Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Dec 31, 2007

Stamping on Free Speech.

I received the following comment on my ‘Hate Crimes’ post: -

This is much worse than you may really know. To get an idea of how far and ridiculous this has become try Googling this:

free dominion+connie fournier+mark fournier

And "Richard Warman"

I am glad Mark Steyn is getting this attention because he has the support of a large magazine to help him with the costs. Many, many others do not have this luxury and will be ruined as a result.
This evil is about to consume the U.S.. For Australia it is only a matter of time. London and Berlin are already screwed. I hope 2008 is the year we all fight back. 

Good luck friends. 

OK, I find that Richard Warman, ‘Human Rights’ lawyer, 'do gooder' and apparently general busybody, is suing Mark and Connie Fournier for defamation. Some sites indicate that he tends to be selective about which sites with the same information he is insulted by. The Citizen Media Law Project describes the case as follows: -

Richard Warman is a Canadian human rights lawyer based in Ottawa. Formerly with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman is best known for initiating human rights complaints against members of white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements for engaging in hate speech on the Internet.

In September and October 2007, Warman sent two letters to Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins-Fournier, proprietors of the right-wing Canadian forum/website, The letters accused Fournier and Wilkins-Fournier of libel, stated Warman's "intention to commence an action for libel against [them]," and requested a complete retraction. The letters claimed that posts written by the Fourniers and forum participants were libelous in that they accused Warman of engaging in censorship, stifling free speech, and being a "professional complainer," among other things.

A number of websites and bloggers have proclaimed their support for the Fourniers and their condemnation of what they see as Warman's attempts at censorship. Among them are neo-Nazis that Warman has targeted in the past. There is no evidence that the Fourneirs condone the positions espoused by these neo-Nazi supporters, however. In fact, a significant portion of's user base appears to be supporters of Israel and Jewish causes.

Following links from the initial Google query leads to the rather bizarre quagmire of Stormfront, David Duke and company, however as much as I personally disagree with these people they have the right to voice their opinions, even if they are silly opinions.

Warman states that judgments consistently agree that there are 'reasonable' limits on free speech. Reasonable to him apparently means any statement he disagrees with is off limits, by force of law. The trouble with 'reasonable' in a definition is that it is subject to individual perception.

I meet plenty of views that I disagree with, some offensive to me but when that happens I argue, not demand the right to have those people holding such views silenced by force of law. What I think is reasonable, will not be to a person who is so narrow minded that he can peer through a keyhole with both eyes, so should such a person demand 'reasonable' be interpreted in such a way to have my opinions banned?

Free speech is free speech, any limitation to it means it no longer exists. As such no country claiming to be free should be forming bodies that are designed to enforce rules that can only be justified in political correctness.

The views of hate and other unlovely groups should be left out where they can be seen and accessed. If their views are disagreeable, they will be disagreed with. If they are ridiculous they will be ridiculed, all the Warmans of the world do is to unite them under a justifiable feeling of victimhood.

We do not need laws to protect us against such views, we have that protection built in. It is called common sense.

Slander and libel laws, are in themselves anti-free speech, a case well argued by Walter Block in his book, 'Defending the Undefendable', in the chapter 'The Slanderer and Libeler' : -

It is easy to be an advocate of free speech when it applies to the rights of those with whom one is in agreement. But the crucial test concerns controversial speech including statements, which we may consider vicious and nasty and which may, in fact, even be vicious and nasty.

Now, there is perhaps nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel. We must, therefore, take particular care to defend the free speech rights of libellers, for if they can be protected, the rights of all others who do not give as much offence will certainly be more secure. But if the rights of free speech of libellers and slanderers are not protected, the rights of others will be less secure.

The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the protection of the rights of libellers and slanderers is clear libel is ruinous to reputations. …But obviously, protecting a person's reputation is not an absolute value. If it were, if, that is, reputations were really sacrosanct, then we would have to prohibit most categories of denigration, even truthful ones.

Unfavourable literary criticism, satire in movie, play, music or book reviews could not be
allowed. Anything which diminished any individual's or any institution's reputation would have to be forbidden.......

Liberalism as expressed today appears to be a form of mental instability.

Fred tells it like it is

I pinched this off Patrick at Born Again Redneck.

His introduction is too good to change so I am keeping it as is.

I don't need to say anything. He can speak for himself:

You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.

I think if all of America sees this he will win hands down. I like the way he slaps the other side instead of his own. I often wonder with regards to US politics, why after the candidates finish slanging each other does anyone feel like voting for them.

UK Law Application. ‘Dhimmis by any other name would………’

Mangotsfield war memorial

I have in the past highlighted some of the more ridiculous applications of the law and somewhat embarrassingly as such appear to be picking on the New World, so it is nice to highlight the fact that legal stupidity is not confined to there.
After all, we have plenty of it here in Oz. This one gives me a chance to bring you some from the home of left wing pompous arrogance, and the original nanny state, Europe and in this case the Poms. This is from an article in the Daily Sun by Luke Salkeld.

When she spotted yobs vandalizing a war memorial garden, Julie Lake sprang into action.

As the daughter of a Second World War RAF pilot – and granddaughter of one of the fallen in the 1914-18 war – she felt it was her duty to intervene. But, after giving the main culprit a talking- to and a 'cuff round the ear', she finds herself facing the prospect of being arrested for assault.

Yesterday Mrs. Lake accused police of failing to follow up her complaints about graffiti and other hooliganism in the memorial garden….

"I've called the police and I've tried to talk to these kids, but I've got nowhere………….

"I did not go up to these boys intending to hit anyone but they when they started shouting abuse at me and my husband, Peter, who is recovering from cancer, I just snapped." She said that 15 youths surrounded her and mockingly asked if her husband, who was in their car, was going to rescue her.

"I saw red and gave the ringleader a slap on the cheek," she added. "He was just laughing and said 'That's assault'. "Then they took my car registration and rang the police. They all know their rights, they just don't care about anyone else's."

Gangs of teenagers wearing hooded tops have carried out a series of attacks on the pretty memorial garden with its somber stone cross. They have daubed offensive graffiti on the stone, ridden their bikes over wreaths and carved their names into wooden benches.

A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police confirmed the force is investigating an alleged assault on a 15- year-old boy. He admitted however that Mangotsfield has a problem with youth vandalism.

Inspector Gus Krouwel said: 'Neighborhood police regularly receive complaints about groups of around eight young people gathering by the war memorial, drinking and leaving litter.

"I do appreciate that people may get frustrated with this sort of situation but the appropriate response is to work with agencies like the police and local authority to find solutions."

Well isn't that nice, after regularly receiving complaints about this and not bothering to get off their fat arses to try to do something about it, they want people who have in the past found it to be a waste of time, to work with them.

Mrs. Lake will voluntarily attend a police station next month to be formally arrested. She could be charged with assault, which carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison or a £5,000 fine (about US$10,000 or Au$11500).

But she said she was prepared to take any punishment she is given to make a point about the effects of anti-social behavior.

I, for the life of me just totally fail to understand the wish of others to desecrate memorials, they are only a place put aside for the memory of those who lost their lives fighting for their country. It is not as if someone seeing one is likely to form an ambition to have his name inscribed there too.

This activity, I think has more to do with anti-social personality disorders than peace, and unfortunately the state seems to back the loonies.

If any British veterans are reading this check out how the Yanks deal with these twerps by going to my post on "Gathering Of Eagles" and follow the links, you could do some good.

A mate of mine was working in a place called Gunpowder, a small mine town in the north west of Queensland, and there was one guy there who, when he got pissed thought he was a great fighter. Trouble was he couldn't fight anyway, and even less when pissed.

One night he picked on a small new guy who didn't know him well enough to tell him to piss off who got stuck in and gave him a bit of a flogging. The result was that 'fighting man' went to the cops with one eye blackened and closed and demanded the perpetrator be charged.

The cop told him "F..k off before I close your other eye for you."

Thats what I call good sensible policing.

Dec 26, 2007

"Hate Crimes."

Political correctness reaches its absolute nadir of reprehensibility with its passion for laws against certain types of speech, and its insistence that a crime is more serious if committed against certain people than the same crime is if committed against others. Liberty is liberty, equality is equality, once you start tampering with this and presenting certain elements as exceptions to the rule, this no longer applies.

Denying the holocaust in the face of all of the evidence is pretty silly, and probably upsets a few people but is only silly, not criminal. Saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is also silly, but nobody wants it to be a crime, even if it offends some people. Most of us get a laugh out of both.

By the same token an assault against a person the perpetrator dislikes, is the same as one on a person of a different nationality.

While looking for something else I visited Lemuel Calhoun who is always good value and found an article, ‘The Great White Dhimmi North’ which shows just how ridiculous the situation is.

Lemuel quotes from an article in ‘Front Page Magazine’ which details a case against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone : -

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have begun proceedings against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone. They are responding to complaints from the Canadian Islamic Congress about an excerpt from the book that was published in the Canadian journal Maclean’s. “The article,” the CIC claims, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt,” and was “flagrantly Islamophobic.”

To be sure, the article was pretty strong stuff. Here’s a bit of it: “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Even worse, it goes on to say: “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.”
“A Muslim continent”! “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes”! No wonder the CIC was upset.

 And not just the CIC: writer Jim Henley, whose articles have appeared in The New Republic and The American Spectator Online, quoted the “mosquitoes” line and called Steyn a racist.

There were just two problems: The “Muslim continent” statement is not only factual, it’s stated in words no one can characterize as inflammatory. (Also, it’s been said by Libya’s strongman Muammar Qaddafi). Second, “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” was not Steyn’s phrase. He was quoting Mullah Krekar, a jihadist who currently resides in Norway, although officials have been trying for years to get him out of the country.

And that sums up the problem with the Canadian human rights commissions’ action against Steyn: he was simply reporting on contemporary European reality. It was not Mark Steyn, but Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne who said at the United Nations in 1974: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” Those who want to silence Steyn want to suppress facts and limit free speech.

Robert Spencer, the author goes on with several other examples of points where Steyn is actually quoting Islamic sources in his “offensive” article and sums up with:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is putting itself in the peculiar position of penalizing those non-Muslims who report on such statements, as if it is somehow an act encouraging “hatred and contempt” to reveal the unpleasant reality that comprises mainstream Islamic rhetoric today. There is no indication that the CHRC has done a thing to investigate the possibility that some Muslims in Canada might hold the views of Mullah Krekar, Qaddafi, Boumédienne, Qaradhawi and Sheikh Muhammad. When the CIC’s President Mohamed Elmasry said in 2004 that all Israelis over age eighteen were legitimate targets, the CHRC took no action. But Elmasry, you see, is part of a protected victim class.

Actions like the one against Steyn threaten the foundation of free society. Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people -- whoever they may be -- must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Canada is a different case -- but wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. That is no less so in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.

This pretty much says it all, the fact is that political correctness and all of the idiocy that goes with it are symptomatic of the arrogance of the left and their allies in that they feel that they have no need to justify their positions on any of their favorite subjects. Nothing they of those they regard as ‘causes’ should ever be critically scrutinized.

Currently they tend to argue that only white people can be racist, as while minorities may hold offensive views they are in no position to apply those views.

A few good pointers

This one is mainly for my mates over here who are considering standing in the various campaigns over the next couple of years.

Those of you who listen to my occasional rants and waffles, or have somehow found yourself over at my site, will be aware that I have become involved in the William Russell V Murtha campaign for the 12th district PA in the US.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is that Jack Murtha is a corrupt slimeball who needs getting rid of. The second is that Lt. Col. William T. Russell is running a shoestring budgeted campaign against a well known incumbent, who is extremely well funded by donations sourced mainly from the beneficiaries of his earmarks.

This allows me to pick up a few good pointers to pass on, as last time I looked we seemed to be in a similar position. Anyway I have a few, and I think its time to get them up and let you have a chew over them, (Most of it is pinched off the site of Stephen R Maloney and in order to keep it in context I have left most of it in his words, including the relationship to the Russell campaign.) So here goes: -

First he is forming a Bloggers for Russell effort and says, “Please give whatever assistance you can. And be sure to sign up as a Blogger 4 Russell! They now have more than 40 such bloggers, and we're aiming for 500.”

He believes in the theory that former presidential candidate Gary Hart called "concentric" circles. It means that you don't win big races like Russell vs. Murtha by drawing large crowds of anonymous people. Instead, you find a lot of individuals bloggers and other activists who drop a pebble in the pool.

Then, it goes in concentric circles including other people in the campaign. Then, those "others" drop their own pebbles. People in the Blog world are great at dropping pebbles.

Since William is going to have a lot less money than Murtha, to win the 12th District, he needs to identify at least 100 very influential individuals. He has to rely heavily “influentials” that are real residents of the 12th District and are keys to victory. Here's how Internet guru Joe Trippi describes such people:

"In a place like Jones County, Iowa, you get Jimmy Hogan [a well-liked family farmer and local Democratic official] and you were halfway to delivering the whole [darn] county."

Trippi continues, "This is something not everyone realizes about our political system. Not all voters are created equal. Some people carry more influence.”

"In his book on consumer 'epidemics,' The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell writes, . . the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.' Gladwell calls these influential people, people like Jimmy Hogan, 'connectors.’

One of the four connectorsWilliams campaign has found so far is Melanie, a greeter at a restaurant. Another is Rhonda, the outspoken sister-in-law of a soldier killed in Iraq. Yet another is the head of a local Republican Party. A fourth is an obvious choice, Diana Lynn Irey who ran against Murtha in 2006 -- and garnered nearly 80,000 votes.

Think about this, in the previous election the Republicans didn’t take it seriously as defeat was so likely they used their resources elsewhere so these 80,000 voters are probably hard line supporters of the party, and will probably do a great deal to support a dedicated candidate. (Lets see, 80,000 by $10 is……)

Connectors are people like ministers, priests, and rabbis, as well as barbers/hair stylists, local officials, police personnel, heads of organizations like the RSL, and many others. They spend a lot of time talking about events of local significance, especially political campaigns.

Well that’s about it for now, when I get a few new pointers I will pass them on.

Dec 18, 2007

10 year old girl arrested for cutting food

Image; Cutlery set, frightening isn't it?

S.J. Reidhead alerted me to this and I quote from The Shield of Achilles

An elementary student in Marion County was arrested Thursday after school officials found her cutting food during lunch with a knife that she brought from home, police said.

The 10-year-old girl, a student at Sunrise Elementary School in Ocala, was charged possession of a weapon on school property, which is a felony.

According to authorities, school employees spotted the girl cutting her food while she was eating lunch and took the steak knife from her.

The girl told sheriff's deputies that she had brought the knife to school on more than one occasion in the past.

Students told officials that the girl did not threaten anyone with the knife.

The girl was arrested and transported to the Juvenile Assessment Center.

Any kid in school, (boys, I mean) when I was there wouldn’t be caught dead without a pocket knife of some sort, even the cheapest one from Woollies, you just had to have one. No one ever threatened anybody with one, to do so would have been despicable and the perpetrator would have been regarded as beneath contempt.

Fair enough, society has changed since those days although probably not as much as people think, but the proliferation of drugs and the reliance by some parents on the state to teach values, has put some real nasties out there. However a 10 year old girl in primary school is not likely to present this type of threat.

It could reasonably be argued though that an older person who was aware of the knife could access it. Schools have to make decisions on issues like these, and a ruling such as “no knives” is one way to go.

Why even if the rule was broken, is the child arrested and charged with a felony, does nobody in the school have any sense of proportion, don’t the police have any sense either?

The child was using the knife to no other purpose than to eat her lunch, made no aggressive moves, wasn’t showing it around, just eating her lunch. For this the school is prepared to give her a criminal record at ten years of age.

What is wrong with approaching the child, pointing out that knives are not allowed, giving her an opportunity to do what other cutting is required, then taking it until the end of the day when she could take it home?

But no, these people either can’t think for themselves or don’t want to. I mean if you go around making decisions, you have to take responsibility for them. We can’t have that, can we? Much better to have a written rule book and treat it as the revered word of the Almighty, and apply it with total bloody minded inflexibility.

Then when anything comes up, no matter how petty, an action is specified (probably designed for a worst case scenario) and in this case totally disproportionate to the inadvertent minor breach of the rules.

By following ‘the book’ the perpetrators of this outrage (including the police) can fall back on the Eichmann defense, “I was just following orders.”

Dec 15, 2007

Gathering of Eagles

In February this year I first noticed references to a “Gathering of Eagles” on the Michelle Malkin site. Apparently in response to protests against the troops and the desecration of memorials some former servicemen had been trying to do something about it without a great deal of success.

Michelle advocated; Here is the answer: Get off the sofa and join the Gathering of Eagles on March 17 in Washington, D.C. On that day, well-funded, celebrity-studded anti-war groups plan to march to the Pentagon on a protest route that will take them past the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and climax in calls for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, destruction of America's "global military machine," ……

One of the earliest posts I can find on the subject is in Veteran-American Voices, under the heading, “A Gathering of Eagles Against a Gathering of Vultures” by “Rurik” and begins: -

At the start of February, we were alerted by a few vets that the hard left, anti-American protesters organized around Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, and their ilk planned to demonstrate in Washington on March 17, 2007, starting at the Vietnam War Memorial and marching on the Pentagon. Word spread via e-mail, and then by website.

Last time those barbarians marched not only did they protest, but they also vandalized the Capitol while the federal Park Police did virtually nothing. This time, they would do it to Our Wall. They will dishonor the memory of Our Fallen Brothers before beginning their trek to betray and dishonor Our Serving Sons.

Forbid it Almighty God!! Even if no vandalism were to occur, to expropriate The Wall as a backdrop for such a protest would be a desecration. An obscenity. It would be like allowing the KKK to hold a national rally at the Lincoln Memorial – that would never be allowed to happen. And the aging hippies and traitors of the 1960s must not be allowed near The Wall memorializing those they betrayed.

As an Australian I have always held a deep sense of shame and revulsion at the way our Vietnam veterans were treated, for them there were no parades to welcome them home as their predecessors from both world wars and Korea, no great public speeches, no accolades, and little recognition.

These men served with honor and distinction, yet were vilified, they won their battles, yet were defeated, not by the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong, but by the treachery of the opposition and the gutlessness of the government who sent them there, and snuck them back at the end of their tours of duty like thieves in the night, as if their service was something to be ashamed of.

Gathering of Eagles, gained the support of most veterans groups, and turned up on the day in huge numbers, some reports indicate up to 30,000, which even if exaggerated as some claim, was a great effort. Anti war moon bats now know they are opposed.

Learning from their own experiences at the end of their war, they have applied that knowledge in ensuring that the new generation of warriors knows that they have the support of their elder brothers in arms.

Here is what William Russell a veteran himself, (Yes that’s the one standing against Murtha) has to say about it (in Part): -

“They come wearing motorcycle leather and business suits. They sport crew cuts and ponytails, some wearing long un-trimmed beards, others clean-shaven. They park their Harley’s, Gold Wings, and three wheelers in rows flying the Stars and Strips and the black POW/MIA flags. Many bear scars and tattoos commemorating their service in Vietnam.

They often come to stand guard over the memorial bearing the names of their comrades who fell during the long years of their generation’s war to prevent the anti-war protesters of today’s struggle from defacing it, again.

Upon meeting veterans of the current war against Radical Islam, many of whom are young enough to be their grandsons, they wrap them in bear hugs and say “Welcome Home, Brother.”

They are now the older brothers of our Brotherhood of Arms. These are the men who so many of my generation looked up to as the heroes who were betrayed. They fought an unpopular and ugly war that did have a purpose in the worldwide struggle against communism, against an enemy who remained faceless in the jungles of a far off land. But that purpose is so often hidden or disregarded in the movies, history books, and writings since.

They bear the unseen scars of coming home from their war only to be welcomed in San Francisco and New York and many college campuses with protests and taunts of “Baby Killer!” and “Murderer.” The anger of having one of the most famous starlets of their generation go to the home of the enemy they were fighting and provide aid and encouragement to that enemy runs deep. The hurt of having one who stood among their ranks for a short period of time, sit before the Congressional Committees and lie about atrocities they did not commit, be rewarded with election to the United States Congress and Senate and a run for the highest office of this land, runs deeper.

But once again, the real heroes of that generation are stepping up and are looking out for their little Brothers and Sisters who are fighting in a far off land. They know this enemy here at home and they are watching the backs of their younger siblings. They are not allowing this anti-war movement to go unanswered. They are stepping up to speak the truth about the self-described “heroes” of their generation, and prevented one from becoming President. They are standing on street corners near Walter Reed, in West Chester, PA and Berkley, CA to counter Code Pink and other anti-war protesters.

They form the core of groups like the Patriot Guard Riders, who ride in processions to welcome home the fallen and protect their families from the most despicable of anti-war protesters who show up at the funerals. The Free Republic “Freepers” stand vigil outside Walter Reed to cheer our Wounded Warriors on Friday nights to let them know the Code Pink protesters across the street do not speak for the people of this nation. The Gathering of Eagles organizes pro-troop counter protests to the anti-war protesters and stand toe to toe with them.

Then there are the motorcycle clubs like the Rolling Thunder and the Nam Knights who stand vigil over the memorials to prevent further defacement and insults to their fallen brothers and sisters. And there are the USO volunteers who greet service men and women returning from overseas at airports across the country to let them know they are appreciated.

Just as my older Brothers in Arms welcomed me and so many of my Brothers and Sisters of my generation home, I want to say to them as individuals and as a group: “Thank you for being home, Brother, and watching over me.”

I hope Australian veterans form such a group; I have a feeling they will be sorely needed.

Dec 12, 2007


I found this on Born Again Redneck who says: -The Silverbacks posted this with the admonition, THIS CANNOT BE POSTED ENOUGH AMERICA! So I took their advice and posted this video of Nugent's take on the Second Amendment to which I say, "Amen and hallelujah!"

This guy is  worth watching, he is real, he makes sense, we should listen, we should take it to heart.

Dec 7, 2007

Pearl Harbour

Photo, The Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbor. Over 1000 men are entombed in the hull. 

"They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old, 
Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn,
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We shall remember them.  (For the Fallen, Laurence Binyon.)

After this war the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell. Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr. 

I have heard of this statement in the past, however it probably doesn't pass the tests of the PC people, and was very hard to find. Probably with the new era of peace with the Japanese, it is not a bad thing to have it slip away into the mists of time. At the time of saying (7th Dec 1941) it was the right thing at the right time.

This post is for my American mates, (You outnumber my Australian visitors 46% to 42%). I guess you can say this stuff better than I can, so I'll just let you know that my thoughts are with you today.

Dec 3, 2007

Anniversary, Eureka; Australia’s Declaration of Independence.

Picture; Left, the Eureka Flag,  Centre, Peter Lalor (the leader),  Right, painting of The Battle.
By JimFryar
On the 3rd of December 1854 a battle was fought which remains part of the Australian psyche and helped establish the character of a nation, Eureka.
From “The Bulletin”.
‘Australia began her political history as a crouching serf kept in subjection by the whip of a ruffian gaoler, and her progress, so far, consists merely in a change of masters. Instead of a foreign slave-driver, she has a foreign admiral; the loud-mouthed tyrant has given place to the suave hireling in uniform; but when the day comes to claim their independence the new ruler will probably prove more dangerous and more formidable that the old’. 
Rather than 'the day we were lagged', Australia's national day should be December 3, the anniversary of the Eureka rebellion, 'the day that Australia set her teeth in the face of the British Lion'. 
British rule in Australia From the latter part of the 18th century through to the mid 19th century was a corrupt dictatorship. The country was a group of colonies, each ruled by Governors appointed by the British crown who had absolute power including life or death, over the population.
These were backed up by British troopers, under the charge of dissolute and corrupt officers, who, having unlimited power tended to use it to further their own ends. A military dictatorship is bad enough in its own right, but when you add to that the British class structure with its belief that ‘Colonials’ were inferior, rebellion is the only way out.
In this political climate, all sorts of toadies and shysters find advantage in cozying up to the state apparatus to advance their own interests at the point of a gun, and of course this happened here. The authorities victimized the general population to further the interests of these people as well.
In 1853, gold was discovered an event which sparked massive waves of immigration. Miners from all over the world descended upon Australia bringing with them ideas of liberty, and equality into an environment where, as a totally foreign concept it was bound to inflame the existing resentment into rebelliousness.
The authorities, however in their arrogance treated the new arrivals in the same manner they had been treating the existing population. They levied a crushing license tax on the prospectors and troopers used whips, musket butts and bayonets to collect it. Mounted troopers would engage in "Digger hunts" through the goldfields where prospectors would be ridden down in front of their comrades.
Open rebellion was sparked when a publican murdered James Scobie a miner, and despite the evidence of other diggers the subsequent inquiry deemed that the evidence was inconclusive. Those who pressed for the arrest of the publican were themselves arrested, as were the miners who burned down the hotel to avenge their mate.
Peter Lalor, roused the diggers to build a stockade for their defense and raised the Eureka Flag. Raffaello Carboni, called on the crowd, "irrespective of nationality, religion and color", to salute the Southern Cross as the "refuge of all the oppressed from all the countries on earth".
The stockade lasted only a short time, within an hour against overwhelming odds it was all over. No ruling class has ever regarded its downtrodden with anything but contempt, and this attitude leads to savagery when that class stands up and cry “No more”. The resistance was crushed with the utmost brutality, but as is the case in such events, only at that place, and only for that moment in time.
The diary of Samuel Lazarus describes the events: -
I entered (the stockade) and a ghastly scene lay before me, which it is vain to attempt to describe — My blood crept as I looked upon it. Stretched on the ground in all the horrors of a bloody death lay 18 or 20 lifeless and mutilated bodies — some shot in the face, others literally riddled with wounds — one with a ghastly wound in the temples and one side of his body absolutely roasted by the flames of his tent. 
Another, the most horrible of these appalling spectacles, with a frightful gaping wound in … his head through which the brains protruded, lay with his chest feebly heaving in the last agony of death. One body pierced with 16 or 17 wounds I recognized as that of a poor German whom I have often joked with. 
Newly-made widows recognizing the bloody remains of a slaughtered husband — children screaming and crying around a dead father — surely the man that polluted the early dawn of a Sabbath's morning with such a deed of blood and suffering must have a stony heart if he does not think with keen remorse on the desolation of many a widowed heart his merciless work has left. 
But this sanguinary carnage, revolting as it is to the mind, is not half so sickening as the savage wanton barbarity of the troopers. Did not turn their swords on armed men, but galloped courageously among the tents shooting at women, and cutting down defenseless men … 
A trooper galloped up to Mr. Naslam (reporter for one of the papers) and ordered him to join the government force. He … gave an excuse (which was strictly true) that he was unwell, when the wretch at once leveled his carbine and shot him in the side. Not content with this wanton barbarity he handcuffed him and left him on the ground weltering in his blood. 
Another man … awoke by the firing, went out of his tent in his shirt and drawers and seeing the savage butchery going on cried out in terror — "for God's sake don't kill my wife and children". He was shot dead."
The battle in all of its futility, made the British realize that they were seeing the beginnings of what happened in America. They were up against an entire population aggrieved to the point of rebellion, and were aware that more armed resistance was on the way.
Fortunately they had the sense to back off, caving in to the miners demands. Those arrested were not prosecuted, and Peter Lalor who managed to escape after loosing an arm in the battle was subsequently was elected to parliament.
British colonial attitudes are well portrayed in Bruce Beresford’s excellent movie “Breaker Morant”, made on the subject of the execution of two Australian soldiers during the Boer War. Lt Harry (Breaker) Morant and Lt Peter Handcock. From the evidence I can find the film appears to be remarkably accurate historically.
A mate of mine who saw it before me said, “ It made me want to go out and find a Pommy."

Dec 2, 2007

Liberal Party (Queensland) Seeking More Memorable Defeats

Photo; Qld. Liberal leader, Dr Bruce Fleg and Nationals leader, (and opposition leader) Jeff Seeny.

By Jim Fryar.

What astute politicians those Liberals are, eight members of parliament and they feel that they can indulge in the luxury of factional squabbles, and drag a leadership dispute on for a week and counting, just what the hell do these people represent?

Some of this factional nonsense in my opinion goes back as far as the celebrated split with the Nationals, which was supposed to put the Liberals in the majority and bring Joh to heel. Oops, well that didn’t go very well, did it? They ended up sitting beside Labor as an opposition party. Is this something so good as to be perpetuated?

I don’t think so.

The last decent decision made by the opposition in this state was to amalgamate the two parties and present a united front in the following election. It had Peter Bettie running scared, to the point that he vigorously campaigned against it.

Peter’s greatest talent was giving gratuitous advice to people who he wished to destroy, and having it accepted by them. And it worked, didn’t it? Those who feared the loss of their power base rushed to scuttle it. Peter had great political judgement as he demonstrated when he left.

He managed to anoint his deputy, Anna Blyth as leader, as per the old adage in politics, “Always get succeeded by someone more incompetent than yourself so you look better”.

Just to make Pete’s day, they then tossed out the baby with the bathwater and got rid of Bob Quinn, and ultimately Lawrence Springborg, who were vastly more credible leaders than those they have at present.

I call on the Liberals and the Nationals to think about what your policies are. You don’t have any apart from vague ideas, do you? They will be worked out in detail when the next election gets closer. Until then your few parliamentarians will spend their time voting against every piece of legislation that comes up, good or bad.

Not a great prospect is it, especially as unless you can get your representatives into some semblance of an organised group, you are going to cop another flogging next time? Kind of reminds me of an old expression involving the rough end of the pineapple, (not sure which end that is).

You now have an alternative to this fate. Those of you who are more to the classical liberal line of thinking; that is fiscal responsibility along with social tolerance have the potential of a new party available to you, the Liberty and Democracy Party.

Support lower taxes, we do. Support secure property rights, along with the right to do as you wish with that property, we do. Want fewer bureaucrats telling you what you can or can’t do, hey that’s us. Think you are competent to make your own decisions, we do. Want rid of excessive regulation, we’re with you there too.

The fact is that we now represent your views much more closely than the parties that you currently support ever will, that is if they ever get into a position to represent you again and for that to happen in the near future you will go through some very bad times as the current government would have to set out to make itself detested for this opposition to look good.

Look, Liberals and Nationals, the ones who want things to improve would be well advised to check out the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP), if you think you could help to create a new force for a return to common sense, go check out our site.

We need good members and you need a great political party. When our people get in we won’t be a rump group, we can still work with liberals and conservatives where our principles agree with theirs and be an effective force for advancement until we can form a government in our own right.

Come on over, check us out.


Courier Mail reports resolution in sight, stupid resolution, but a resolution.

THE stalemate over the leadership of the Queensland Liberals will be decided by a lucky dip at noon tomorrow if MPs cannot agree on a candidate.

The party's eight MPs met for 12 hours yesterday but failed to agree on who should be their new leader after Bruce Flegg stood down.

Another meeting today has been cancelled but the MPs will reconvene tomorrow at 10am.

Three MPs are backing Clayfield MP Tim Nicholls while Dr Flegg's former supporters have switched their allegience to Mark McArdle.

If there is no agreement after two hours tomorrow, the leadership will be decided by drawing a name out of a hat.

You just have to admire these guys for their negotiating skills, and philosophical commitment. Mind you this method of selecting a leader could be better than you think, just look around at the current crop and think about it.

Meanwhile the Premier, Anna Sincerity's my middle name Blyth, has spoken about her acute embarrassment at the antics of these idiots. Yeah Anna, my heart bleeds for you, as i'm quite sure the sight of an opposition in disarray must be really upsetting for you.

Your predecessor, Posturing Pete would not have put up with this. He would have turned up at the conference, and offered his help to them. Tomorrows news flash: -

Forrest Gump new Liberal leader.

Liberal Party president Warwick Parer, has thanked Pete for his timely intervention and says, "The party can now move into the future, with improved dynamic leadership.

Another update.

Well, its finally settled, and no name drawn out of a hat.
After days of wrangling over the issue, the party's eight MPs today elected Mr McArdle to replace Dr Bruce Flegg as leader and made leadership challenger Tim Nicholls his deputy.

During a two-hour meeting today the two leaders were elected unanimously, despite earlier threatening to draw a new leader's name out of a hat because the leadership vote was deadlocked.

Mr McArdle, the former deputy leader, told reporters the party now had to create a credible alternative to Labor in the lead-up to the next election due in 2009. 

They certainly have some distance to cover.

Dec 1, 2007


Cartoon from Vets for Truth to Redeploy John Murtha.

This is a press release from William Russell for Congress, that I received today and feel is very worth while.

I have been in contact with them for a while and support him fully as he is making a great effort to get rid of Jack Murtha who is probably one of the worst, most slippery, most unprincipled, most treacherous, and most deceitful people in the US Congress.

An article on earmarks in the NY Times points out that Murtha was responsible for $166 million out of $1.8 billion in earmarks on the Military Appropriations Bill to pay private companies for projects that the Pentagon didn't request.

Mr. Murtha has drawn much attention this year, first as he bitterly opposed the legislation requiring disclosure of earmarks, then continued his habit of submitting dozens of requests, most benefiting his hometown of Johnstown, Pa. (He asked for 47 earmarks.) 

Two Republicans said he threatened to block them from getting any earmarks when they questioned one of his requests. “You’re not going to get any, now or forever,” he warned Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who eventually received a written apology from the Pennsylvania congressman.

The Republican Conference chairman, Adam H. Putman of Florida, said Mr. Murtha’s behavior has been “like watching a throwback in time.”

Any way here it is: -


Johnstown, PA – November 30, 2007: William Russell the Republican for Congress had this to say after Murtha’s trip debrief news conference.

"Thank you John Murtha for admitting the surge under the leadership of General Petraeus is working."

"I agree, the American people are impatient with the central government and as Mr. Murtha stated, it close to dysfunctional. But enough about the Pelosi - Murtha led Congress.

The Central government in Iraq is taking charge with leaders who have been braving large scale assassination attempts, threats to their families, and an infrastructure ravaged and neglected by Saddam's regime and sabotage by Islamic Radicals. They are rebuilding an army and police forces, getting control of foreign national criminals in their presence, and have actually passed major reforms. Can the same be said of our Democratic majority in the House?

"The $14 Billion per month that Murtha says is taking its toll on training and equipping our military here at home is not the issue. It is the political games that Murtha and Obey are playing with military budgets that is causing the Department of Defense to short change training and equipping functions in order to ensure the success of the surge and support our Soldiers on the front lines. "

"Murtha wonders why the next rotation of troops is not ready to back fill those currently deployed while he holds up the funding necessary to equip and train them."

"When Murtha cites the Abu Ghraib photos as being the best recruiting tool for Al-Qaida, he is too modest. He has completely forgotten about his endorsement of Al-Qaida's recruiting efforts by publicly accusing United States Marines of cold-blooded murder of Iraqi civilians. Murtha gave the United States Congress's stamp of approval to the enemy's propaganda and placed American service men and women in greater danger of attack by giving credence to the enemy's message on the Arab street.

"We are eagerly awaiting Murtha's apology to the exonerated Haditha Marines for placing them in greater danger, ruining their careers, and undermining their comrades."

"I agree that we should step up our diplomatic and political efforts to help the Iraqi's establish political and economic control. Thanks to the security provided by the surge, the Iraqi civil entities are gaining control. If we had followed the advice and position of Murtha and his Democratic colleagues, we would not have the opportunities we currently have.

"Rather than pit domestic political and economic policies against our military and political objectives in the war against Islamic Radicalism, why don't we focus on synchronizing those policies so we can keep our troops safer and bring them home from a peaceful theater? Mr. Murtha has proven time and again that he will not support our Soldiers in the fight. I stand ready to support them and help achieve victory and security for our future"

"It's no wonder John Murtha wants to try to distract 12th District voters from his record. But no matter how much rhetoric and double talk he puts out, it won't change the fact that the only person in this race who's flip-flopped on important issues after receiving massive campaign donations is John Murtha."

Larry Stiles, USMC-Vietnam Veteran
Campaign Manager
William Russell for Congress
P.O. Box 630
Johnstown, PA 15907
Phone: 814.243.8662

Please volunteer for William Russell for Congress at

Nov 30, 2007

LDP Firearms Policy.

I have been meaning to post this for a while, but with quite a bit of other stuff going on in the nation, and the need to advise the rest of the world where it is going wrong, I put it on the backburner. Actually I just got slack, but the first explanation sounds better.

The policy was written by (I think) Terje (pronounce Ta-ya) Petersen, who is probably one of our best guys. One recent comment was; I found people much easier to bring around on board with the guns issue than I expected.

But that’s because you can sell ice to an eskimo Terje,  30 mins with you and i’m demanding my right to pack like Rambo.

The Liberty and Democracy Party supports the right to own firearms.

Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person. It says nothing about what might be done with a gun and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

However, as with any right, there are associated responsibilities. Failure to meet these may warrant criminal penalties.

The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.

In terms of genuine crime control, most gun laws are ineffective. Making gun ownership illegal does not stop gun ownership. It merely affects those gun owners who are law-abiding and least likely to use their guns in crime.

Disarming the law-abiding is irrational when the lawless cannot be disarmed.

Australians have a right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and property.

 Many have relied on guns in their homes to sleep more comfortably for over two hundred years. Indeed, firearms may be the only means by which people such as women, the elderly and infirm can hope to defend themselves against rapists, robbers and murderers.

There is some evidence to show that, where gun ownership is high, crime involving actual or threatened violence is reduced. Conversely, when gun ownership is reduced, violent crime rarely changes and has been known to increase. Australia’s experience since 1996 and the UK since 1997 are clear confirmation of the latter point.

The police do not provide security in the home, business or street. They arrive after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the area, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only armed, law-abiding citizens can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make the community safer.

Ownership of firearms is also the only practical means by which the people can retain any semblance of ensuring that governments remain their servants and not vice versa. Although the ballot box and peaceful protest will always be the preferred means of removing unsatisfactory governments, history is full of examples where those options were denied.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” … 

Or as another US President, Woodrow Wilson, put it, “Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.”

Firearms are also legitimate sporting implements, used in a wide range of regional, national and international competitions including the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Indeed, shooting is one of the original sports of the modern Olympic Games, commencing in 1896.

It is not legitimate to curtail the sporting activities of one group of Australians while encouraging others, simply on the grounds that their implements have the potential to be used for harmful purposes. Many sporting implements have similar potential, as do a vast array of everyday items.

Firearms can contribute to positive environmental outcomes in the hands of hunters. Hunters using firearms can be remarkably effective at reducing populations of pest animals such as foxes, pigs, goats, wild dogs and feral cats. These animals have been responsible for enormous destruction of Australian native fauna, with some small marsupial species probably extinct as a result, and pose a threat to agriculture in some areas.

Similarly, hunters contribute to positive environmental outcomes by helping to develop and preserve wetlands which concurrently accommodate species that may be hunted such as ducks, while also providing a haven for protected species.

The responsibility of those who own firearms is to only use them for non-coercive purposes or to protect themselves or others from coercion.

Those who use firearms for coercive purposes, whether actual or threatened, may have their right to own them limited or removed.

Specific firearm policies:
  • Sport, hunting and self-defence are all legitimate reasons for firearm ownership.
  • Firearm ownership should be subject to possession of a licence. However, all adults over 18 years of age have a right to a licence unless it has been removed because of a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
  • Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
  • All genuine sporting uses of firearms are legitimate.
  • There should be no registration of long-arms.
  • There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms.
  • Individuals and organizations have a right to establish facilities that involve the use of firearms. This includes shooting ranges and hunting reserves.
For any freedom loving political group wishing to present a moderate policy on this issue, this would be a good place to start.

Nov 27, 2007

Pro Choice, But only one choice

I heard about this from Patrick, over at Born Again Redneck, he always finds the best stuff before I do.

GP may be struck off for her 'think twice' plea to abortion patients:

A family doctor faces being struck off for daring to suggest to women seeking an abortion that they should think twice.

Dr Tammie Downes says at least eight grateful mothers have children today which they would have terminated until she asked them to consider the consequences.

But Dr Downes, 36, is now being investigated by the General Medical Council for a possible breach of ethical guidelines.

If charged and found guilty of professional misconduct, she could be removed from the medical register and forced from her job.

The GMC, which regulates doctors, is understood to have received a complaint from another doctor who claims Dr Downes is promoting her anti-abortion views to patients.

Doctors must not allow personal opinions to affect their advice.

The complaint stems from an interview Dr Downes, a GP in the West Country, gave to the Daily Mail in May in which she described how she talked to women wanting an abortion about having the baby instead.

The investigation could become a pivotal test case in the battle between pro-life campaigners such as Dr Downes and advocates of pro-choice such as the Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris - known as 'Dr Death' for his strong views on abortion and euthanasia.

There seem to be a few 'Dr Deaths', we have two in Australia. The first is Dr Jayant Patel, who is being extradited to face manslaughter charges over his efforts at Bundaberg Base Hospital. (Someone forgot to check his credentials before giving him the job.) Oh well, who said a socialized medical system was perfect. Oops.
The second is of course none other than Kevin Rudd, who gained the title for his efforts when in the Queensland public service where he successfully shut down 2200 hospital beds. Kevy has a bit of a thing about the hospital system which failed to save his father who crashed his car while drink driving.

More can be found on this on Bovination, which is a site I thoroughly recommend. The Guy 'Strawman' seems to get his cynicism just right. Try this.

This Dr Death however is a politician who strongly favores abortion and euthanasia and is determined to let nobody get in the way of his crusade. His current cause is to allow nurses to carry them out without a doctor being present.

Would anyone like to take bets on how fair an investigation into professional misconduct will be, when it is no longer a matter of whether she has in fact erred, but a matter of political correctness and policy.

Pro choice people have the same rights as everyone else in promoting their views, however in Britain it seems that there are heavy penalties including destruction of careers, for anyone who goes against that view. In other words if you are female and decide to have an abortion there, these people own you.

They are 'pro choice' but only if it is there choice. All this woman did was inform her patients and give them time to consider their choices.

Nov 24, 2007

The Polls Have Closed.

Photo; John Howard at the polls, There were better photos but I quite like the little sweety he is cuddeling.

 Well its all over, the spruikers, the how to vote people, and the voters have gone home, and the counters and scrutineers have taken over and it is now in the lap of the gods. 

Last nights late news indicated that there has been a late swing to the government and that they were nearly level with the opposition, I hope they can make it.

I have my fingers crossed, for Terje Petersen, the LDP senate candidate for New South Wales who has done some really good preference swaps with other minor parties (there are heaps of them) and as result has a fairly reasonable chance if he can pull enough primary votes to be ahead when preferences are allocated.

Ironically one group, the Shooters Party refused to support us despite the fact we are the only non-single issue party that supports gun rights. The only other one to back them are the Fishing Party.

We had one of their supporters trolling our website telling us that we should disendorse one of our candidates who is gay or shooters would not vote for us. He asked me if we would sooner have a chance of winning without Shem, or loose with him. I replied that if we sacrificed our principles to win we would not deserve to do so.

I don't think many shooters would think like this so I am hoping for some drift of preferences from them.

Anyway I shall post some results later as they start to show trends. They probably won't be like this which came from a supporter: -

Early Shock Results!

LDP swept into government in a landslide!

Labor, Liberals and Greens relegated to oblivion!

LDP revises Australia’s statute law and repeals any act that bears against the liberty and property of the subject. 80 percent of laws repealed! Housing, groceries and child care suddenly become more affordable for working families! Environmental quality improves when relieved from the fat farty arse of government bureacracies! Hooray! The people cheer in the streets!

 The socialists admit what a crackpot of deluded fuckwits they were all along! Free sex and poly-amory breaks out all over the place as LDP suporters are showered in kisses by beautiful young ladies without any clothes on!


As I write Kevin Rudd is claiming victory over John Howard, and by a substantial margin, I thought it would be closer.

It looks like John Howard will in fact loose his seat, which owing to a redistribution was very marginal. He had the option of standing for a safer seat, but declined to do so. He tended to be a man of principle and a fighter, not always the right principles, or for the right things but he believed in what he was doing even when he was wrong.

The bad news for me was that the electorate became rather polarized and as result the minor parties proportion of the vote fell. As this is our first election and with novice candidates, we should not be disappointed but settle down and learn from it.

There will be state elections coming up, so we can get more practice.

Nov 23, 2007

To those who did.

By Jim Fryar.

The election is not happening until tomorrow, so it is a little early for post mortems. While I tend to be an optimistic person I realize that we are the new kids on the block and I am not counting on seeing headlines in the Sunday papers saying: -

Shock Result

LDP wins 47 seats and leading in all Senate races.

At this point I would like to congratulate all candidates on their efforts, I’m proud of all of you.
The campaign has been remarkably disciplined probably due in no small part to the efforts of David L, Terje, and John H, and to the common sense of all of the other candidates.

I loved the press releases, Its a pity more of them didn’t get through, we should look at that, I’m not sure what we can do about it. Perhaps if we are lucky enough to have Terje get through this might be solved.

As a matter of interest we briefly had a Senator in the Progress Party back in the late 70s or early 80s. Someone secretly negotiated to get a WA Liberal Senator whose name escapes me now to defect on the eve of an election. It was all a done deal and John Singleton went to the airport to meet him and take him to a press conference to announce our triumph.

Unfortunately the new star recruit arrived stone motherless shitfaced drunk, and we were unable to sober him up in time for the election, never mind the press conference. It turned out that if Malcolm Fraser had known we were taking him he would have gift-wrapped him.

But I digress.

Most of the people around me were positive when I stood for Kennedy; my boss was Ron Kitching who was also one of us, although there were a few practical jokes. One morning on the way to work, I found that the night shift had spent an inordinate length of time on the way home putting up signs reading “Jim Fryar for El-Presidente.”

I don’t believe our campaign or candidates deserve any criticism, we probably could have benefited from some ‘candidate training’ and advice however we are all beginners, and the most important thing is that we share and learn from experience, and that the post mortem be positive.

For anyone who feels that they made mistakes, remember that anyone who hasn’t stuffed up hasn’t tried anything. For anyone who cops any shit, The following is for you (Borrowed from the Chatterbox Chronicles) : -

“It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly… who knows the great enthusiasms,the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
 Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919), “Man in the Arena” Speech given April 23, 1910

Nov 22, 2007

Over the Fence

I found the following article by James Nason in the Queensland Country Life. I thought that this was probably the ultimate in stupidity as far as legislation goes, them common sense kicked in and I realised that somewhere out there are even crazier laws, inflicted on us by even more idiotic politicians.

RURAL fencing contractor Charlie Martin couldn't believe it when he won a tender to build a fence around the Cooktown rubbish tip, but was told he couldn't proceed because he didn't have a builder's licence.

Citing "bureaucracy gone mad", Mr Martin said he had since been advised he could be fined $6000 because he had worked for several years as a full-time fencing contractor without the necessary Queensland Building Services Authority builder's licence.

Worse, he says, is that he has been forced out of business until he can get the appropriate licence, which he has been told requires him to complete courses on building sheds and laying
slabs, all so he can continue his work as a rural and wire fencing contractor.

Mr Martin said he had done government work before, but this was the first time he had been advised he needed a builder's licence.

He said he has been forced to shut down his business and sack two full- time staff, and was facing an uncertain future, as debts recently accrued to buy new fencing equipment, including a
Dingo mini-earthmoving machine, had mounted up without any income coming in.

Despite more than 30 years' experience in rural fencing work, including more than 20 years as a former Cape York cattleman and since then as a full-time fencing contractor, Mr Martin
said his application for a BSA licence was rejected.

He was told he required TAFE accreditation for a structural landscaping course, which included landscaping, carpentry and bricklaying.

The Queensland Building Services Authority told Queensland Country Life this week that the Queensland building Services Authority Act of 1991 required that any person who constructed a fence valued at $1100 or more required a BSA licence.

However, BSA general manager Ian Jennings said a further clause made special allowances for rural work. That clause stipulates that if a fence is constructed on agricultural or pastoral land, to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes, and is not valued in excess of $27,500, a BSA licence is not required.

The value of a fence is considered to be the "fair commercial cost of thelabour and materials for the fence, even if the materials are supplied by the owner or the labour is done for less
than the market rate". Queensland had the most rigorous regulatory framework of any State, Mr Jennings said. This was designed to protect consumers and keep the industry safe.

The cost of acquiring a BSA builder or trade contractor licence ranges from $439 to $964 and from $142 to $428 to maintain annually.

Mr Jennings warned that penalties would soon increase to $18,750 for an individual, and $93,750 for a company.

The authority was originally set up to “protect people from shonky builders”, however the granting of a licence does nothing to guarantee a good job. It seems that over the years they have expanded their authority, which is usual for government agencies as well as the usual increase of costs to those affected, which are passed on to the consumer.

Now they have sent their tentacles into every aspect of any kind of construction, and are probably looking for more. Fencing my house yard cost more than the minimum limit even without my labour considered, so I am a lawbreaker, but isn’t it comforting to know that the state is there to protect me from my shonky work.

After all "This was designed to protect consumers and keep the industry safe."

This is what happens when governments really believe in themselves. The premier this occurred under is Peter Beattie who is well known for his comment on the Traveston Crossing Dam; “feasible or not, we will build this dam....”

He has recently retired after doing a deal to have as a replacement his deputy Anna Blyth, in line with the old political adage, “When you retire get a replacement who is more incompetent than yourself so you look better.”

Come on the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) the only party committed to unloading this nonsense.


The LDP has called for a new system of setting speed limits that would result in some speed limits being increased so they more closely match community standards.

“Since the only way to eliminate road accidents is to eliminate cars and roads, the real issue is who ought to decide the balance between speed and road deaths – public servants or Australian drivers,” said LDP Secretary David Leyonhjelm.

The LDP believes the setting speed limits in Australia is a classic example of nanny-state thinking, with bureaucrats making decisions on behalf of the rest of the community.

“The government should not be setting speed limits on a “we know best” basis,” said Mr Leyonhjelm.

“Drivers are all adults and can make their own choices. If most drivers exceed the speed limit, the limit should be raised. It’s not for the government to tell everyone they are wrong.

“This is not about letting hoons race past schools at high speed. It’s about ensuring the government is our servant, not our master.

“There is an internationally recognised method of matching speed limits to community values via the 85th percentile rule. The Australian Transport Council’s National Road Safety Strategy acknowledges this method, but quite blatantly imposes its own version of acceptable risk instead,” he said.

Traffic engineers observe that the majority of drivers drive in a safe and reasonable manner in the absence of speed limits, with the safest vehicles travelling at or below the 85th to 90th percentiles. Vehicles travelling over the 85th percentile (or faster than the flow of traffic) have a significantly higher crash risk than vehicles travelling around or modestly below this speed.

Law enforcement measures can be directed at this 15 percent, increasing the law’s legitimacy to drivers and avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising.

The LDP’s policy calls for the setting of speed limits at, or slightly above, the 85th percentile. It anticipates this would result in an increase of 10-30 km/h in the limit on roads where drivers felt it was safe to drive at such speeds, while perhaps leading to reductions on less safe roads.

Nov 20, 2007


Photo; LDP stand at Brisbane gun show, note the sign - Gun Control, its not about guns, its about control - really says it all.

I have mentioned the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) on a number of occasions and believe that they probably have presented one of the most positive images in the current election campaign. I really like the following: -

The LDP is the only political party in Australia that supports the right to vote.

“Every other party believes voting is an obligation. Every other political party wants to take away your right to choose and force you to vote,” insisted John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“If the government forces us to do something, it is not a right. Nobody refers to the ‘right to pay tax’ or the ‘right to obey the law’. These things are requirements. But voting in a free society should not be a legally enforced obligation, it should be a right. That is the LDP position.
“Compulsory voting takes away choice and also undermines our democracy.

The tone has that common sense, no argument, this is right aspect to it. This is the tone of people who intend to just get on with it. Below are a few Quotes from press releases that I quite like.

"The federal government is carrying on like a great big poker machine. We put in our taxes week in, week out and every few years we hope to hit the jackpot and all this gold might come tumbling our way. And just like a poker machine we all lose over the long haul. The only real difference is that you have a choice about whether you put your money into a real poker machine but you don't have any choice when it comes to filling the government coffers with cash" said Terje Petersen of the LDP.

The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) today called for the removal of legislation banning a nuclear power industry within Australia.

LDP candidate for the House of Representatives seat of Page, Benj Beatty, said, “For too many years now, successive Governments have unnecessarily interfered with the power generation industry, resulting in the grossly distorted energy market we are lumbered with today.”

“It’s time to let the Australian people actually make the decision on nuclear power, by removing legislative blocks and allowing a properly functioning market to return.”

The Greens support high taxes and merely disagree with Liberal and Labor about how the money should be spent. It's a lot different.

“Every other political party has an unhealthy interest in our sex lives. The LDP is committed to getting John Howard and Kevin Rudd out of our bedrooms,” claims John Humphreys, the Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“The major parties have caused the so-called ‘housing crisis’ and now they are promising to waste more taxpayers' money trying to fix it," claimed John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

"The solution is actually very simple. The government needs to get out of the way," he said.

“High house prices are caused by the government holding down supply through high taxes and overly strict planning laws. If the government simply got out of the way there would be significantly more supply and that would put downward pressure on house prices.

“This is very simple economics and a very simple solution. But sometimes the simple solutions are the best.

“All the major parties want you to be scared of global warming so that they can sell their snake-oil solution. The LDP doesn’t believe in basing policy on fear campaigns and would prefer Australia to take a more calculated approach to climate change policy,” said John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“Fear is the life blood of governments. Nothing builds public support for government programs more effectively than the idea that life is not safe.

“The usefulness of fear has been well understood by politicians for a long time. We fear second hand smoke, so we give up the rights of private property owners to make their own rules. The fear of head injuries was used to make bicycle helmets compulsory. The fear of guns led to excessively strict gun laws. The fear of terrorism was used to justify the authoritarian ASIO Act.

“And now we have the new grand fear campaign: the fear of carbon," Mr Humphreys said.

“The Greens have called for a ban on fast food advertising to protect the health of our children. If banning things really was the answer to our problems then we would be better off banning the Greens,” said John Humphreys, Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).

“Banning things is not the solution. The LDP does not believe in censorship or government control over advertising and we absolutely support free speech in all its forms.

“The Greens advocate policies that would harm millions of Australians, create unemployment and lower incomes. But we would never seriously call for them to be banned. Perhaps their policies should come with a health warning, but in a free country people should be free to say whatever they like, even if it is wrong, rude or stupid.

I haven't felt this good about a political party in about 30 years.