Political Journalist Renounces Australian Citizen-Ship

This article appeared in the Guardian on 26 August 2014.  It’s interesting for many reasons, not least is the fact that this former political toe-the-line journalist has seen the light so to speak, he has jumped off the citizen-ship and reverted to his traditional tribal name, and is now standing for truth, instead of being part of the political circus we see reported in the mainstream media.  To read the article click here.

 

 

 

Advertisements

In a Civilized Society, when is a Job not a Job?

Never, ever, think outside the box

Never, ever, think outside the box (Photo credit: Mrs eNil)

When is a Job not a job, but something else?  When we talk about a civilised society, how do we measure the percentage of the actual civility compared to the ideal of great civilisations that become significant turning points in history?  

Take Greece for instance, it was known for its great art and the development of democracy, which originates from the Greek words “demos” (of and by the people) and. “kratos” (to rule).

Subsequently the people entrust their Sovereignty (All Rights Claimed or All Rights Reserved) and together the people form a constitution which indicates how they will run their society.  If the society does it well, and everyone agrees with certain self-evident principles like everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or in more widened terms, the right to life and health, the right to self-help, the right to self-defence, right to a fair trial (as determined by a jury justice system of one’s peers), and the right to appeal (to a Grande Jury of one’s peers).

The glue that holds any civilised society together as a cohesive unit is the courts where citizens can go peacefully to settle disputes or punish crimes.  The power to punish is the ultimate authority and that is the beginning and the end of anything that could resemble a job.

A job is something that is not a judicial act – that means a job is not something that harms people (negligence and torts aside).

A job was developed by the current illegal money changers (the only time Jesus became violent was when he attacked the money changers), with the word “job” an acronym for Just Over Broke.  An honest days work is done by street sweepers, plumbers, and builders, among other occupations.

However, when a person commits a judicial act, they either act in the position of ultimate authority as they are entrusted to make law for the good of the people, or they are in the position of carrying out the laws, and this includes occupations such as the defence forces, the police, the judiciary, State and Federal Ministers, the administrators of the laws (council workers, secretaries, security personnel etc) and the individual journalists who report scandal and crime.

The Nuremberg trials, as corrupt as they were, established that the defense of “I was just doing my job” is no defense at all.  Ethics, Morals and Responsibility towards the civilized society that person inhabits is the ultimate test as to whether that person is prepared to become a whore for the establishment for money.  People who do have high standards of ethics and morality will either just quit the job, or become whistleblowers against the establishment.

If there is no provision in a country’s Constitution, either at the beginning of its formation, or by changes brought about, to bring charges of treason and sedition against those who hold positions of power and corrupt that power to their own ends, then corruption and fraud escalates to the current level in the world where the money changers are again in charge of the world by controlling the money, they can override our Constitution and control how that society spends its money.  The whores, I mean administrators who help carry out bad laws and corrupt actions commit a judicial act.

For instance, a secretary to a Government department might argue that they only typed the letter, however the secretary is under the mistaken impression she has a job.  The act is not a job, it enables, and the secretary is an enabler.

An enabler can never have just a job, because they commit a judicial act that enables the law to be exercised.  Actions only happen when people make them happen.  If the law harms the people, and everyone under the law doesn’t sit down and think and reflect on that law, and then carries out that law regardless of its consequences is guilty of an accessory-after-the-fact and/or sedition.  Treason is a more serious charge and is reserved for such politicians as Julia Gillard who was charged with treason by Brian Shaw in Elijah’s Challenge, which of course the establishment chose to ignore.

The illegality of the status quo is maintained when investigative journalists are banned by the big mainstream press outlets from telling us the truth.  In some cases the establishment will kill in order to squash a story, like the death of the journalist by the name of Michael Hastings, briefly featured in the biased movie about Julian Assange called “The Fifth Estate“.  His death is widely considered to be a political murder as he reportly told friends he was about to break a big story to do with the cia and thought he was being followed.  Witnesses reported hearing/seeing an explosion before his car hit a tree.

When a journalist says to Alex Jones of Infowars off record that he’s been told by his boss to go after them by falsely reporting that demonstrators attacked police at the JFK memorial ceremony just one week ago, when in actual fact the live footage taken by Infowars clearly shows the police attacked the demonstrators.  The establishment do not want discussion about the death of JFK, and certainly don’t want to show on mainstream media these demonstrations because we know and they know they have ignored the evidence.

This journalist does not have a job because he/she commits a judicial act every time he/she reports.  If that journalist is not comfortable being an enabler of propaganda that journalist should at the very least say no and quit, or become a whistleblower.

The answer to oppression and tyranny is for each person to take note that they are responsible for their actions, and that the many will hold the few to account when we are able to restore a jury justice system.  This is why the jury justice system is despised by lawyers and those in power, because juries will hold them accountable for any harm done to others.

The musketeers chanted “all for one, and one for all”.  When a civilised people stick together they create common law based on the self-evident principles of a Constitution.   A civilised society must stand united, or divided fall.  This is the measure of a civilised society, and is the summation of what a job is, and what a job is not.

Trans Pacific-Partnership secretly trading away rights

A summit with leaders of the member states of ...

A summit with leaders of the member states of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP). Pictured, from left, are Naoto Kan (Japan), Nguyễn Minh Triết (Vietnam), Julia Gillard (Australia), Sebastián Piñera (Chile), Lee Hsien Loong (Signapore), Barack Obama (United States), John Key (New Zealand), Hassanal Bolkiah (Brunei), Alan García (Peru), and Muhyiddin Yassin (Malaysia). Six of these leaders represent countries that are currently negotiating to join the group. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Are you concerned about increasing cost of medicines? Would you worry if Australians could be jailed for illegally downloading an episode of Game of Thrones? Do you want to know if your muesli bar contains palm oil?  Then you really should care about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement being negotiated in secret between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. In this report you will find information on:

 

  • The secrecy surrounding the TPP and details of how the media is being locked out of briefings
  • How the Australian government could become more vulnerable to lawsuits from multinational corporations
  • Why food labelling in Australia is in danger
  • How draconian copyright provisions could significantly curb our freedom online
  • How new patent provisions could make medication costs skyrocket

 

To read more of this article on Choice website click here.

 

To hear Alex Jones of Infowars talk about the tyranny of this plan click here.

 

 

 

Wikileaks Exposes Kissinger Files

English: Henry Kissinger at the 2009 premiere ...

English: Henry Kissinger at the 2009 premiere of the Metropolitan Opera in New York City. Photographer’s blog post about event and photograph. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Wikileaks has exposed the Kissinger cables where Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying “… the illegal we do immediately, unconstitutional takes a little longer”

 

This is undisputable proof that the agenda is real.  Has the take-down of Cyprus been planned since 1975?

 

1975:  AID: CUT OFF CYPRUS:  WHITE HOUSE:  https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html

 

2009:  EMBASSY TEL AVIV’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE NINTH ANNUAL TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (TIP) REPORT https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TELAVIV466_a.html

 

 

Is Australia rushing into a Communist New World Order?

Australian Electoral Commission Declaration of...

Australian Electoral Commission Declaration of Nominations and Ballot Draw in the ACT Federal Election 30th July 2010 (Photo credit: Senator Kate Lundy)

Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Reporting from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Okay, so we have an election due soon, and our Fabian Socialist heroine of the nation, Julia Gillard, and her bootlickers in the parliament are rushing through legislation before they are ousted at the next election.  Given the Fabian Socialist (communist) agenda, there appears to be a silent war declared on the people and on the people’s sovereinty.  In particular the government are rushing through changes to the following important areas that directly affect our democracy and right to free speech.

1.  New Media Laws are Stephen Conroy’s attempt to foist government controlled sanctioned media upon the electors dictating what you can and can not hear or read, and directing physical and/or monetary punishment should you break their journalistic rules.  Sorry Julia, I am not a trained journalist and don’t have any certification to say I am a journalist.  If you can provide me with any receipts, transactions, or payroll receipts that say that I am qualified to be a journalist, that I work as a journalist, or that I am employed and performing some function of government, then your rules do not apply to me.

2.  New Electoral Rules will mean a dimming of our democracy as the major implication behind changing the word elector to the word person, which in the legal world is legal fiction.  An elector is substance and means man or woman.

3.  The Gonski Review by the government lapdogs, the unions are now communist controlled farsical entities.  Education reforms bring us in line with the controlled communist system by controlling the curriculum which is now under federal control, while simultaneously controlling and weeding out teachers who teach things outside what the government has approved.

The article below from Mark Aldridge “Community advocate” & Independent Federal candidate for Wakefield SA
08 82847482 / 0403379500 http://www.markmaldridge.com

New changes to the federal electoral act, would not be supported by any Australian!

UNDER ELECTORAL LAW, AND THE MANY PRECEDENTS OVER THE PAST YEARS A GENERAL ELECTION CAN NOT BE INVALIDATED REGARDLESS OF THE CONDUCT.  Such issues open the door to electoral fraud, because any government that takes power is there for years and there is not a thing we can do, even if they gain your vote through deceit, fraud or simply steal it.

Each year in Australia our election process is eroded, the electoral act is re-written to empower the 2 major parties, and ensure they face less opposition, on top of conduct issues that are nothing more than legalised fraud, they open the loop hole and jump through it.

 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 41 Right of electors of States

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Electors are people who have a right to vote at elections, yet the word elector as of 2/2013 has been removed from around 100 sections of the Federal electoral Act, and replaced in the most with the word person, a person does not necessarily have a right to vote, so why the change, and more so why the silence?

The Act now says A person may apply for a postal ballot paper, not an elector, as if ballot papers can now be sent out without the need to determine if a person is registered to vote.

The game is on and we the people are not invited to play, the new feel of the electoral Act is one of winning at any expense by the major party’s because they both backed the new amendments, so here is a taste of what they have in store for we the people they are supposedly representing, you might want to grab a tissue if you still retain and patriotism if even an inkling of respect to our constitution.

Many will not have noticed the electoral changes also are backed by changes to the taxation Act and several others, and there is good reason they do not want you to know, because the most massive attack on our founding documents and our rights and liberty’s is about to take place, and it is best you do not know.

Parliament has recently passed legislation to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to directly enrol voters (on the basis of information obtained from reputable sources such as a states Road Traffic Authority, the Taxation department and elsewhere) and there is no safe guards to ensure those enrolled even know, and the reason the Act now says “persons” not “electors”, is because the new enrolments may not meet the requirements of an elector?

Changes to our whole democratic system should be in line with the protections found in our constitution, and conversant with our common law rights, and I do not believe any of the new changes are!

“Recent amendments to the Electoral Act allow the Electoral Commissioner to directly update or transfer a persons enrolment, or enrol an unenrolled person, without claim or notice from or to the person (sections 103A and 103B of the Electoral Act)”….(Persons not electors)

The amount of “persons” to be added to the electoral rolls could exceed 1.5 million, with a large percentage of people being unable to meet the usual requirements of becoming an elector, because since the constitution was written, we have had safe guards, like the need to be an Australian citizen to be an elector.  If a person decides they do not want to vote, or do not wish to enrol adding them with out their knowledge will not ensure an educated outcome, or is that the very reason for these changes?

Amending relevant legislation governing the protection of personal data collected by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which would prevent the ATO from providing enrolment relevant data to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), to allow such data to be shared with the AEC for the purposes of facilitating enrolment, also allows said information access where it once was protected, but that is another story.

There are many other changes that will also allow the commissioner to invalidate votes, and several other serious matters, which I will cover in a further update, so why the decision to enrol with out their knowledge so many people living in Australia?

That is where the new postal voting system will come into play, but again, I still have some investigations pending, the fact is, nothing is done with out a reason, and if past conduct is anything to go by, we indeed should be worried.

In the state election in 2010 in South Australia, not only did 77,000 names going missing off the rolls, and near 30% of the Ramsay bi-election simply disappear from the count, over 22,000 postal ballot papers went missing or were deemed invalid, making matters worse 100s of thousands of postal ballot applications were handled by the 2 major parties.

Although while I was in the courts, this was all denied, until the electoral commissioner was forced to admit the truth by way of an affidavit, it is interesting another change seen though out the yet to be released federal electoral act, is the removal of the word DRO, district returning officers, the very ones that alerted me to many interesting breaches of the electoral Act during the final count of the SA election results, so they are now all gone.

Another of the many changes to the act, include the doubling of the costs of nomination and the doubling of the endorsements needed by independent candidates and Minor parties, making ones candidacy harder and more expensive to achieve.

The direct result will be less choice, and more votes to those who endorse these new laws, again disregarding the peoples rights.

We also see changes to the publicity and validity of “changes”, where once the commission was obliged by the Act to publish certain materials in a local paper, or at the very least in the government gazette, now a simple inclusion somewhere on their website has now become adequate.

Ease of de-registering political parties has also been addressed, but as expected there are no disadvantages to the two partys position, and not a hint of improved rights for the voting public.  We see no changes to address political partys misrepresenting their position, or dressing up as other political parties, we see no changes to the unfair preferential system, or to ensure we have adequate information or even adequate ballot papers.

Dodgy how to vote cards are not addressed neither are identity checks nor even security measures beyond the use of a pencil and rubber.

Major partys handling 100’s of thousands of postal voting applications is still acceptable practice, even though the JSCEM (Joint standing committee on electoral matters) recommended the complete opposite, in fact most of the changes recommended by the JSCEM to empower voters over the past 20 years are not adopted, in favour of changes to ensure the 2 party system takes a stronger hold on determining the outcome.

Lack of information to ensure voters can cast an informed vote has increased rather than remedied. More people will miss out on their vote and the electoral commissioner can now reject a ballot paper even easier.

Rather than increasing identity checks, we see less transparency, our electoral rolls will now become more inaccurate rather than ensuring they are competent instruments designed to protect the integrity of our election process.

Over recent years our elderly and disabled have endured a decline in support services, and the JSCEM recommendations to offer more support were also dismissed,one must wonder why we dare let those with the most to gain from structural biases continue to write electoral law.

Pre-poll voting used to demand those casting their vote signed documents to prove who they are, and that they had a right to vote, now even this protection has been taken away again undermining the integrity of the electoral system.

Over 3.1 million Australians are either not enrolled, refuse to attend, or simply have no idea how to cast an informed vote, and the new ideals preferred by the major political parties are all about ensuring they maintain power, rather than inspiring Australians to embrace our once fine democratic system.

I will continue to study all the changes made this week (28/2/13) and list them here by amendment, but lest to say, after 100 years of the word Elector and the constitution using the word Electora complete change to the use of the word “person” is not to empower an equitable electoral outcome.

One would have hoped over 140 changes to the federal electoral Act just prior to a federal election, would be news worthy, but in my years of exposing corruption in the system, it never has been.

The new changes empower the 2 major parties, they do not help inspire participation in our democratic system, they are biased deliberately in favour of those who write the law.

Our supposed independent review process “the board of the JSCEM” is adorned by major party members, and even when they recommend changes that reflect the will of the Australian people, even those recommendations are tossed aside by people who we employ to protect our best interests, here lays the whole problem.

Not only must we change the system, ensure it is Independent of political interference and self interest, we must ensure it allows both educated and freedom of choice, with over 370,000 ballot papers invalidated simply because voters did not have the right information to even cast a valid vote, (votes that were a deliberate attempt to be cast as valid) we can rule our democratic system “Broken” and there for the outcomes of the process are no longer just.

Mark Aldridge Independent Candidate

Transcript Of Julian Assange Speech From Ecuador Embassy In London August 20

Julian Assange Speech Ecuador Embassy

Julian Assange, from Wikileaks, at the SKUP co...

Read the full transcript of Julian Assange’s speech from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, on August 20.  

Julian Assange: I am here because I cannot be closer to you.  Thank you for being here.  Thanks you for your resolve and your generosity of spirit.

On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy and the police descended on the building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it, and you brought the world’s eyes with you.  Inside the embassy after dark I could hear teams of police swarming up into the building through the internal fire escape. But I knew that there would be witnesses.  And that is because of you.

If the UK did not throw away the Vienna conventions the other that is because the world was watching.  And the world was watching because you were watching.  The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights we hold dear, remind them of your vigil in the dark before the Embassy Of Ecuador, and how in the morning the sun came up on a different world and a courageous and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice.

And so to those brave people I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and granting me political asylum.  And so I thank the government and the Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino who have upheld the Ecuadorian constitution and its notion of universal rights in their consideration of my case.  And to the Ecuadorian people for supporting and defending this constitution. And I have a debt of gratitude to the staff of this embassy whose families live in London and who have shown me hospitality and kindness despite the threats that they received.

This Friday there will be an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of Latin America in Washington DC to address this situation. And so I am grateful to the people and governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Venezuela and to all of the other Latin American countries who have come to defend the right to asylum.

To the people of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia who have supported me in strength even when their governments have not and to those wiser heads in government who are still fighting for justice your day will come.  To the staff, supporters and sources of Wikileaks whose courage and commitment and loyalty has seen no equal.  To my family and to my children who have been denied their father forgive me we will be reunited soon.

As Wikileaks stands under threat so does the freedom of expression and the health of our societies. We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.  Will it return to and reaffirm the values it was founded on? Or will it lurch off the precipice dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?  I say that it must turn back.

I ask President Obama to do the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch-hunt against Wikileaks.  The United States must dissolve its FBI investigation.

English: Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-B...

English: Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg Deutsch: Julian Assange und Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters.  The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.

There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organisation be it Wikileaks or the New York Times.

The US administration’s war on whistleblowers must end.

Thomas Drake and William Binney and John Kiriakou and the other heroic US whistleblowers must – they must – be pardoned and compensated for the hardships they have endured as servants of the public record. And the Army Private who remains in a military prison in Fort Levenworth Kansas who was found by the UN to have endured most torturous detention in Quantico Virginia and who has yet after two years in the prison to see a trial must be released.

Seal of the United States Department of State.

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And if Bradley Manning really did as he is accused he is a hero an example to us all and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners. Bradley Manning must be released.  On Wednesday Bradley Manning spent his 815th day of detention without trial. The legal maximum is 120 days.

On Thursday my friend Nabeel Rajah was sentenced to three years for a tweet. On Friday a Russian band were sentenced to two years in jail for a political performance.

There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.

Bagman Ralph Blewitt wants to reveal all in Bruce Wilson & Julia Gillard AWU Fraud Scandal

Story by Shane Dowling (Kangaroo Court of Australia)

Julia Gillard - Caricature

Ralph Blewitt who helped Julia Gillard’s partner Bruce Wilson rip off the AWU in the 1990′s says he will reveal all if he is given immunity from prosecution. This was revealed in The Australian on Friday in a front page story.

The story starts off: THE former union official and alleged bagman for a financial scandal linked to the then boyfriend of Julia Gillard wants to give evidence for the first time to police and prosecutors about his role and the conduct of others.

The Australian can reveal that Ralph Blewitt, a one-time branch head for the Australian Workers Union, is seeking immunity from criminal prosecution in return for breaking a 17-year silence and providing a statement to police. (Click here to read the full story)

The Australian have also run with the story again today (Saturday 4/8/12) The evidence to come out in the articles is nothing greatly new but there are a number of key points of interest the first obviously being that News Ltd have decided to go hard on the issue again with front page stories. Although it must be noted that Andrew Bolt has been continuing to run with the story since last year and some other media picked up on the story on Friday as well.

For those new to the story I did a very detailed post August last year on Julia Gillard’s involvement titled “Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.” (Click here to read the post)

The second is Ralph Blewitt being prepared to tell all. He has been living in Asia since 1997 and currently lives in Malaysia. He is back in Australia to come clean on the fraud and has a criminal lawyer to represent him. The man who seems to have made this happen is Harry Nowicki who is a retired Melbourne lawyer who has been investigating the matter for the last six months for a book on the scandal. (Click here to read the story)

The third could and would mean major problems for Julia Gillard given that she has never given a detailed account of her involvement and/or knowledge of what happened. Blewitt potentially could implicate her and if I was a betting person I would say that is exactly what would happen. Then it would be a bit late for any denials from Gillard to carry any weight as she should have given a fully detailed account a long time ago.