Rand Paul doing well.

Rand Paul.

The recent wave of tea parties have thrown a totally new dynamic into the midterm elections in the US with a dramatic groundswell of anti big government sentiment rising. Millions of people attended rallies all over the country to demand smaller, more representative, financially responsible government, culminating in a massive gathering in Washington.

This appears to be ongoing with Rasmussen Reports recently reporting that if the Tea Party were to stand candidates the Republicans would be pushed into 3rd place. Worse for them is the fact that 33% of Republicans would vote Tea Party. This is consistent with the finding that 41% of all voters’ nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people.

The next election looks set to become a slaughterhouse for incumbents on both sides of the aisle, with even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi looking shaky. It is doubtful if the Obama factor will play much of a part except negatively as today’s tracking poll shows him at –19%; his lowest so far after a long and consistent slide.


One of the beneficiaries of this groundswell is Rand Paul, son of Ron, who is standing for the Senate from Kentucky, and despite being a political novice hit the lead over a GOP backed competitor, and has rapidly raised over $1.4 million in campaign funds. A smear campaign is starting on him from both the left and the right.

The Republican establishment has criticized him for refusing to back McConnell for Senate Leader, even though McConnell is actively fundraising for his opponent. One of the more bizarre claims is that Paul is not a true Republican like his opponent Trey Grayson. Liberty Maven points out:

Trey Grayson used to be a Democrat and campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 90’s. At that time Rand Paul was busy founding an anti-tax group in Kentucky.

Paul has just gained the support of the Downsize DC group, making a very favorable impression on them. He has promised to support the following bills they have proposed (Video here):

The Read the Bills Act, which demands that every bill must be read out in its entirety before a quorum in both House and Senate, and other provisions to prevent bills being voted on in ignorance.

The One Subject at a Time act, to prevent unpopular legislation being piggybacked through on other legislation, as Real ID was.

The write the laws act, which is to prevent Congress delegating this responsibility to bureaucrats.

The Enumerated Powers Act, requiring each bill to include reference to which section of the enumerated powers under the Constitution it claims validity, and …

The fiscal responsibility act, which will trigger an automatic congressional pay cut for every year the budget is in deficit.

Wow; can we get those in Australia?

Bishop Admires Taliban.

I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.

- Abraham Lincoln.

One of the reasons I don’t attend church is my long held belief that the church has essentially lost touch with the message. The Rt Rev Stephen Venner, the Church of England’s Bishop to the Forces has just reinforced this perception with his apologetic message on the Taliban:

H/t Andrew Bolt.

The Rt Rev Stephen Venner called for a more sympathetic approach to the Islamic fundamentalists that recognizes their humanity, warning that it will be harder to reach a peaceful solution to the war if the Afghan insurgents are portrayed too negatively.

“We’ve been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban,” said Bishop Venner, who was recently commissioned in his new role by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really.

“The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.” …

The bishop said that some of their methods of combat are not honorable or acceptable, but argued that it was unhelpful to demonize them.

“We must remember that there are a lot of people who are under their influence for a whole range of reasons, and we simply can’t lump all of those together.

“To blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.”

It is not uncommon for troops to respect an honorable enemy while fighting against them; indeed many military blunders have been made by doing the opposite. One of my recollections of the WW1 veterans I met in my youth was that many seemed to have more respect for the Turks and Germans than they had for the British, but that’s Australians for you.

In the case of the Taliban it is hard to view them as anything better than vicious, medieval minded, Islamist thugs, and terrorists, who push their agenda with public beatings, amputations, executions and bomb attacks on the civilian population. Bomb attacks on schools and civilian market places give a great perception of the intellectual concepts of the Taliban, “Submit, or die.”

It is fortunate that the principle of separation of church and state is one of the underlying tenets of western civilization. For Venner to admire these terrorists for their conviction to their faith indicates that the attitude of some senior church authorities towards faith and its application to the people has not advanced since the inquisition.

Here is a video of how the people we should be more understanding of get their jollies. The lady involved is reported to have refused to marry a Taliban commander. The militants then accused her of immoral behavior and ordered 34 lashes as a punishment

Peter Spencer update.

Today which is ending here now is the 20th day of Peters fight for justice, and compensation from the Government for the theft of his right to farm his property and the rights of all other farmers affected in this way.

The following Youtube from Agmates member Joseph Paul, is an interview with Peter and his legal advisor Peter King by Allan Jones, one of the most influential radio personalities in this country.

The second is what could be a theme for the cause. H/t Libertarian Republican. (Warning: some explicit language.)

The silly season is here; Thomas the Tank Engine sexist.

"Sexist" tank engine.

When correctly viewed,

Everything is lewd,

I can tell you things about Peter Pan,

And the Wizzard of Oz, there’s a dirty old man …

- Smut, Tom Lehrer.

Well in this case not lewd, much worse, politically incorrect, in fact, sexist.

A researcher has blown the whistle on Thomas the Tank Engine, saying the classic series is pushing "conservative political ideology" onto kids. This claim was made by Political scientist Shauna Wilton, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Sciences at University of Alberta's Augustana Campus, who it appears doesn’t have a lot to occupy her tiny mind.

Dr Wilton said the show conveyed a number of positive political values such as tolerance, listening, communicating with others and contributing to the community.

"It also represents a conservative political ideology that punishes individual initiative, opposes critique and change, and relegates females to supportive roles," she said.

Dr Wilton analyzed 23 episodes of the model train-based series, which is shown in 130 countries. She said there were storylines in several episodes that divided the characters into different social classes and punished those who tried to gain individual power.

"Any change is seen as disrupting the natural order of things," she said.

It sometimes seems that there are people out there who are just looking for something new to dislike. They are generally seen as neurotics, sometimes as academics.

Is the government truly the ‘paramount’ owner of land in Australia?

Click to enlarge.
This is a guest post by Alex Davidson reprinted with his permission from the original on Agmates, Peter Spencer support group.

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." - John Adams.

By Alex Davidson.

I often hear my betters sagely telling me that I don’t really have a leg to stand on over concerns that the government is taking something that doesn’t belong to it when it imposes controls upon the use of private land, because, they say, the government is really the ‘paramount owner’ of all land in Australia, and it is only through the government’s good grace that any of us have any ownership rights at all.

When I first came across this idea some years ago, I was quite shocked. So that means we are living in some sort of defacto communist society, not one based upon private property rights and freedom, as I had naively assumed?

Since then I have come to the conclusion that the whole concept of the government as paramount owner is a lot like an urban myth, repeated over and over again by collectivists, environmental fundamentalists, some judges, and the big government crowd, in the hope that it will eventually stick and be accepted as common law, if it isn’t already.

What I haven’t found is a reasoned argument to support it. Instead, it appears that the first claims of Australian governments to ‘own’ land in Australia are merely that – claims – and do not withstand the true test of ownership as arising from homesteading or contractual exchange. (For more on this point, see here, here, and here.)

Furthermore, whenever I go to publications on Australian property law, I invariably find they are written by authors who seem very sympathetic to the ideas of Marx & Proudhon in regard to property. Where are those who argue that property and ownership do not arise from government, and that taking property without consent is theft?

Kevin Rudds Stolen emissions.

Peter Spencer, Photo Courtesy Agmates.

I recently posted an article on the plight of Peter Spencer, an Australian farmer placed in desperate straights along with many others by the Rudd governments theft of their right to farm their properties. I feel that I should flesh it out a little.

Since the late 1990s, Peter Spencer has been unable to farm most of his property because of the state's laws banning the clearing of native vegetation. The vegetation on this property and millions of hectares of other private land has been used by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his government as a bargaining chip to offset increased emissions, which would otherwise be penalized under the Kyoto protocol. Some estimates of the value of these offsets are in excess of $20 Billion.

No compensation has ever been paid to the affected landholders for the removal of the right to farm their land, leaving many in desperate straights. Peter has tried for some time to sue for compensation over this but is being stonewalled by the Government with legal technicalities.

He can no longer meet his mortgage repayments, and is about to be sold up by the bank. In protest two weeks ago Spencer began a hunger strike. Last week he went up onto a platform on a 100-metre wind-monitoring tower high on his farm. He says he will stay there and continue his hunger strike until the federal government gives farmers some sort of compensation. Tonight is the end of the 19^th day.

The case is that since the signing of the Kyoto protocol emissions have gone up considerably. Rudd is currently strutting the world posing as the good guy on climate change for meeting emissions targets under this accord. Almost all of the increased emissions have been offset with forest on land expropriated from Australian farmers.

No compensation has been paid to any of these farmers despite the huge economic benefits that this has given to other sectors of the Australian economy.

In effect the entire Australian commitment under the Kyoto protocol has been stolen from these people by the government.

More information can be found at Agmates:

Allan Jones interview with Peter:

Allan Jones follow up:

A Current Affair interview:

Peters Media Contact Alastair McRobert - Phone – 0429361318

Kevin Rudd, Climate Change Hypocrite.

Image: The peoples Cube.

Kevin Rudd, the man who sees himself as the savior of the world from climate change appears to be in reality the very antithesis of what he claims to represent. The man who is rushing off to Copenhagen to stiffen up the resolve of the world in relation to global warming would if he were serious keep his carbon footprint down to a minimum if he were serious about it. Instead he is taking one of the largest groups of hangers on of any leader attending.

Instead of the few advisors he might need he is taking a delegation of more than 100 public servants, advisors, and assorted tax eaters including his own photographer,(you never know when you will need one of them). Haven’t these people ever heard of the net or video conferencing? Hell hey could do it from 5 star hotels here and save a shitload of emissions if they were serious about it. But then they aren’t.

In effect Rudd will be pumping out around 500 tons of CO2 to prance about the world stage with about as much prestige as the Mayor of Dogpatch in a limo.

While we will no doubt hear stories of how the emissions from this conference with its official estimates of attendees varying from over 20,000 to 33,000 will be mitigated, the fact remains that if these people really meant it they would use less extravagant means to achieve their ends.

But I guess I am missing the point here, they can afford to do this, after all we are the ones picking up the tab for this.