alan Mull is a former farmer and a former fire brigade captain and an environmental activist who knows the bush. In the same Telegraph’s article Mr Mull summarises the history:

Aborigines used to start fires on the ridge lines as they came down after feasting on bogong moths every year …

When the forests were commercially logged and under the control of the old Forestry Commission, the forestry workers did the same thing.

But the [Victorian] state government since the days of (former Labor premiers) John Cain and Joan Kirner have allowed green ideologues to take over. The forests have been locked up, the fire trails have been closed, they are full of weeds and feral animals. The state has failed in its duty of care. Our national parks and reserves are now national disasters, whether burnt or not.’

[Square brackets, emphasis & highlight provided]

Hardly rocket science.

* * * * *

Suppose a group of terrorist of a certain Abrahamic Religion (Shshshsh, Victoria has anti defamation laws) entered Australia, murdered 200 people with countless injuries and blow up 1800 house, can you imagine the outcries?

Further suppose that the perpetrators of such massacre are caught. We can all apply out innovative skills as what punishment we would inflict on such terrorists. I can just hear the calls for retrospective application of the death penalty, how crude.

My question is simple, what is the difference between people who pull triggers or blow fuses that kill 200 innocent victims and those who caused these people to be incinerated by bushfire? No difference, they are all murderers!

The fires were not predictable, they were predicted. David Packham, himself a veteran academic on the issue writes in The Australian of 10 February, 2009 that:

Every objective analysis of the dynamics of fuel and fire concludes that unless the fuels are maintained at near the levels that our indigenous stewards of the land achieved, then we will have unhealthy and unsafe forests that from time to time will generate disasters such as the one that erupted on Saturday.

It has been a difficult lesson for me to accept that despite the severe damage to our forests and even a fatal fire in our nation’s capital [Canberra in 2003], the political decision has been to do nothing that will change the extreme threat to which our forests and rural lands are exposed.

The decision to ignore the threat has been encouraged by some shocking pseudo-science from a few academics who use arguments that may have a place in political discourse but should have no place in managing our environment and protecting it and us from the bushfire threat.

Does anyone out here still really believes that environmentalism is about the environment? It is not! It is not about the environment and it is not about people, in fact theses morons, the eco-whacko, could not care less if we human, the cause of all evil, burn to ashes in bushfires or freeze to death for lack of power to heat our homes. With humans the planet is a better place to their way of thinking

It is not accident the green movement as a whole rose out of the ruins of the Soviet communism. Also, it is not accident that all the liberals are environmentalists and all environmentalists are liberals. Therefore the two are interchangeable. I often say that the Greenies are like watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

(Note: The term “liberal” does not include or denote supporters of the Australian Liberal Party who are, in essence, conservatives. Confusing, I know.)

Total control is a pre-requisite to a successful socialism and environmentalism is the tool to achieve control.

Environmentalism is not about green trees, clean air, clean water or pretty flowers, environmentalism is all about social engineering, it is all about control, controlling us all.

It is also all about power and money, not about welfare, or about social justice or the poor the sick or the weak. Social engineering is about setting unattainable goals to ensure perpetual source for power and money as the goal is never achieved.

Rather then target air and water pollution, that are achievable, socialists talk about global warming. We as humans have as much hope as changing the climate as to stop the earth rotating by turning our back sides eastward and release our bodily gases in unison.

Whilst the northern hemisphere experience one its coldest winter in generations, and down under we have the mildest summer in years, the recent heat waves notwithstanding, the eco-whackos scare campaign about global warming ratchet up as temperatures outside plummet.

If you wish to question the science behind global warming the climate alarmists will tell you that the science has settled, nothing to discuss further. Excuse me sir, but if the science is settled why are we still spending obscene amounts of money on “climate change research?”

Just look at the “stimulus”, yes yours, whichever country you are in, your government allocated vast sums to “climate change”, talking about spending money on something we can have for free! We sure can use that money for …for what? … I know! How about teaching kids to read and write instead of watching Al Gore’s docoganda?

Still Al Gore, Kevin 747 and, as we speak, Hillary Clinton circle the globe in private jets (Charley, is there a hybrid version for 747?) trooping world stages for “talks” about this that and the other AND climate change. Couldn’t they just give exchange Skype ID’s and “talk” till their heart content. These guys and goyls could not arrange a piss-up in a pub yet they pretend that they can rearrange the climate on earth.

Hey Charley, how much carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere during the recent bushfires? How about using lawn mowers engines in lawn mowers that cut down of “native grass” instead of putting them into cars?

* * * * *

We will have yet another bushfire inquiry in which those who perpetrated the disaster will appears with a solicitor on one side a box of Kleenex on the other, swearing that public safety is paramount on their mind. Nothing is furthest from the truth, once more the arsonist turns up as a firemen.

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.

28 December, 2008

Beliefnet: Are Churches that don’t agree with your politics or religious belief not really churches?

Ann Coulter: Correct: They’re called “mosques”

— Interview, Beliefnet, 7-27-06

[Ann Coulter: If Democrats Had any Brains They’d Be Republicans, Page 55]

My friend Mila publish has a blog on MySpace, She logged on MYSPACE for the last time on Dec 27, 2007. in which she raised awareness of honour killing as it applied in America to two sisters who were murdered by their father.

Amongst most of the comments expressing horror and repugnance about a father that murdered his own daughters, you would not be disappointed if you expected a certain quota of useful idiots who tried and move the attention to side issues whilst other put the blame at … yes you got it …you us, and everybody else from the Crusaders to George Bush, anybody but Islam.

And what about them Jews who bomb the Palestinians daily? Asked one useful idiot; you see, as long as the Jews Bomb the Palestinians it is OK to for a Muslim father to murder his two daughters, I wander would it still be OK if the Jews reduce their Bombing to every other day?

Where from do these guys get their logic from? There is no logic. When you spend 12 years in school whose curricula is control by the Teachers Union and the NSW Branch of the Labour Party (our version of the Democratic party) you learn about critical thinking (meaning how criticise conservative government or opposition, as the case may be), global warming, the invasion and occupation of Australia by the English and multiculturalism , where the emphasis is always on emotion, don’t expect logic too – sorry we out of time fore that one, got to go and save a planet now.

Oh yes, the good old multiculturalism, diversity, reaching-out and if Islam is our topic, tolerance all that suppose to make us all feel wet and warm on the inside (but not too warm as not to cause the planet to overheat). If only we have been more understanding, or had made friends with the father of those two girls, as another comment suggested, all that would have never happen. I wander if this idea was taken from Bill Clinton’s last edition of his book Guide to Abstinence .

If its not for our ignorance, those two girls would be alive and well today. Those bleeding hearts really know how to make us feel guilty. Wait a minute, but ignorance is not a crime, is it? So maybe the whole thing is a misunderstanding, our misunderstanding.

And there is Islam is a religion of peace crap. No, idiot, Islam is not called so after the Arabic word salaam, meaning peace, Islam is after the word aslama, meaning submission, total submission. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life that required to total subjugation of every part of you life, including (but not limited to) which leg you put in first when step into the dunny, and out.

* * * * *

You can call me Islamophobic or racist if you wish, even though I remind you that Islam is not a race but who says that to support Islam you have to be logical too? You will not hear from me saying one of my best friends is a Muslim because it reminds me of one of the most idiotic reaction I sometime get revealing that I was born in Israel and that is: one of my best friends is a Jew, so what? What am I to do with such useless information.

My friends are my friends, first last and in between, not Muslims Christians, Jews or Callithumpians. Under cross examination with extreme coercion I may confess that I have never observed any of my female friends dressed in burkah, come to think about it, male friends neither.

Having said that I recognise that there are millions upon millions decent people who were born into the Muslim faith who go about their day providing for their family and striving for peaceful life like I do – these Muslims are not my target, in fact I do not target Muslims, my target is firstly Islam and secondly those who use Islam as excuse for their evil behaviour, big difference.

I often talk about the concept of cause and effect. How can you tell which is which, not always easy, but in essence if you take away the suspect cause and the suspect effect remain unaffected, you can safely conclude that such particular cause and effect, as pair, is bunked.

95% of people die whilst laying in bad. Making all people sleep on the floor would not extend life expectancy by a single micro-second because laying in bad is not a cause of death.

Now experiment time; rebirth that father killer as a Jew or Christian and let him otherwise live identical life. Would you say that those two girls would be alive today? Of course they would. I rest my case (on this issue).

* * * * *

Our lack of cultural sensitivity, sense of social justice, refusal to reach-out and see the splendour of cultural diversity are all the root causes, not only to honour killing and genital mutilation but also to beheading, bombing of trains and discothèques and flying into skyscrapers (except those performed by the CIA in cooperation with the Mossad and MI-5, of course) .

By now you would recognised the Marxist Leninist Stalinist Maoist Socialist Fabian Leftist Liberal (please select one) bleeding hearts terminology which raises the question:

What does a philosophy that was written down in the nineteenth century by two Prussians in a dark room in Brussels, tried for 70 years and failed (but survived by those who never lived its principles), has in common with a religion that started in the deserts of Arabia some 1300 years ago and changed very little since?

Answer: very little, except that they both hate ….. (please insert your own country’s name) meaning they follow the principle of

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Why would those who claim the high moral grounds on human rights (women in particular), gay rights, freedom of (or from) religion, sanctity of life and all that stuff support a group of people that believe in the exact opposite?

Just look at Eeron (you see I can pronounce a country name like a pro 🙂 in 1979. Their enlightened “progressive” professors and their clueless students invaded the streets of Teheron (another PRO-nunciation 🙂 in their thousands, kick out the Shah and brought back the Ayatollahs from exile just to find their high esteem dangling off mobile cranes in Town’s Square of Teheron, renamed “Muhammad Square” or such like.

Here in the West, the Islamic revolution is different. We don’t have Ayatollahs in waiting in France. Instead we have youths, They rampage the streets of Paris burnings shops and cars, youths!, the rampage the streets of Sydney reshaping the looks of parked cars with baseball bats, youth!, they blow up a train or two in London, youths!, Allah Akhbar? I did not hear that. Did you?

It is as if the words Islam and Muslim are too inappropriate to appear on the sold-out media. Just after 911 Associated Press (AP) published a photo of Osama Bin Laden with a caption: Exiled Saudi Dissident Osama bin Laden, that sounds like a freedom fighter against the Saudi Royal Family, the only missing bit was the instructions for sending donations to assist in freeing the enslaved freedom seeking Saudi people.

Just listen to what the Deputy Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, had to say, he must know what he is talking about; right after the London 7/7 bombing ,on the day, he said:

As far as I am concerned, Islam and terrorist are two words that don’t go together

[Melanie Philips: Londonistan page 53, quoting the Independent]

Perhaps we should add those two words to the list of asterisk and bleeped out words in the media.

There you have it, the very people who suppose to protect us against free trade jihad pussyfooting around. They suck the oxygen out of the room, don’t they?

Muslims who tell you outright, that in a few years time your country and mine will turn into the Islamic United States of America, the Islamic Dominion Of Canada, The Islamic European Union, (Eurabia), the United Islamic Kingdom of Britanistan, the Islamic Commonwealth Of Australia (Austarbia) etc. all living in peace under Sharia law – they are serious and you better believe it.

Lets look at some numbers shall we, take one man, Osama Bin Laden, in her book Because They Hate Brigitte Gabriel writes:

He [Osama Bin Laden] is one of fifty-three children. He himself has twenty-seven children. Father and son have sired eighty children.

[Paperback edition page 16]

Do you get my drift? Sure not every Muslim has four wives and umpteen impregnated maids, but still, it is all in demography stupid says Mark Steyn in his book America Alone, (OK the stupid was my addition).

With the exception of USA and New Zealand with fertility rates of 2.11 and 2.01 live births per women (respectively, 2005 figures) the rest of us are going backward in term of population. Great news for the ecophiles who thinks that there are too many of us. In 25 years, not only there will be less of us in Europe, Canada and Australia but a greater proportion of those of us who are still here will be depended on ever growing demand for social security with decreasing resources to pay for it. Who is going to support this Ponzi Scheme? But I am digressing.

* * * * *

Your local loons want you to be nice to Muslims because they are part of the misery industry, poor and helpless, and really, we ought to do the right thing by them as human being (Hey Charley, can you get me the box of Kleenex please).

Just Look how quickly Muslims have adopted to intricate rules of multiculturalism, how have they excelled in learning our immigration and welfare laws, particularly the loopholes. How about their ability to master all the legal technicalities of what constitute an asylum seeker, job seeker, disability pensioner, unmarried mother (This is for wives 2,3 and 4), terms that do not even exist in their mother tongues.

It is gratifying to watch how seamlessly Muslims have assimilated into a vibrant, robust complex, caring, socio-economic, cultural diversified countries of ours with out being able to speak one world in or the language of their host country. Wow!

(OK the welfare in America is not something to write home about but by the look of things the Democrats are working on it, you ain’t seen anything yet my friends.)

Here is another example that these “helpless people” are anything but; For years potential illegal immigrants knew that there was no point trying to reach Australia by boat because if they were caught they would be sent to some islands in the Pacific, which had been excised from the Australian immigration law by the previous (conservative) government, for “processing” leaving them without free “Legal-Aid” , “Human Rights” lawyers and such like interruption to deportations – too risky they concluded and proceeded to another undocumented friendly country.

However as soon as we, in Australia, elected a Labour government, our version of Democratic Party, Kevin747, our Obama08, decided that processing illegal immigrant in Nauru Island is as “inhuman” as processing terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is cruel, and closed it down. As Kevin likes to say “guess what?”, Yes Kev, you be please to know they are back! More voters for the compassionate party.

Our “poor” asylum seekers boats are back! and you want to tell me that those people are not sophisticated? Let me tell you, they know the Australian immigration law better than any of the Department’s bureaucrat and better than you know the laws in your own country, I kid you not.

They may not be able to read and write but they still get invites to participate in “seminars”. Seminars that will remind you of those that are run by investment funds, shared holidays flats salesmen, or retirement home “advisors” with lectern, whiteboard and audio-visual overhead projectors, with signing up session at the end of the conference. Such seminars take place in locations in Kabul, Islamabad, Karachi, Dacca, Beirut and now also in East Africa. They (the seminars) are designed prepare you with your resettling needs and with up to date information about immigration and welfare law in Australia.

An investment of a mere $10,000, payable in advance, will get you an airline ticket and a transit visa for Indonesia (bribe included), a place on a boat to Australia and “technical support” such as at what point you destroy your travel documents, how to lie to immigration investigators in order to gain status of “asylum seeker” and tell you about the special support group waiting to assist you with your quick assimilation into the welfare system of your newly chosen country. This wonderful “beeble” are called the Australian Labour Party .

Unfortunately duty free is extra, but your “human right” lawyer, curtesy of the Australian tax payer, may be able to get you a refund by suing the government for “emotional distress” they inflicted on you by making you come on a boat, instead of a direct flight, placing you in detention and applying “targeted persuasion” in an attempt to establish your true identity.

And I have not touched on their adaptation to human rights, perhaps some other time.