Party Leader agrees with blogger's view.

 Mike Neville Traitor?

Weekend Advertiser 16.01.10


The state leader of a far right political party has endorsed the views expressed by an anonymous blogger who describes Griffith mayor Mike Neville as a "traitor".


Dr Jim Saleam heads the NSW Branch of the Australia First Party a Nationalists body with core policies that include reducing and limiting immigration and abolishing Multiculturalism.


While he would not reveal the identity of the author of the online blog entitled Australian Identity, which hits out at the regions cultural mix and use of contract labor, Dr Saleam said he was aware of the individual and fully supported what they had to say.


He said he had a long history with Councilor Neville and fully agreed with the bloggers sentiment that he is a "traitor" and has a love of contract labor. "I've actually had a lot of dealings with Mr. Neville going back about six years" he said. "We clashed over the contract labor issue and I was actually challenged by Dino Zappacosta to a debate, but he pulled out, so whatever the blogger had to say I am quite critical about Mike Neville".


Dr. Saleam, who has a PHD in politics said contract labor merely created jobs for refugees and migrants, pricing Australian born workers out of the market.


"It's a practice that's designed to drive down the price of labor, they say that's not true but that's exactly what it does," he said.


"The trade and contract labor attracts a type of evil character Australia can do without".


In Canberra yesterday to register AFP as a political party, Dr. Saleam said he was not concerned about being labeled a racist "Quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, I think it's well beyond that now, I don't have any malice in my heart," he said.


Wagga city councilor and Greens Party member Ray Goodlass was yesterday infuriated by some of the comments made on the locally written blog and by Dr. Saleam.


He said "the inclusion of an AFP representative on council could only be a negative for the residents of Wagga, with the needs and concerns of some community members not considered valuable. "I think that would be a really retrograde step," he said. "I think councilors need to be looking after all of their residents and the AFP would be very de-evolutionary and exclude members of our community".

General Cosgrove Levels Verbal Guns At Patriotic Australians.

General Peter Cosgrove used his Australia Day address (January 19), to make various criticisms of patriotic Australians.


General Cosgrove supported the maintenance of high immigration and said Australia should not be tempted to cut it.


General Cosgrove condemned the nationalist Civil Uprising at Cronulla in 2005 as a matter of “criminality” and equated this event to recent physical attacks upon Indian students (which incidentally are generally carried out by non-European persons).


General Cosgrove criticised “racist elements” (patriotic people angered by immigration and its results) in our society as illegitimate in their views and appeared to equate a category of Australian to an exercise in social “criminality”.


The entire speech seemed dedicated to buttressing the traitor class line on Australia’s demographic future. It was a slippery product, complete with a definition of patriotism as something related to helping neighbour countries and integrating migrants.


General Cosgrove’s speech was sad in that the ordinary Australian might expect either neutrality of opinion, or a patriotic stance from a former soldier. Unfortunately, such an expectation would be naïve.


It is necessary to understand that the hierarchy of Australia’s military has no real allegiance to Australia. It is committed to its foreign policy “alliances” and its military “allies”. It has spent so long sending young Australian men (and more recently, women) into harm’s way at the behest of foreign powers, that it has no model of patriotism left. If an Australian movement arose which questioned the virtue of maintaining our alliances and dying for our allies, it is not too hard to figure where the loyalty of the Cosgrove-type would lie.


In attacking the Australian patriotic perspective and Australian youth, General Cosgrove forgot his own morality. This man commanded the Australian army during the criminal invasion of Iraq. He has never forsworn this enterprise carried out to serve Israel and the American and other multinational corporations and oil companies. He has never asked too serious a question about the war crimes of his allies, crimes that went back to the use of nuclear weapons (depleted uranium ammunition). We cannot expect that he would.


The Australian people observe that important figures like General Cosgrove are put up in public by the traitor class to lend endorsement to their treason against the Australian People. Rather than win points for that class, the sad intervention of General Cosgrove in the national population / immigration debate only serves to demonstrate to Australians the venal nature of the class and its policies.

Long Live The Southern Cross! Australia First Replies To Culture-Buster Warwick Thornton

Southern Cross used like swastika - filmmaker.  Full story Here.

Film Maker bites the hand that feeds him.

Warwick Thornton, a filmmaker, who has been chosen as the Northern Territory's nomination for Australian of the Year, has launched a vicious attack upon the emblem of the Southern Cross.


He said: “I'm starting to see that star system symbol being used as a very racist nationalistic emblem - and that is seriously worrying me”. “We don’t want to turn the Southern Cross into a swastika – that’s bloody important.”


It is a fact that young Australians carry the National Flag and the Eureka Flag at parties, sports’ events and public occasions; many have tattooed themselves with the star-constellation, or the cross design. The symbol has truly become a tribal expression of Australian identity. No wonder it has been assailed by this traitor class representative – just as Australia Day approaches.


What the globalising, cultureless, masters of the geographic space they call Australia, fear above all else, is the emergence of a movement that openly proclaims a native identity for the European population here. This population has that identity, which stretches back to the first articulation of ‘Australianness’ at the Eureka Stockade and then through to the radical nationalist upsurges at Lambing Flat (1861), the Barcaldine Revolt (1891) and further on into the great achievements of ANZAC and Kokoda. In the lost deserts of multiculturalism, the Australian People are re-finding themselves. Against those trying to bust our culture in the suburbs, all social institutions and in rural Australia, a spirit of resistance is building. The Southern Cross is the symbol of that resistance.


A political movement must be built. No wonder Warwick Thornton prattles on about the swastika. He is trying to build a Great Wall between the mass of awakening ‘tribal’ Australian people (especially the youth) and any movement which builds the nationalist resistance. Smearing the Southern Cross is an act of desecration.


On Australia Day, the Australia First Party will be active. Other patriotic groups will also come out publicly to proclaim their Australianity.


The National Flag and the Eureka Flag will be held high.

People are frightened by logic.

The Voice - By Boat (Video)

In this episode we take a look at the growing problem of so-called asylum seekers making their way illegally into Australia waters and being cared for at your expense. In 2009 some 62 boats carrying 2,727 passengers made their way into Australian waters, how many will there be in 2010?


The only intelligent and far cheaper option than spending Australian taxpayer's money on housing the illegal aliens on Christmas Island and soon to be Darwin and then ultimately in the community is to protect Australia's borders but that is never going to happen as long as we have bleeding hearts in positions of power who care more about the welfare of foreigners than that of Australians. Charity begins and ends at home!

Urgent Update from Head office.

Australia First Party Registration Application Now Under Close Consideration By The Electoral Commission

Note: You May Be Contacted To Confirm Membership


The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has just recently returned to the process of registering our party. We have leapt the initial legal hurdles and it has been demonstrated that, nominally at least, we do indeed have the requisite number of members as checked against the Electoral Roll.


But now the big test.


The Commission takes a random sample from the membership list and calls are made to have members “verify” their membership.Please be aware of this and notify the AEC caller accordingly.


This is our chance to create the legal framework, a registered political party with all its rights and privileges, to serve our Australian people’s patriotic cause. This is our chance to initiate a party that stands up for Real Australia, our unemployed, our truckies, our farmers, our workers, our old people, against the big end of town and its flunkey parties.


The whole party relies upon you to ensure we leap this hurdle. Why not approach your AF ‘phone tree’ and let friends know the AEC’s call may come?

Urgent Message to Members! Expect a call from the Electoral Commission.

Fellow members. It's crunch time. The Electoral Commission is currently calling members from the Australia First Party to make sure our membership list is correct. Please answer all the questions asked. The people called will be a small sample from our membership list that is randomly computer generated . It takes only one member to miss a call or have changed address and we are back at square one. So if you are at work please check your phone messages over the next two days.

Things are starting to move fast in the new year so expect a lot more activity once we have Federal registration.. 

Food Miles.

Firstly - we are extremely elated that Peter Spencer has come down from his wind tower and is receiving medical care. Peter and his army of supporters have vowed to continue the fight, and Australia First stands staunchly by his, and all Australian Farmers in this struggle.


It is with this pledge in mind that we offer the following information:
‘Food miles’ is a term used to describe the transport distance travelled by food products between production and consumption. It is gaining support in the UK and interest world-wide as responsible citizens seek methods of reducing unecessary consumption of fossil fuels and other environmentally degrading behaviours.


If governments are truly convinced of the need to reduce CO2 emissions they would be implementing measures to promote the reduction of food miles, amongst other things; rather than forcing our farmers to leave weeds growing on their land instead of using it for responsible agriculture! See the article on Peter Spencer below.


Australia First Party is not convinced, after a comprehensive review (by a scientific advisory group) of the research upon which the International Panel on Climate Change has based its recommendations, that there is an accurate trend of warming OR that any warming is due significantly to human activities. We do, however, believe it is necessary to reduce unecessary destruction of our environment.


A report has been compiled by CERES (the Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Strategies, pronounced ‘series’) which is an internationally recognised model of a sustainable society located in Melbourne, Australia. CERES shares its name with the Roman Goddess for agriculture (further information is available here http://www.ceres.org.au/whatisceres ) . The purpose of their study was to contribute some preliminary research to encourage Australian dialogue on the growing issues of sustainability within our food systems and we find it an exciting opportunity to do just that!




CERES collected data to establish food miles and greenhouse gas emissions estimates for a typical food basket in Victoria. The total distance of the road transportation of the produce in the food basket was 21,073 km, almost the same as the distance around Australia’s coastline (25,760 km). The total distance for all transportation of the food basket was 70,803 km, which is equivalent to travelling nearly twice around the circumference of the Earth (40,072 km), or travelling around Australia's coastline three times.




The total greenhouse gas emissions estimate for all food trucks transporting all road-transported food items, over the total road transport distance, was 16, 989 tonnes (t) CO2–e. If all the food trucks were transporting all food items on the same day, the emissions from this one day of transportation (16, 989 t CO2–e), is equivalent to 4,247 cars driving for one year.




The resulting total food miles and greenhouse gas emissions, from this preliminary study, clearly indicate the need for Australia to respond accurately to the role our current food system plays within the issues of climate change and peak oil.




One such response involves education and empowerment of consumers in addressing these issues.


Further information on the report can be found here:
http://sustainability.ceres.org.au/pdfs/sei/CERES_Food_Miles.pdf




What can you do immediately to help reduce food miles?


• Buy from farmers’ markets. See: www.farmersmarkets.org.au
• Demand your grocer stock Australian grown produce or else just shop elsewhere. For instance, did you know that the only truly Australian grown and owned tea is now Madurah in northern NSW. Nerada is still grown in Nth QLD but it is now owned by an Indian Company.
• Spread the word to all you know and encourage them to do likewise.
Please send comments and suggestions for furthering this information and cause to afpqld@hotmail.com
This is YOUR nation and Australia First is a party for YOUR ideas to be integrated.

New Blogsite Set Up For Riverina. "Australian Identity" blogspot.

"Australian Identity"

AUSTRALIA FIRST RIVERINA

The party has started a Blogsite for the Riverina. It is early days yet and a swathe of new contributions may be expected soon. The url is http://ausidentity.blogspot.com

Members in cities and towns like Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Jindera, Leeton and Tocumwal, now have an electronic weapon to raise issues and develop profile.

Leaflets have been distributed recently in Wagga Wagga.

Issues relevant to farmers (water), truckies (lack of facilities) and workers (the curse of contract labour) and the overall scourge - the culture busting of our Aussie regions by hordes of parasitic ‘refugees – are there for us to organize around.

The party mailing address in Riverina is: afriverina@gmail.com

"As a Returned Service Person , I was led to believe I put my life on the line as did my mates , who fought - and some of whom died- along side me - for Democracy and to preserve Australian Identity and Australian Sovereignty ? To contact Australia First Party in the Riverina : e-mail us at :afriverina@gmail.com" HERE

Peter Spencer, Lord Monckton, Kevin Rudd and the Brigalow Corporation

Following is a copy of a letter sent to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd by Lord Monckton, regarding Anthropogenic Climate Change.


With the current events high-lighted concerning property rights Australia-wide (I also recommend an exploration of the Brigalow Corporation at http://www.abpac-australia.com/assets/brigalowcorp.pdf) via people like Peter Spencer, the multitude of individuals (farmers and private property owners) being dispossessed of their lands and basic citizen's rights, it is imperative that the different sectors of the Australian Community now pull together, and see the common cause of these issues - the Agenda of Globalisation.


As always, this party focusses its efforts on putting Australia First! One must firstly set one's own house in order. I urge you to take the time to read all of the below letter:


1 January 2010


His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,


Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.


Prime Minister,


Climate change: proposed personal briefing


Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.


Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.


You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.


You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.


You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.


The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.


Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.


We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,


ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees


We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –


ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees


Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.


By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.


Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.


We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –


Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°


– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°


= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°


One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.


You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.


Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.


Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.


Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.


Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?


You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.


How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.


You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.


You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.


However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.


Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.


You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.


The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.


Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.


However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.


My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.


Yours faithfully,


VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

TIE A SPRIG OF GUM-TREE

In an effort to draw attention to the plight of Peter Spencer people are tying a sprig of gum-tree to their cars, shopping trolleys, lapels, letterboxes and letting everyone they know, and anyone they meet, about this situation.

Peter has lost 40kg now and his health is seriously suffering.


The hunger strikers on the Oceanic Viking, who were individuals labelled as terrorists by their own government (which is a government ours apparently acknowledges) had their demands met by Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd refuses to even acknowledge Peter Spencer's plight however and claims his reasons to be that he will not 'bend to the will of someone who is committing self-harm'.


What else has been going on here....


RTA Inspectors were ordered to try to prevent the buses carrying demonstrators to Parliament House from being allowed to drive last Monday with one official stating the order 'came from above'.


There is talk of using the Mental Health Act to forcibly remove Mr Spencer from the wind-tower. Mr Spencer is fighting for the right of all farmers (some who have committed suicide and many others who've suffered severe depression since Howard prevented them from using their land back in 1995). This is all part of the Labor and Liberal globalisation agenda. Those two parties are sides of the same coin!


We MUST fight for protection of our sovereign rights under our constitution and stand united to fight against the power of the multi-nationals who our government serves above our interests. It is time that the citizens of Australia banded together and reminded our governments that they exist to SERVE the people of THIS nation first and foremost!

Tie a Sprig of Gum-Tree!

Peter Spencer fights for rights as an Australian.

Australia First Party expresses its unwavering support for Cooma farmer Peter Spencer – yet another victim of the Globalist Agenda of our governments. Peter has been on a hunger strike for over 40 days now, situated on a wind-tower platform, in protest over the Australian Government’s use of farming lands to satisfy the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Peter has exhausted all other avenues of approach and has now managed to generate a real movement for change. We applaud his tenacity!

Under the Kyoto Protocol there were a variety of ways a signatory nation could achieve the outcomes required – one of these was preventing land-clearing so the Howard Government claimed a 22% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions entirely via preventing land clearing by our farmers rather than reducing Carbon Emissions at all!

Peter Spencer has been unable to use 90% of his land for the last 15 years due to this and the bank is now threatening to foreclose on him. The government has managed to get around the lack of Constitutional Validity for doing this by using state-based native vegetation laws. Under our Constitution, which successive governments now seem hell-bent on defying in the name of honouring International Agreements which benefit only globalists, the government is prevented from acquiring property from persons other than on just terms.

Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;

The farmers affected have not been compensated in any form and under the Rudd Government farmers expect their lands will soon become a ‘carbon sink’ in order to abide by another global treaty – the Copenhage. Where are the ‘just terms’?

Whether one agrees with the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change or not is actually irrelevant to this. It is blatantly obvious to anyone with a reasonable mind that humans need to reduce our materialism and reliance on fossil fuels and the environmentally degrading manufacturing of plastics etc. Why has our Government chosen to cobble our primary producers rather than reduce consumption of fossil fuels?

119 Million Hectares have been prevented from being partially cleared by farmers while developers continue to carve up bushland areas for ridiculous housing developments in which to house the ever-increasing number of immigrants pouring into our already, over-stretched cities.

The Australian Government has saved itself tens of billions of dollars in penalties which would have applied under Kyoto and the UN Association estimates it has cost farmers around 11 billion dollars. Our beloved farmers are suffering depression and suicide rates which border on an epidemic and yet cheap food imports are trundled into the country from third world nations with no tariff protection to our primary producers. One wonders how shipping produce from the other side of the world is at all conducive to reducing the use of fossil fuels as well.

All Peter Spencer wants is a Royal Commission and compensation for farmers. Kevin Rudd has refused to talk with him, but Pete Spencer no longer WANTS to talk to Kevin Rudd. His local member ignored his letter and his requests for ‘just terms’have been denied repeatedly.

Australia First Party also applauds and notes, with interest, Senator Barnaby Joyce’s support for Peter Spencer and join with him and all other supporters in crying out for a Royal Commission and ‘just compensation’to our farmers! It is time to end the madness Australia – we must stand up and fight – all of these issues are inter-related and the onus is upon you and us, with your support, to fight for what is right and decent for Australians whose ancestors built this proud nation and gave their lives defending it!