by Dee McLachlan
The list of politicians holding dual citizenship has been growing. The first casualties were the Greens. Scott Ludlam quit after realising he had citizenship of New Zealand, then Larissa Waters, born in Canada, did not check the Canadian changes in the law — and thus did not renounce her dual citizenship when running for office.
The Prime Minister (on Channel Nine) said:
“It is pretty amazing, isn’t it… It is extraordinary negligence on their part.”
But then more ten pins started toppling over, with the shattering realisation that Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, is also New Zealand citizen by descent. He refused to resign, and so these matters are before the High Court. Attorney-General George Brandis has called on the High Court to hear the cases in September. So far it is: Joyce, Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan, Malcolm Roberts, Nick Xenophon, Scott Ludlum and Larissa Waters.
But who should be sitting in parliament?
Section 44(i) of the Australian nation’s founding document disqualifies someone from office if that person:
“…is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power…”
On a bad day, it seems that most of those sitting in Canberra should be disqualified. Is Canberra making decisions that benefit foreign interests over its citizens?
Gough Whitlam
I wasn’t living in Australia in 1975, the year of “The Dismissal,” but I have been told by someone who sat in on a meeting — that foreigners, with the help of Australians, plotted the demise of the democratically elected Australian leader. John Pilger writes in “Gough Whitlam and the CIA’s Forgotten Coup,” that,
“The political demise of Gough Whitlam is one of America’s dirtiest secrets — but don’t expect to hear that from Australia’s political and media elite…
“Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had ‘… reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution.’ Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He believed that a foreign power should not control his country’s resources and dictate its economic and foreign policies. He proposed to ‘buy back the farm‘.”
9-11 and The Axis of Evil
I wrote last week about the “Stupid and Wrong” debate. Canberra never questioned or challenged what actually happened in New York on September 11, 2001.
And then, on cooked up WMD evidence, John Howard and the Canberra gang obediently followed the US into the most disastrous war — resulting in the deaths of over a million civilians.
When President George W Bush later addressed the Australian Parliament, he gave thanks for its support in the war on terror — and personally lauded John Howard for his “exceptional courage” in committing Australian troops to the war in Iraq. Was Howard given a choice, or was he just obedient?
Only Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle voiced their disapproval, forcing Bush to momentarily halt his address. They were removed.
Senator Brown told protesters later that it was appalling the Australian people were locked out of the parliament building, saying, “This is a parliament disconnected from the people in service to a visiting head of state who does not respect people of this country.”
Labor MP Carmen Lawrence also addressed the crowd. She said she was not anti-American, but “Mr Bush, our argument is with you and our government which has slavishly acquiesced in your brutal folly.”
Assisting Big Global Corporations
According to the most recent ATO Tax Transparency Report, 679 companies (that each earn more than $100 million per year) paid no tax in Australia in 2014-15. The list includes such household names as Walt Disney, Sydney Airport, Qantas, Origin Energy and News Australia. Many of these tax avoiding companies are foreign owned. The major parties also accepted more than $5.5 million donations between 2013 and 2015 from businesses with Chinese connections.
It seems that most of the decisions passed in Canberra are made to assist big business (foreign and domestic). Canberra allowed a few major global corporations to draw up the Trans Pacific Partnership in SECRET.
As Mary Maxwell wrote in her article, “The TPP Is Clearly an Enabling Act,”
“The request for nations to sign the TPP is precisely a request for an enabling act. It attempts to “legalize” a major change in the Australian Constitution. It will enable the takeover of the country by corporations, including foreign ones. …the Constitution does not provide for any such absurdity as corporations suing the government for loss of profits, including imaginary loss of future profit.”
Australian politicians also announced to the world “Australia is open for business” — but did they mean “Australia is up for sale”?
Central Banking
Our subservience to Central Bankers proves that Australia demonstrates “obedience, or adherence to a foreign power (entity)”.
I quote a Conversation article,
“…elected politicians around the world have given central bankers greater power and responsibility than ever before. Remarkably enough, politicians bought into the idea that they couldn’t be trusted to run monetary policy, especially as elections drew near. They were always likely to lower interests rates for short-term electoral advantage.”
Canberra has acquiesced to the bankers’ sleight of hand.
The present debate is around the dual citizenship, but ironically enough, it was the expatriate American ALP politician King O’Malley (Labor Party) who had an appreciation of banking and sovereignty. In 1908 O’Malley convinced the federal Labor Party to adopt a detailed national banking proposal. In a five-hour speech in Federal Parliament, he emphasized the importance of a national bank for Australia’s sovereignty:
“We are legislating for the countless multitudes of future generations, who may either bless or curse us. … I propose the institution of a government national bank for managing the finances of the Commonwealth and the State … a system that will put us beyond the possibility of going as beggars to the shareholders of private banking corporations? … Such power is an attribute of sovereignty … and ought to belong to none but the sovereign people exercised through … Parliament and Government in the interests of the whole people.”
So where are we today. Are Canberra just messengers for the Central Bankers?
Maybe the only people that should be in Canberra are the cleaners.
Cleaners in the cabinet room
(Let me declare I am a citizen of Australia, the UK and South Africa.)
It is only now some Australians, realize we have been shafted when the karmic repercussions from Whitlam are now being realized, as to who owns Australia? programs such as Women on the Edge, on TV, “Insight” a example of the impoverishment in Australia, our politicians know we are a sinking ship,this is why politicians are out for all they can get, including Keating, Hawk, and the rest, the responsibility for this cannot be just on the shoulders of the politicians? the public colluded with them.
Don, “colluding with them” means failing to file a police complaint, and if no luck there, going to court.
If this is unavailing then they are outlaws. See the first Youtube video at http://www.maxwellforsenate.com. Yay!
‘Democracy is a good system, until you get to spend five minutes with the average voter.’ – Winston Churchill.
Don, in order for anyone to collude with others they have to understand what it is that they are doing, they must demonstrate intent to collude – I would wager that less than a third of Australians understand how the system works and who benefits from it.
Dee, looks like we are in a Constitutional Crises that no one with any authority is prepared to address until the High Court rules on what is an obvious breach of the Australian Constitution by the many corrupt members of the Federal Parliament and, that does not take into account our State Parliaments as well.
If the High Court activists, er, I mean Justices, rule other than what the Constitution plainly forbids, then we will know that we no longer have a Nation but a country of tribal and political affiliations that has been sold off to the highest bidder.
Are you also fair dinkum in telling us that you are a citizen of three countries? If that is then case, then which country gets your loyalty?
My past is in England, my heart is in Africa, my loyalty in Oz
Thanks Dee, I’ll sleep better at night now.
Understanding how the system works and who benefits from it is a choice, as is turning a blind eye to the same.
Berry, when I was growing up the cardinal rule at the dinner table was never to discuss politics or religion – that rule still applies in some households today.
Many will tell you that politics is boring while not realizing that it is those you put your name to who will end up shafting you given the opportunity. That kind of dull thinking needs to change.
Did not apply at our dinner time.
I knew all the town’s gossip as a kid, but was forbidden to disclose.
Even Dad’s need to go rescue the sargeant’s wife. Dad was the only person she could trust not to gossip.
Now days he would be charged!!
Not the only copper Dad rescued……… from his superiors!
Not to mention the occasional dressing down by Mum to the local priest!!?
Suppose that explains something of my present.
LOL, I have been asking for many years now, how the president of the ACTU and ultimately the P.M. of Australia, just happened to become a millionaire. Appears I’m the lonely voice in the wilderness.
He married well.
Restrictions limitations and requirements that cannot be applied equitably can hardly be passed off as “law”.
I was born in New- Zealand and still hold an NZ passport, however, due to the fact that I’ve not lived/worked there since I was 17(1968) I cannot claim any sort of NZ Social Security benefit. Having lived/worked in Aus for 48 years I can claim Social Security, but as I’ve never claimed citizenship I have no voting “entitlement”.
In other words I’m classified as “a subject/citizen of a foreign power” despite the fact that entitlement to the respective
“rights /privileges” was relinquished decades ago.
So far as I’m concerned the situation just sums up the nature of the Nation’s founding principles
On the contrary, Berry. Having lived in Australia for 48 years, (your words) I’m blown away that during that period you have been unable to decide, whether you wish to become an Australian citizen. Incredible.
Then you point out you have no voting entitlement, from where I sit, it would appear that IF you were at all interested in having your say in such matters, the choice was staring you in the face, and you have chosen to not become an Australian citizen and have given up any rights, such citizenship may have offered you.
I have no issues with any of that, and actually commend you for the stand you have taken on this issue.
However, I do feel that having taken such a stand, you never know, if it will ever come back to haunt you.
History in Australia, has demonstrated clearly, that folks who have U.K. citizenship and others, despite living in Australia for many years, even having children born here, can be booted out of Australia at the drop of a hat.
Government policies change to suit their political agenda, and folks have been caught out after the event.
I know our politicians and the Kiwis all make a lot of noise how we’re all the bestest of buddies and joined at the hip, nothing will ever part us. Which is a load of crap. Take good look at Australia’s nuclear policy and their willingness to allow nuclear powered ships and ships carrying nuclear weapons into our waters. That policy is the exact opposite to N.Z.’s
IMHO, you are a brave man, remaining a N.Z. citizen under such circumstances.
Anything can be used to your advantage or disadvantage, depending on how you play it.
My focus has always been freedom, not security.You don’t have to look very far to see that citizenship has nothing to do with the latter in any case:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/21/audreygillan
So what’s stopping Turnbull & Co from doing the same number ? A sense of decency or the biggest fear in the room?
If not collusion by default? acquiescing to a foreign power? that means Whitlam had came to power by democratic means and he sting to get back the farm? showed when British and American hold on Australia, preventing Australian sovereignty, Australia became a casualty of the Tavistock political agenda, the erosion of self determination and controlled by exterior forces without the subject or subjects in this case on a macro level, to summarize the loss of autonomy, that the constituents of the voting public failed to enforce their will?
I have for years been trying to explain the Whitlam years, but I am always shouted down about “runaway inflation” and many other so called faults. But those clowns that were worried about inflation never gave back the extra pay they received to bring their incomes into line with expenses.
When Malcolm Fraser came to power he wanted to control wages but not prices. Wonderful! And of course it was not control of income, only wages.
After it was noted what happened to Gough Whitlam, most supposedly Labor politicians became little Liberal politicians, as per Hawke, Keating and so on down to today’s Mr Shorte.
I believe that another ex-prime minister that had dual citizenship was Julia Gillard.
Which would invalidate every “law” passed under her auspices
Aussiemal, I had a conversation with my Barrister some years ago about Gillard’s inconvenient history at Slater and Gordon, a Labor Law Firm in Melbourne.
In his opinion, if she was ever charged with the matters that many in the legal profession are only too familiar with. there was no doubt in his mind that any jury would convict her just on the evidence he was familiar with, let alone other ‘evidence’ yet to come out. Gillard should be serving a long jail sentence if there was such a thing as ‘equal justice for all’!
As I’ve been stating for many years, there is no “Justice” in Australia. Period.
‘Justice’ is politicized Eddy, has been for some time now.
So who, exactly, has decided that the Crown is a “foreign power” ?
Uncle Sam perhaps?
Up until 1948 when the Australian Citizenship Act was enacted we were all subjects of the British Crown.
We are no longer Subjects of the Crown.
The Australian Citizenship Act didn’t turn the Country into a republic.
No, it didn’t Berry, but it gave us, the citizens of this country, a status that we did not previously have – citizens of our own land and not British Subjects beholden to British Law.
That is something to consider.
The repeal, by the Hawke government, of the ability for Australian governments or the judiciary, such as our High Court, to appeal legal decisions made in this country to the Privy Council in London, did give us the functions of a republic without recourse to completely change our political system that the people in 2000, when offered that choice, voted no to.
In effect, this country does now function as a constitutional republic, but without the title.
“a status that we did not previously have” ?
Sounds just like Neville Chamberlain’s “peace-in-our-time” piece of paper
The T & C of the subsequent bailout emerged per the ’48 Australian Citizenship Act, ASIO, and Aus service in U.S. wars.
So then there’s Brexit, followed by a Boris Johnson visit to rekindle Commonwealth ties, followed by a barefaced bid to destroy said ties…………………..
Well, you deride being a citizen of this country, but I am proud to be one, regardless of the fools who contrive to do us out of it.
As A historian and philospher? you should be ashamed.
Instead of being comfortable on your armchair, Its time for you to travel? all the same what stamps are on your passport Nem? non.
On Aussie service in U.S. wars: Hindsight into world affairs via the teaching aids now available have taught us much. But, prior to such revelations that are now available in hindsight, the thinking at the time of all those events immediately after WW2 was in response to the Communist agenda, whether perceived now as real or not.
And a young country in a treaty with another country that has already shed the blood of its young men in protecting that young country, as the U.S. did for this country in WW2, has an obligation to live up to the treaty so signed.
What I disagree with is the Deep State bases of Pine Gap and North West Cape that were permitted to be built on Australian soil. They should not be there.
From what I can gather you’re saying that US involvement in WW2 had nothing to do with the “Deep State”.
This account makes much more sense to me:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_Pearl_Harbor.html
You’ve misunderstood. It is hindsight that has given us the opportunity today to see how world events, such as WW2, have been manipulated by a controlling influence.
Yes the MI6 infiltrated Australia and also the CIA and Mossad.
donwreford wrote: ‘As A historian and philosopher? you should be ashamed.’
Ashamed of what Don?
And your description of me does not require me justifying your description by demanding my travelling history, whatever that brings to any real historical enlightenment.
Ashamed of the root colonization of Australia, which was a attempt of genocide by the British elite, the destruction of Australian resources for what? today we are going into international debt believed by many as never to be paid and Australia becoming a Third World? Keating warned we are a or becoming a Banana Republic, our assets are becoming sold to overseas such as energy, twenty years ago I heard Bass Straights had enough gas to supply Melbourne for one hundred and sixty years, today we have no gas for domestic use other than paying more than the Japanese.
We have no Australian Bill of rights other than a mix up of a document that today our politicians do not know whether they should be in Parliament? in the main many Australians especially abroad are full of shit seen by many as uncouth, the inability of Australia to take a lead in ideas and usually await America to tell us what to do? a representative of a overseas nationality as head of state? do you need more info on why you should be ashamed?
Time Nem, to get off your comfortable couch surrounded by your books and get real, you are a cocooned species feeling superior with a questionable armour of a dubious position of self satisfaction.
So, Don, that is what you were getting at, re; your reference to history and philosophy.
You put your thoughts into one long paragraph, which at times can be hard to read, let alone comprehend. But I will attempt to answer your animated response in point form.
1. If the British had planned a ‘genocide’ of the original inhabitants of this land there would be none left today to call themselves Aboriginal. You need to read the log of HMS Sirius and the proscribed attitude to Aboriginals, to understand that the First Fleet were not harbingers for Aboriginal genocide.
2. Who or what is destroying Australian resources? – you don’t elaborate. If you mean the ongoing mining and shipping off of our minerals – well we are receiving payment for that, aren’t we? If we don’t dig it up then I would wager some other country would be more than willing to invade us so that they could have what we refuse to give them. There is 220 million Indonesian Muslims on our northern doorstep just waiting for the moment to come and take what they think belongs to them. Or, haven’t you noticed?
3. You mention our debt. After Costello sold off our gold bullion in 2005 to the highest bidder – do you know about that? To the World Bank, we got 20 billion as a surplus to our budget before the Howard government were voted out of office. Now we have no financial fallback.
4. So that surplus was wasted due to panicking, and then we started borrowing money from the World Bank that has now exploded and continues to increase. Those who sell their souls to Keynesian economics eventually run up huge national debts.
5 Bass Strait still has multiple drilling rigs going 24/7 exporting what is being sucked up to the world market. The problem with that little number is that the ‘World Market’ is deliberately devalued, so that the ‘middle men’ who receive the goods from all that drilling quadruple their money at our expense – it is called World Parity and it s ripping us Aussies off BIG time! Ever wonder why Hawke made a motza?
6. Our Constitution was half- heartedly written into Law. Our legislators did not wish to give us plebs the same rights that the Americans now enjoy and that our Constitution is largely based upon. There is no Creator given inalienable rights within our Constitution, only those rights bestowed to us from Queen Victoria – God bless her cotton socks!
And if you don’t behave, her heirs and successors, can take them away at any time they wish to! If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between inalienable rights and those ‘rights’ bestowed to us by ‘government’ let me know and I will explain further. And in answer to your Bill of Rights query – the reason we do not have a Bill of Rights is because THEY do not wish to give us one.
7. I think you are hinting at the U.S. alliance? You should understand that we have a huge problem that has been confronting us for over 50 years – it is called Indonesia. I would rather have to deal with the protection from the Devil I know (the United States) than become an invaded and occupied country whose military would put what the Japs did during the Second World War to our people that they happened to capture, back into the kindergarten of abusive behaviour. You need to appreciate that they hate us with a passion – and it is taught to them!
8. On the British Monarchy and any monarch for that matter. I have no time for royalty – need I say more?
9. I don’t have a comfortable couch – as you put it. I have a desk chair and a computer that allows me access to the world wide web and to which I endeavour to point people in the right direction of life in doing their own research. How about you?
All very convincing Nem, if you know so much why are you not a resource to our government? Frankly although all of what you say sounds pretty OK, I do not think what you are on about is right.
The reason the Aboriginals survived is because the land was too vast to kill them all, although I note you having left out Tasmania.
Because energy resources are being flogged off at below cost and the USA, are deflating the market because of many reasons such as the enemy South America, Russia, and many places such as Nigeria, all hated by USA, and they need to exhaust their natural resources, I forgot also The Middle East.
When Trump states he is looking after America? what do you think this country has ever done? it has no allegiance to any country other than self interest.
The IMF, World Bank and so on are all criminal organizations, with one view in mind to destroy the Planet, to destroy mankind, as Ronald Bernard states, they set you up that is the 8 thousand families that control war and destroy countries, we need to be self supporting and if this requires some austerity we should take this on, Rather than becoming a self indulgent society of consumption.
With reference to your last paragraph stating they did not want to give us a Bill of Rights, is the problem the people do not want to be told what to do they need to say what they want?
Is it surprising Indonesia hates us? besides many crimes we have committed against them such as bugging them also the two Australians murdered by a shooting for drugs by Indonesia, the parents tipped off the police Australian, who tipped off the Indonesians.
If we had autonomy and were invaded by Indonesia, the Americans would come here because of Pine Gap, and also if Australia went under the blow to the Imperialist forces would be the beginning of the end of the capitalist countries and Britain, America know this, if this happened it would show America as a depraved and corrupt Empire and it is doubtful at this moment this would be desirable or in the future.
Your main weakness Nem as I see it is your assured self confidence? and I see this as a problem you have.
Other than that you most likely are a fairly decent human being.
Actually Don, if you do some research into Australian Aboriginality you’ll find that the inland tribes were much worse off than the coastal tribes who assimilated fairly rapidly into the white man’s ways because the white man was greater in number on along the coast.
Different story inland though away from the many towns that sprang up during the 19th Century.
If not for the Lutheran Missionaries and others, many of the inland tribes would have been decimated by the introduction of white man’s diseases, such as small pox.
Keith Windschuttle’s book, The Myth of the Stolen Generations, has much in the way of recorded history on that aspect to what befell the Aborigine. Too, Dame Daisy Bates spent decades with inland tribes – her writings are eye openers as to the lies that have been spun today by those who have much hatred for the white man and tend to blame white civilization for all the ills of the whole world.
There are others who spent time with inland tribes during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries – whose names elude me at this time – but their observations as recorded tally with others who bothered to observe.
Being self assured comes from being a good observer throughout life, especially of humanity and knowing the written and unwritten history of this world. There is no problem in being self-assured so long as it is tempered with humility and not let loose through hubris.
As the Constitution Act was passed 20 years before the Nationality Act the term “foreign power” was very obviously not intended to be applied to British citizenship:
“Until the passing in Australia of the Nationality Act 1920,Australia’s nationality law, like that of other Commonwealth countries, was governed by the English common law concept of a British subject. (See also British nationality law.) The idea that there was such a thing as an Australian nationality as distinct from a British one was considered by the High Court of Australia in 1906 to be a “novel idea” to which it was “not disposed to give any countenance”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_nationality_law
Berry, what is your point?
The legislation cited by Dee( Section 44(i) of the Constitution Act) was passed at a point where the sole purpose of the colony was to furnish Britain’s consumer & industrial needs and ALL Aus parliamentarians were British subjects.
But that changed that ‘understanding’ in 1948 with the passing of the Bill of Australian Citizenship Act. One also needs to appreciate, that our only major trading partner was, Britain. We were solely dependent on Britain for everything, even our own defence at that time, as we were less than three million people spread over a land nearly as big as the continental United States.
I put it to you: What other choice did those who governed at that time have?
It was not Britain who saved Australia Nem, it was the USA, that came into force in the Far East, Britain was stuffed and could not even defend itself.
So what section of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 compels Ministers of the Crown to renounce their British citizenship ?
It is not the Citizenship Act itself that compels anything – it is the Australian Constitution that compels, re; section 44.
And it seems plain to me that the High Court has only one obligation in upholding the Constitution, and that is to dismiss all those federal and state members of parliament who have dual citizenship.
There is no legal wriggle room in that section to determine otherwise.
I’d have to say that your 25 Aug 2.38 pm comment re citizenship pretty much sums up your position. As the difference between being a subject of an entity by birth and swearing allegiance to the same entity as an adult appears to have escaped your attention you obviously haven’t given too much thought to the overarching issue.
Berry, the problem as I see it is the stupidity in allowing a citizen of this country to also be a citizen of another country – that is how I see it. An individual, and regardless of who they are, should bear allegiance to one nation only.
Don, I was referring to Berry’s earlier comment regarding the High Court of 1906 as to the meaning of being ‘Australian’.
Well it all depends on who’s running the High Court at this point, the CIA or M16.
I am putting to you Nem, you are out of depth when you start quoting Australian Law, such as the High Court 1906 commentary on this court laws.
With regard to the Australian Government Federal Registration of Legislation, noted this appears no longer in force, the complexity of all references to being Australian is so complex few if other than those such as High Court Judges are ill equipped to comment on law. it is somewhat difficult as to who has the bigger ego you or our Prime Minister? whom is predicting what the High Court decision is?
On Sundays TV, the commentary is extensive on this issue, and as such is not determined as to what constitutes a legal citizen of Australia under certain circumstances is?
With your quote by Winston Churchill, 24th August on democracy, it is noted the British got rid of him in 1945, as being a Prime Minister, so in my view here democracy got it right, as far as Churchill goes whether he was a good general or not is open to question, having made many mistakes as far as decisions go in war? his oratory skills had some merit in WW2.
Don, I was responding to Berry’s comment. It was Berry who put that position forward at August 26, at 9:21 am.
And what has ‘ego’ got to do with a future
decision by the High Court that will either completely ignore the Law of the Land or uphold it? The village idiot could understand that!
On Churchill: I quote Churchill because of his warts and all attitude to life. That he didn’t bother to hide any of his ‘mistakes’ is telling of the man’s character. Compared to those who lord it over us today, I would take Churchill every time.
I don’t watch television or listen to radio programs.
Re your 2:06 pm comment:
You can’t bear allegiance to Australia without bearing allegiance to multiple Nations.
The person who swears allegiance does so on the understanding that the oath taken binds them to the country they swear allegiance to. Your interpretation is so far out of the ball park to the average citizen Berry, that the new citizen or the old one for that matter, would dismiss it out of hand.
I understand where you are coming from, but there are so many others that wouldn’t.
I am uncertain as to what you are referring to Nem? if you mean the individual forsakes their integrity to the nationality they are ritually and having a ceremony that now you become state property, I believe I am aligned to John Locke’s philosophy with regard to a government whom is working against the interests of the people.
It is the duty of the individual to assess whether the government is a organization that is corrupt, considering the fake news or propaganda that is now prolific as to our government is in the pay of corporations and foreign interests whom are covertly working for the rich to become richer and the general public being violated by economic and financial repressive measures calculated in such a way that the professional economic presenters of mysticism designed to fool the public.
Our problem is Nem, you are self satisfied for a couple of reasons, one is as a result of your training is the training still lives within you although you are no longer in the job? the other problem is as a result of your financial pay out you have a sense of false security, their fore because you get off on your new job that is stimulation from ideas and your commentaries, and you do not desire change because you are doing all right? whereas I am in a state of conflict within and without, this is why we will never meet on what reality is?
Don, I was injured on the ‘job’ back in 2005 which only added to my existing list of injuries at that time and that saw me discharged as medically unfit in 2005.
Because I joined the NSW Police Service after 1986 I was excluded from any police pension or superannuation as the powers to be at that time put the kybosh on that scheme. So I was treated as any other worker in N.S.W. who became injured due to work injuries.
I was on workers compensation payments from that time to the present that now sees me on an old age pension and laying awake at night worrying about whether the wife and I can survive financially.
On your uncertainty as to my meaning on citizenship:
If a person is born in the country that they grow up in then they are considered a natural born citizen and regardless of where their parents were born – they need swear no allegiance to any state. It is those who have decided to leave their natural born heritage, and emigrate to this country, who must swear allegiance to the state they believe they wish to settle in for several very important reasons.
1. Allegiance to the state is a legal oath of commitment that the oath taker is then beholden to in regard to any undisclosed previous or future criminal or subversive involvement.
2. Citizenship is too easily obtained today – there must be enforced a legal and a number of civil requirements for all intending citizens; for instance; a.To have lived in this country for at least five years and without any felonious convictions. b. To be able to speak and to write understandable English as a basic requirement.
3. Citizenship is a legal document and must be revoked immediately upon conviction of any felony offence or subversive activity by the immigrant.
4. The state is the unifying force, the rallying point of what makes a Nation. Without that rallying point and the expectation of the citizen by the state to uphold the Law of the Land and the societal conventions of the state and culture of the state, there can be no nation. And that is where we now find ourselves today living in a country of tribes where one tribe is always vying for supremacy over the others, while the now corrupted state aids and abets the deconstruction of the once unifying state as a force for societal cohesion into a totalitarian system of law enforcement and the population replacement of a once homogenous nation that no longer has societal cohesion.
Nem I am extremely sorry to hear of your situation, what your elaboration means tome is what my last post that seems to lost in the fog, that is although you having outlined what it means to be in good faith as being a Australian citizen?
I presume this is a contract between the State and the individual? if the individual becoming a citizen of a society is going through a ritual of showing good faith and some time later the realization is the society is not what you presumed it to be, take the analogy of purchasing a car bought in good faith as being informed the car is good, after purchase the experience of having the car is not what you were told as to a honest description of the vehicle?
Your outline of your injuries were not as I understand it in good faith as to a outcome of injury, I outline what I stated with regard to John Locke’s philosophy on government that is detrimental to the public good? by incremental calibration a political party virtually imperceptible to most of the public do not pick up on a governments program of destroying the morale and well being of the public it represents?
Mathias Cormann, on the 27th August, stated a word in his speech put down socialism and this is destructive of entrepreneurial activity? I suggest we look at the opposite meaning that is elitism, in this case I mean a small group of financiers such as Ronald Bernard and he becoming initiated within this elite and being promoted through the ranks of the Elite is required to perform sexual perversions for the purpose of becoming part of a group that having gone through initiation to blackmail for the use of being a tool within the 1%.
At the time of John Lock this situation would be unknown, The Liberals and most of the political parties would be party to the 1%, in different degrees, this is not just a system relating to Australian politics but throughout the First World.
The problem with this elite is it is designed to lose the individual being processed to becoming modified of their brain/mind, control of the this Elite.
The CIA and such organizations are all part of a front to control not just the individuals brain structure but also the control of countries, such as the Middle East, but more recent the threat of invasion of Venezuela, this is because the politics of this country are seen as adverse to control of the Imperial Regimes.
The problem with the elite is to remain in power they have to destroy the individuals integrity and to be looked after on a basic condition of the State, which goal is marginalized health and to render the individual to a state of incapacitation and yet be able, as a cripple to perform the duty of what the State requires you to function for service such as military and what ever services are seen as being beneficial to State exploitation.
I have no argument with what you write Don. I am no fan of BIG government that in reality becomes a self-perpetuating monster the American Founding Fathers warned us about.
Our original federal government consisted of just five ministries – now it is over 36 and still growing. And what has it done for us except strip us slowly of our basic and fundamental inalienable rights.
Those who are in our parliaments today in reality have no clue as to how they are being manipulated from inside and outside of this country. But the question is; do they even care?
If the founders of this Commonwealth of Australia had been serious in giving us the people, the same rights as those written within the greatest human rights document ever written, The American Constitution, would we be in the mess we now find ourselves in?
One of the main issues I see in why we are where we are today is in political parties accepting their candidates on their ideology and not on their worth in protecting the integrity of the sovereignty of this country. I wonder how many of our elected officials have secret Bank accounts that contain their 30 pieces of sliver placed in there from somewhere off shore?
If we were still a country that lived by the Law of the Land the citizen could feel easy going about his day to day business knowing that government was also subject to the same laws – but our country has not been like that for some time now, and from what I understand, at least six decades ago when we foolishly signed onto the NWO United Nations and its anti-Western Nation policies.
The U.S. constitution goes to the fact that the power-hungry Brit rebels (Washington and Co.)couldn’t afford to alienate divers groups of political refugees. There’s never been any Aus paralell
Great article Dee.
First, as to dual citizenship. Who cares! If you’re just minding your own business and not bothering anyone else. Have ten passports and loyalties to whatever country you want to.
HOWEVER, if you have ambitions to enter politics and thus to have a hand in minding everyone else’s business, I want to know (as best I can) that you have no allegiance to any other foreign power. Renunciation of dual citizenships is at least an attempt to ensure that only patriotic Australians will be making our laws for our benefit. (not a perfect system but better than nothing) I note Aussiemal’s comment that doubt exists as to Gillards’ dual citizenship status. And who gave us the Carbon Tax after lying about it in order to get elected?? Say no more!!
Second, on the question of Central Banking.
To quote Prof.Carroll Quigley in “Tragedy & Hope” Pg 324
“The powers of financial capitalism (The Central Banks) had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements(sounds like the TPP) arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.(sounds like Bilderberg) The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.” Yes, it all sounds like a conspiracy, ’cause it is..
Sort of says it all. Australia lost its sovereignty in 1959 with the passage of The Banking Act, 1959 under Sir Robert Menzies, a rabid anglophile, who was PM between 1949 and 1966. He wasn’t a dual citizen but he seemed to have an unhealthy affection for The Mother Country. Fiona Barnett has placed his photo on her Pedos Downunder photo collage. Makes sense..
Phil, check out my post today, how dual citizenship poses a serious problem for the Turks in Germany, who now also hold German citizenship. These people have been instructed by their Turkish leader on how to vote. How does that equate with the supposed Democracy we are supposed to be living in today ? Now try telling us all again, how dual citizenship is not a problem.
How will these German Turks vote ????? IF they follow the instructions from their Turkish leader, and vote against their own wishes and incidentally, to the detriment to the German society, how does that equate to, of no consequence, according to your post ???? More importantly, how does that even equate with Democracy, as we know it ????
Further to that, should these dual citizens vote contrary to the instructions given to them by their Turkish leader, how will that play out for them, should they ever wish to visit their homeland again ??????
Before you jump and hit the keys, may I remind you, NOTHING IS SECRET TODAY, anywhere, and most certainly in Europe.
Rest assured, the Turkish Government will eventually find out how these folks voted, and going by events in Turkey these days, I would not wish to be in the shoes of such folk, or in the shoes of their relatives still living in Turkey.
IMHO, this issue, specificly in Germany, demonstrates very clearly, the dangers to a country dual citizenship poses, it must be done away with ASAP.
Eddy, the elephant in the room is Islam, Ottoman Islam, and Erdogan is pushing for his own Caliphate, not only in Turkey but in Germany as well.
During WW1 the Germans and the Turks were allies, in WW2, the Germans and the Turks signed non-aggression treaties with each other, while the Germans equipped special Muslim battalions to fight against the Serbs and the Croats in the Balkans, but in 2017, the Turkish Ottomans, who were repelled at their attempt in 1638 to invade Europe at the Gates of Vienna, are raring to go and want Germany into the bargain.
Merkel, like Obama, was groomed for this.
IMHO, this issue rising to the surface like the proverbial brown stuff in the septic tank, is no accident.
Not too long ago the spot light was focused on none other than our P.M. at the time Abbott.
Strangely, despite much information requests, which were always ignored or simply fobbed off, the media too, went into lock down and refused to persue the issue.
That period was an excellent HEADS UP time for all these co-conspirators, who have now been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. From that time, they had ample time to clean up their own acts and ensure they complied with the Australian Act, instead, they pretended everything was hunky dory and all their complicit mates, who just happened to be in the same boat, would cover their arses. Thank the stars, a bright light has finally been focused on the issue and these creeps have been caught in the light like a startled kangaroo pretending their innocence.
Given what we know of the Australian legal system, I believe the outcome from the High Court is already a fore gone conclusion, and wont hold my breath for it’s decision. At the end of the day, corruption will win.
On the issue of Dual Citizenship, there is an excellent example currently playing out in Europe, Germany to be precise.
Wherein an election is in the wind, and the TURKISH Pres is calling on all German-Turkish citizens to not vote for the ruling party.
This situation stinks to high heaven, firstly because we have a foreign country interfering in the Democratic process of another, to which the World is turning a blind eye. Vis a vis the noise in the U.S. with the ALLEGED interference from Russia, yet apparently it’s OK, for the Turks to interfere in this manner ???
Secondly, it demonstrates in an excellent manner, the position people will find themselves with dual citizenship, where does their loyalties lie ???
That’s the point I’ve been making now for many years.
There is no position for dual citizenship in any nation.
Thanks Eddy. No Dual Citizenship for serving politicians.
Its a start.
When will anyone seek to inquire as to
the terms of the secret arrangement(treaty) whereby our war time PM handed over complete jurisdiction of Australia to the US represententative, General McCarthur, untill the ‘end of hostilities’,
Seems that Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s Governer General are Tumped.
So Madame Julie, you are required to send more of our boys to be killed protecting the CIA poppy fields and income for CIA black enterprises.
‘TO THE END OF HOSTILITIES’ PROGRESSED BY ALL THOSE AFGHANS ATTACkING the US on 911!
Our government and msm is fake BS.
Ned, that ‘arrangement’ was hardly secret – it was included in Curtin’s speech to the people at the time and received much derision from the British establishment.
In hindsight it was the right decision to make given the circumstances at the time.
On Afghanistan: It looks as if Trump has become co-opted into doing the bidding of the Deep State – the next few months should give us a clearer picture of what is happening in the White House to protect the Deep States poppies.
So kindly let us know where we can see and read the document that sets out the ‘arrangement’ and is it the only one?
My sources vary from a wartime Curtain speech ( no pun intended!)
I’m only pointing out what Curtin told the public about that ‘arrangement’ as you put it. Are you now suggesting that a secret treaty was signed at the time that is still binding? If that is the case then why the need for the ANZUS Treaty?
Really.
After the word arrangement in brackets is the word treaty.
It is a written document the terms of which my sources claim is SECRET.
But contains the reference to the end of hostilities….. which have been neverending.
If you think whatever was agreed was on a handshake and a speech and not written then that is a matter for your intellect to believe.
Read the ANZUS treaty carefully.
The wartime treaty refers to who is in control I suspect from what I recall of my information.
Just see if you can find the wartime treaty and then we can read it in the context of the later ANZUS treaty.
There is a bit more info advised that I will not discuss.
Until you find a copy of the ‘handshale’, matter closed.
OK Ned, you have my interest. I’ll do some checking.
What about the mile long list of ‘citizen politicians’ in the country we take our orders from, USA, who are primarily loyal to Israel. Which means we take our orders from, guess who.
The zionists.
As do the Jews.
Gary, we are reliving the 1930s all over again and the most effective way to ‘gel’ the population in a common cause is to promote the hatred of the Jew. A religion that has been used as everyone’s scapegoat for the past 2000 years.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself why the Jew gets the blame for what everyone else has done or is intending to do?
Forget what Ned has written – he checks under his bed before turning in at night for Jews. LOL!
Give it a break.
Boring and in error.
Zionists who are basically pushing their commo bolshevik socialism are the problem
Some jews are suckered in with some christian armageddonists and some jews and Christians are opposed to the zionists.
If you wish to ignore my previous concepts, do it alone looking under your own bed for the boogey man.
Give it a break? Ned, I have been trying to point you in the right direction by getting you to read that book I keep referring you to.
But, you have no desire to go there such is your closed mind.
I don’t check under the bed at night, I get my wife to do that. LOL!
So four out of the seven have citizenship in other Cmwth Countries. What about Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan, & Malcolm Roberts ?
It appears that Matt Canavan is the odd man out: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-19/who-is-who-dual-citizenship-scandal/8819510
Have to be quick on this but …
The purpose of the senate is to review bills coming up through the house of representatives, to ensure the proposed laws are consistent with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
If these people did not enough about the constitution to know they could not have stood for election in the first place then what hope have we got they will know how appraise bills coming up from the Parliament against the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution to ensure the proposed laws are not in conflict with the constitution?
They don’t even seem to even know that the Governor General Brandis is trying to get the issues associated with Senator Culleton determined by the High Court when in fact these issues must be determined by the Senate itself and 40 days after the election under the disputed return section, its all too late to do anything about it anyway.
Surely, there should a constitutional competency test for any candidate who wants to run for the Senate, in order to be eligible tos tand as a candidate?