United People Power
THE CONCEPT OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
It is popular belief that the concept of a written constitution
was invented in our modern era.
It is important at this point to make a distinction between the
agenda of the media and the will of the people. Rarely if ever are they the
same, especially now that money rather than principle drives the media.
Some constitutions include, or have attached, what is called a Bill of Rights, a list of the Peoples' rights.
The system we inherited guarantees liberty and the delivery of justice via a system of limited government - as opposed to limiting the people - via a Bill of Rights. The system we inherited is a far better system than any other so far developed, including a Bill of Rights system such as America has.
One worldwide problem with the protection and delivery of Peoples' rights is that the few in power run roughshod over the rules under which they have been granted authority to govern. In Australia's case government simply ignore the constitution when it suits them, making democracy only a word without meaning.
What is missing from our Constitution is a totally reliable method of enforcing it. An easily accessible, responsible, prompt method, where the people have ready access to the machinery required to apply and enforce the constitutional rules on government.
Our understanding is that in democratic nations the People are required to give their approval to the nation's constitution. As Australia claims to be a democratic nation it must meet this universally accepted standard. Australia currently fails in any test on the delivery of democracy
|1.||One where the people are the supreme power. Let us call this "type one", and|
|2.||The other where the parliament is the supreme power, "type two".|
Type two, where the Parliament is the supreme power, this is not what the People believe to be democracy.
Unfortunately the word democracy also has the same double meaning in the dictionary where "democracy" is explained in exactly the same words the word "republic" is described, ie. "Where the supreme power is vested in the people - OR - it's elected representatives"
It seems inconceivable that there are two confusing interpretations, in reality opposing meanings, for these two extremely important words.
One may say that the second option is a "delegated supreme power", but this does not alter the fact that the supreme power has in fact changed hands and gone from one to the other of two historical enemies - the people v government.
The fact that the people and government are enemies is not the intention behind the concept of government; if government observed the rules, neither would it be the reality. Government's sole job is to ensure and uphold the liberties and justice of the people, not the reverse as seems to be the case.
The dictionary's description of the words, republic and democracy are a dictator's dream, they allow a dictator to hold out that a democracy and a republic exists when the opposite is reality.
It is arguable that "type two" in both the republic and democracy models, where "delegated" supreme power is the system of government, that there is little to no difference between the power delegated to a monarch, who as legend has it, exercises the power of the people and a president with the same delegated supreme power. In both cases it depends on the rules in place to control either the monarch or a president and the peoples ability to enforce the rules. So it is the rules that we cannot survive without.
In the case of a British monarchs, they are restrained by the Laws of England, Common Law, and the British Constitution. In the case of a president they too are restrained by the constitution of the particular republic. . . It is the rules that we must rely on to control people in all systems as opposed to perceived good intention that may or may not exist.
In Australia's case, the rules are to be found in the Act to Constitute Australia and the supporting documents and the Laws of England. The means of restraining a president and a monarch are the same, a set of rules under which the People agree to be governed. If there is no general agreement then anarchy ensues.
The importance of all this illustrates the importance of the rules, the Constitution. Good government will flow when the "rules that rule the rulers" are such that they guarantee good government. The most important element of such a set of rules is the People's ability to enforce them.
To argue that the monarchy is better than a republic is therefore a red herring. If government is not delivering good government then we must look to the rules, not to who the figurehead is or the position held.
If the people who compile dictionaries are confused and allocate opposite meanings to two of the most important words in our language, it is little wonder that the People are confused, and even less wonder that the politicians use the double meaning to further their own agenda, a use they are most expert at.
Australian government claims to be both a democracy and the supreme power - dictionaries say this is ok, - when in reality this is not possible. We must find words that distinguish between "type one" and "type two" democratic republics and democratic monarchies.
The current republic proposal is designed to enshrine an all but totally unlimited government system with supreme power over Australia vested in the elected representatives --- the type of republic we don't need, and don't want at any price.
The republic we need, seeing that the monarchical system has placed itself in a position that is not retrievable, is the "type one" republic "Where the supreme power is vested in the people". This is the undeniable concept of the English Monarchy, given the events of Magna Carta and the other documents making up the British Constitution. But it has failed to work this way.
The English people won self-government as a fundamental principle. Unfortunately, rarely have they had it delivered --- this is also the case in Australia. The reason it has rarely been delivered, is that the people never in fact wrote the rules, they relied on an elite to do it for them. As a result they have never had built into the rules a reliable means of enforcing the rules.
Not a modern concept
Popular belief is that a written constitution, that is, a document or documents written as a constitution, is a modern concept --- this is wrong.
The concept of a constitution was invented with Magna Carta back in 1215 when Magna Carta was imposed on the ruler (government) of the day: Magna Carta was the first written constitution.
The process of imposing Magna Carta on the ruler established some very important and fundamental principles, principles that form the basis of modern "type one" democracies; of which there are not many. Australia is not one, nor is America. Switzerland and a few smaller countries may be entitled to be called type one democracies.
Britain would be entitled to be called a type one democracy if the Monarch was willing and able and actually did carry out the intent of the Coronation Oath, but unfortunately this has not been our experience.
The fundamental principles established by Magna Carta are not limited to only the principles that are written down in the document, such as -"a man may not have taken from him, his life, liberty or property, except under the law of the land on the judgement of his peers", and - "no man shall be deprived of the means by which he earns a living by any act whatsoever" (authors translation).
The "Law of the Land" refers to Magna Carta and the principles enshrined therein, not parliamentary made law, not court made law that is repugnant to Magna Carta, but God's laws, which are the basis of the law of the land: - this is what our rulers are bound to deliver under our heritage of law and the Coronation Oath to which they are all absolutely bound legally and by oath of office.
The additional fundamental principles established by Magna Carta include:
Common Law, law that is common to all, common to the King and the People.
The right of the governed - to agree with the rules under which they are governed.
The right of the governed - to draft a fresh set of rules under which they agree to be governed.
The right of the governed - to collectively impose rules on the ruler.
The right to place limits on government.
The right to the delivery of limited government.
History tells us that having established a fundamental principle does not guarantee that it will be adhered to by government. This fact is made very clear by the need to re-impose Magna Carta on a long list of rulers, no less that 37 times over 400 years.
The lesson here is that liberty and justice are not automatically delivered. The reverse is the case, whereby the people in power continually increase their control over the population; and in doing so whittle away at the Peoples' fundamental rights.
The whittling continues until the people say enough is enough and move to re-establish their fundamental rights. Australia has reached that point in time, where we need to re-establish the fundamental limits and the checks and balances required for the delivery of good government.
And so the right to self-government and Common Law was enshrined forever by the precedents set and accepted as a result of Magna Carta. This is our heritage.
These rights and the principles on which they are based are clearly spelt out in the American Declaration of Independence in the following words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."
In the lead-up to federation in 1901 the principles set out above generally guided activities, even though they were not clearly defined. In the final draft these principles were not followed. A brief examination of the facts surrounding the preparation of the Commonwealth Constitution exposes many problems, not the least of which was vested interests.
The idea of Federation, where the six independent self-governing colonies joined together under a commonwealth umbrella, originally came from Britain in around 1850, and was not taken seriously until thirty years later. Federation was not an Australian people-driven idea, but general agreement with the principles and the reasons for federation existed at the time. This was not the case for the "constitution" as drafted.
The concept was, that the then colonies entered into a power sharing arrangement by establishing a central government and transferring some of their existing powers to a new central, "federal" government to administer. It is important to remember that all the powers of the various states were limited by the Laws of England or in other words the British constitution, in other words Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England likewise limited all powers transferred to the new federal system.
This arrangement / contract -cum - Constitution is as a result, a contract between the six colonial governments (not the People), a contract where the six colonial governments agreed to remain independent self-governing states within the proposed new federation, but to hand over some of their existing powers to the new central body. No new powers were created.
The 1890s convention that was given the job of drafting the contract cum Constitution consisted of 57 lawyers, politicians, big business men and eight journalists, a total of 65 out of the 66 people responsible for drafting the original contract. (The vested interests).
Britain required that the colonies held referenda in order to obtain the approval of the People, the referendums failed to get approval with 52% of the few allowed to vote rejecting the document.
The draft document, which in fact took the form of a draft Bill prepared for the consideration by the British Imperial Parliament, on its arrival in Britain, was subjected to major changes, and only then it was passed by the British Parliament and from there imposed on the people of Australia.
The document that eventuated after the British authorities altered the draft delivered to them, was not returned to Australia for the People's approval either before or after it became a British Act.
The Australian people never approved the document called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
The only time the people generally got involved in the 1890s debate was when interest was stirred up by the church. This saw pressure brought to bear on the drafting of the contract, pressure to include God in the draft and to not give the new central parliament any power over religion.
It is important to note that the draft document sent to Britain for approval did not contain the required references to God. The reference to God in the preamble of the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia was put there by Britain. What is now claimed as our Constitution, the isolated section 9 of this Act contains no reference whatsoever to the Almighty, God.
Fortunately the Commonwealth Constitution is not only section 9 of this act. The whole Act makes up the constitution and in addition, the essential Letters Patent of Queen Victoria of 1900 setting out the duties of the Governor-General along with other events and documentation that relate to constituting of Australia. Section 9 was separated by the word Constitution because it contained provision for it to be amended by other than the British Parliament.
The fact that Australia was constituted by a British Act of Parliament and received the assent of the Monarch makes it subject to the Laws of England, the British Constitution which includes Magna Carta.
The powers-that-be prior to federation, recognised that it was advisable to seek the "people's" approval of this contract before it went to Britain for final approval. Referenda were held, but the population's approval was not sought or obtained.
At this time in our history, the moneyed elite had a right to vote --- not many other people did. In fact the landed gentry had as many as six votes each under the system that operated at the time. Records show that less than 12% of the population voted and more than half of those who did vote, rejected the contract but it went ahead regardless.
It appears that there was a rush to have this contract approved and in place ready for the turn of the century. Hindsight would indicate that the best time to fool the people would be at the turn of the century when the People's minds can be concentrated on other things such as celebration --- and into believing that there is some defining urgency, when there is not.
The fact that we too are now at the end of a century, being rushed blindly into constitutional change without proper time to debate and properly consider what we are being forced into, must ring some very loud warning bells, particularly so when we add in celebrating the Olympics and the end of the Millennium as major distractions --- far, far from the best time for the people to make important decisions, decisions that will have long term repercussions on just about every aspect of their lives.
At the time immediately before federation, in the late 1890s, there were no proposals to change anything of substance; it was simply a transfer of some of the existing state powers to the proposed new central government. The peoples' rights were never debated, were not part of the contract and there was no intention at any time to make them part of the contract.
The peoples' rights were well entrenched in the Laws of England, which limited the power of all state governments, this power was transferred to the proposed central government with all limits intact. No need to because this was a contract that at all times was subject to the Laws of England.
After all, it was a simple matter, - where the six state government's planned to contract-out some of their existing powers. The states were at the time British Colonies, requiring British approval for any such contract / Constitution. Approval came in the form of a British Act of Parliament and the Monarch's Assent.
The Commonwealth Constitution was never a Peoples' constitution; the People did not draft it. The People did not approve it. The People have no built in right to propose an amendment to it - only the politicians have this right, this one fact alone totally cancels any claim that it is the Australian Peoples' Constitution.
Eighteen years after federation, on 28 June 1919, Australia, then a British Dominion signed The Peace Treaty of Versailles as an independent nation. Prior to this event Britain always signed for Australia.
On 10 September 1919 Prime Minister Hughes addressed the Federal Parliament proclaiming that "--- Australia has now entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice ---" - referring to Australia's losses in the First World War.
On 10 January 1920 Australia signed on as a founding member of the League of Nations in its new capacity as an independent Nation, equal politically and in sovereignty with Great Britain and the twenty-eight other independent nations joining as foundation members. This is Australia's Independence Day.
Signing on as a member of the League of Nations involved the signatories in undertaking not to impose their laws on other member nations. Heavy penalties were agreed to for any member nation doing so.
Britain and Australia were fully aware of these conditions and agreed to them. These conditions became International Law.
The repercussions from these events meant that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution was no longer enforceable in Australia, because it was part of an Act of the British Parliament. In addition this "constitution" had not received the approval of the Australian people. All this left the Federal Parliament without proper legal authority to act in the government of Australia.
These events not only left the Federal Parliament, the High Court and the Federal Government generally without proper legal authority. It left them with only one proper legal course open to them, which was to notify the Australian people of these momentous events; and to put in place procedures, to have the people approve a fresh Constitution. This was never done, and unfortunately the Federal Parliament, the High Court and government departments continued on without proper authority - and contrary to law.
The Australian population was never made fully aware of complications flowing from the events of the time, nor have they been made aware since, not by government, or by the monarch.
There is only one direction Australia can take, even at this late stage and that is to have a fresh Constitution approved by the People via a referendum.
Such a fresh Constitution must build on the substantial foundation of fundamental principles of freedom provided by our rich heritage and it must also be the will of the People the beneficiaries to this heritage.
A compact of the People, drafted by the People then approved by a majority of the Australian People at a referendum.
This process should not be rushed. Every Australian should have ample time, with all the facts before them, before they are asked to vote on a fresh Constitution.
If this is not the case, then the very least that the people should accept, is that any constitution on which they are asked to vote must include the Peoples' (as opposed to the politicians) right to propose amendments to the Constitution, and only then should a fresh constitution go to referendum for the Peoples' approval. This provision would give the People the opportunity to put right any built in wrong.
THE PEOPLES' RIGHTS.
Under the inherited English system of government the fundamental rights of the People are protected by placing limits on government.
A constitution is a set of rules designed specifically to limit and control government, it is not just a document that only sets in place the framework of government as we are being led to believe it is.
The so-called Commonwealth Constitution while in operation as part of an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain was bound by the Laws of England, in other words bound by the British Constitution, Magna Carta Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England place specific limits on government and in so doing guarantee the Peoples' fundamental rights.
When in 1920, British Law ceased to have legal effect on, or bind the Federal Government. Government, it assumed it was no longer bound by the Laws of England, with the result that, the People's rights were incorrectly seen by government as no longer guaranteed at a federal level.
This may be the government's preferred position, but it is not sustainable because of the fact that Captain Cook and the first settlers who followed brought the Laws of England with them. Laws that were and remain today the property of the people not the property of government. Remember that Magna Carta stated that,- a man's property can not be removed except by the law of the land.
We are talking about the Law that the People had devised and imposed on the rulers of England, the Peoples' law, the Peoples' property, not the property of government.
Australian government, whether it is State or Federal has no mandate or legal right whatsoever to take away the Peoples' legal property. The Laws of England became the Laws of Australia by virtue of the fact that they are the property of the Australian people.
Both State and Federal governments remain bound by the Laws of England, because these laws are the property of the Australian people and as such are the Laws of Australia. Laws that only the People themselves can cancel. No court, no parliament, not even the Queen can cancel the Peoples' Laws.
State governments remain bound by the Laws of England. But if we accept the position that all Australian governments have taken, we find the following totally unacceptable position exists, where up until 1986 and the Australia Act(s)*, the Government view is that the Peoples' rights remained protected via state obligations under the Laws of England, until 1986, when they, the politicians arranged between themselves to cancel all rights and the delivery of justice.
Under the system of limited government inherited from England, state governments were prevented by law from passing legislation that was repugnant to the Laws of England. This very important limit on state governments was cancelled with the enactment of the Australia Act(s) 1986.
The result, according to current government thinking and action, is that the Australian People are left with no legal claim to, or guarantee of, fundamental rights or the delivery of justice.
This is not to say that the laws that existed in Australia at the time of passing the Australia Act were cancelled. What took place was, the politicians granted unto themselves a situation where they acquired totally unlimited power to amend existing laws or make new laws where either or both deny the fundamental rights of the People. In other words it gave politicians absolute power over the lives of the Australian People.
Even if what is claimed to be the Commonwealth Constitution remained legally in force it would be time for a fresh Constitution, because of the momentous chances that have taken place and most importantly because the Australian people have had their inalienable rights cancelled by totally repugnant law, leaving them at the mercy of totally unlimited government - politicians - courts and bureaucracy at all levels.
It should be noted that the High Court has apparently assumed the role of, "giver of rights", assumed the position of God. Since 1986 the High Court has read into the "Constitution" the right to free speech, when it is clear that no such right is written there. Furthermore there was never any intention or need to write it there.
The High Court has in the past reversed decisions when it has been politically expedient to do so, which means, that what it gives it can take away, when it suits. The High Court is a body made up of political appointments and as things stand, a body without proper legal authority for its existence. A body of people that has demonstrated the fact that they hold views contrary to the Australian peoples' bet interests.
At the end of the day the freedom and prosperity of the Australian People will depend on two things:- the quality of the rules that limit government and the Peoples' ability to enforce the rules.
The set of rules we rely on today have neither of these two basic requirements. Making a fresh constitution absolutely essential.
WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE
The Alternative Three proposal for a fresh set of rules encapsulating the fundamental principles and the checks and balances provided by what now are the Laws of the People of Australia, Magna Carta, etc.
The Alternative Three - Fresh Commonwealth of Australia Constitution - is the Great Charter of Australia, Australia's Magna Carta.
On November 6, mark both your ballot Papers with an A3 or write Alternative Three across both papers. Do not answer any of the referendum questions.
Neither a yes or a no vote is in your best interests or the best interests of present or future Australia. Get your copy of the Alternative Three draft Constitution; get to understand what the possibilities really are and where your future freedom will be secure.
When you cast your vote for Alternative Three you will be voting on a fresh Constitution, this vote is not subject to the laws that apply to a referendum to amend the existing "Constitution". Under existing Law your Alternative Three vote must be also be counted in the republican referendum, where it falls into the same basket as a no vote.
Section 128 par 5, of the Constitution is clear, ----a majority of ALL the electors voting -is required to change the Constitution-- no mention of only formal votes, it clearly states ALL votes.
The Constitution prevents government from making laws that disenfranchise electors by providing for all votes to be counted. It is clear the that for a vote to be counted as a yes it must be clearly a YES vote , all other votes cast on the day must fall into the NO basket simply because they are not YES, and thereby the elector refuses to approve any change.
The Act that is used to control referendums.- the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, is contrary to the Constitution and should not stand if challenged in the High Court, but as do all Australian Laws, constitutional or otherwise, they stand until a citizen challenges them in the High Court. This unbelievable and unjust situation exists because Governor-Generals have not carried out their duty since 1920, their duty is to not grant assent to legislation that is repugnant to the Law of England, - Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. but they have repeatedly done so.
If the Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 is relied on, it clearly defines what constitutes an informal vote 1(a) Ballot paper not initialled on the back by issuing officer
(b) no vote marked on ballot paper or electors choice is not clear. (A3 is a clear choice).
( c) has more than one choice marked on the ballot paper.
(d) the name of a person.
Claims that an Alternative Three vote will be declared informal are misleading as the law states otherwise, such a situation would be unconstitutional and against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.1984. There is no other law. We realise that desperate men turn to desperate measures, if this the case then the chance of a honest referendum just does not exist. Particularly when one considers that dishonest people can vote as many times as the like simply by going to as many polling booths as they choose and voting.
The biggest obstacle to bringing about positive change to Australia's disastrous constitutional circumstances is the peoples' dominant belief that they need government permission, when they don't, and once more they will never get it. We need to act within our long established fundamental, God given right, to implement new government as the need has certainly been demonstrated.
|The Australian people, that is, you and me, have been played for fools,
and that so far the activity has been extremely successful and that we have
been well and truly fooled?|
|We had all our legal claims to liberty and justice removed by Act of
parliament in 1986.|
|Since 1986 the High Court has set itself up as God and that it now
determines what rights people have and what justice they will get?|
|Australia is being prepared for entry into what is called the New World
Order (NWO) system that will take control of our rights and what justice is
delivered? The next step for us, in this massive power grab, will be
regional government under the name of APEC already lying in ambush?|
|Under a regional government system every person of the region will have
one equal vote and that Australia's 19 million people will be outvoted by
Indonesia's 210 million, not to mention Japan and China's numbers? Then,
longer term, consider the odds in a One World Government system.|
|The reason our industry has been wound down and given away, is all part of
the plan? For the NWO to get control, the independence / self-sufficiency of
all nations must be eliminated. This is being accomplished by allowing a
nation with no natural resources including energy, such as Japan, to build a
massive manufacturing capability, while Nations such as Australia must have
no manufacturing capability. The result will be totally dependent countries
such as Japan and now Australia, where control over all nations can be
exercised by outsiders running the NWO, simply by cutting off Japan's energy
and raw materials, or in Australia's case, cutting off the supply of
manufactured goods and worse the people's income, by cutting tourism.|
|This whole operation can be manipulated into place through the control of
money? All that is required is to allow Japan access to funds at say 1% and
force Australia to pay 10%. In the early 1990s it was, Japan 2% Australia
20% and our manufacturing capability was simply hosed out.|
|The November referendum is another part of the process of preparing
Australia's legal position for entry into the regional government phase of
the planned New World Order.|
|If you continue to sit on your hands and do nothing, you will soon be
living in a world of one central, big brother-style government, one religion
with one standard of living which will be abject poverty under total
oppression and with no means of change or even improvement?|
|Australia is placed in the unique position where it can head off what the
NWO has in store for us? We can do so by installing a true Peoples'
Constitution and we can make this happen as early as the November 1999
referendum, if we choose to? What will you choose, hand sitting or freedom?|
|Magna Carta first established the right of the people to draft a
"constitution" and to serve it on the government of the day? Since
this precedent, government permission to do so has not been required.|
|If you don't make a stand now, you may well lose all opportunity to do so
at any future time? It will certainly be too late once the NWO trap has
closed so far that it finally snaps shut.|
|The People's Constitution is ready, available for your inspection and approval, from Alternative Three at $5 a copy posted. A full Constitutional Kit is also available for $20 posted|
The freedom to use a public place without fear of being accosted.
Freedom to be able to call your home your castle to the exclusion of all others.
Personal freedom, - economic freedom.
The freedom to do as a responsible freeman would providing that it not interfere with the freedom of another.
Freedom to be productive and to retain the reward for production.
Freedom to be able to store your rewards in the country's exchange mechanism in absolute confidence that they will retain their value.
Government has one purpose and that is to protect these freedoms. At least this was always the intention. The outcome unfortunately, demoralisingly and destructively is quite the opposite.
Do you know why Australia is not a tax haven and many countries are?
The reason we are not is that Australian government does not want us to be free.
A tax haven is simply a country that has no income tax, or next to none. A tax haven usually is not interested in your personal activities, a place where privacy is a right.
Those of us that have thought about it realise that taxes on production such as income tax, are not necessary. In fact they are destructive. We also realise that the same amount of tax can be collected in a number of ways other than taxes on production.
Australia could collect double the tax it collects with a simple 'transaction tax' of less than one percent,* thereby making it totally unnecessary to have any other form of taxation, with the exception of a tax on all assets leaving** Australia: - in other words a tax haven designed for Australians and to protect Australians from international pirates. A tax haven is no more than a country that has no income taxes. There is no reason why Australia should not be a tax haven.
All that is required is the will, then Australia could be a tax haven within a few weeks. As the politicians do not have the will, it is then up to us, the people, to exercise our will and make Australia a tax haven.
People are coming to realise that the elite in Australia pays virtually no tax as they make use of overseas tax havens. Australia must have a system where all pay their share and a transaction tax coupled with an export tax will accomplish this objective.
Let us reduce Australia down to the size of your back yard, where you run a few chooks and grow all your vegetables. Would you allow a freeloader to whom you gave shelter, to gather up most of the eggs and harvest most of the vegetables and take them with him - or would you invite in a foreign national to do the same, leaving you and your family to go short, in fact force them to steal from another backyard to survive? No you would not, but this is what is happening in Australia and all we can see to do, is sit around and whinge about what the politicians are doing, when all the time we have the remedy at our fingertips. You see, we the people have a universally recognised right to set the rules that govern the politicians; but we will have to make the effort at the next referendum to introduce a fresh set of rules.
All that is required to make yourself free and Australia a tax haven can be found in the Alternative Three fresh Constitution. All that is required to make it happen is the will of the people at the next referendum. Get your copy; find out just how simple the solution really is. Then simply write Alternative Three across both your referendum papers and refuse to be bluffed into answering either of the elite's referendum questions. Freedom and prosperity are at your fingertips, they can be yours and your children's by voting Alternative Three.
* People wishing to know more about the concept of a transaction tax, consult us for "debit tax" information.
** Both the transaction tax and export tax are dealt with in the Alternative Three Draft Constitution.
The Lima Declaration ------- an overview
What is the Lima declaration?
How does it effect you and your family?
The correct title is:-
Lima Declaration and plan of Action
Industrial Development and Co-operation
It is an international trade agreement similar to G.A.T.T. (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), Australia is a signatory to The Lima Declaration as it is to many GATT agreements.
Australia signed The Lima Agreement with the total support of all major political parties.
It should be clearly understood that the 'Lima Declaration' is one of many hundreds of international agreements and treaties signed by Australia, usually by one man The Minister for Foreign Affairs or his nominee, who signs on behalf of all Australians.
It should also be clearly understood that 99.9% of Australians do not know what such agreements and treaties are about, nor how they effect their lives, and they are not told -- if they were, there would be instant riot.
This paper deals very briefly with just one of the blanket of agreements and treaties now in existence. The Lima Declaration of 1975.
International treaties in the main are the handywork of the United Nations and have been used by Australian Governments to undermine Australian Sovereignty. The High Court decision on the Franklin Dam issue in Tasmania is a case in point. Used to put in place processes the impact of which the Australian people are completely unaware, and if they were aware, would be totally opposed to, processes that "get-around" "The Australian Commonwealth Constitution." In other words, treason. And treason is being committed in the name of International Treaty, or the other names given to them, such as conventions, or in this case declaration, The Lima Declaration.
You may say treason is a strong word, but after reading this brief you will say it is not strong enough, without doubt sufficient reason to impeach the Australian Government and opposition on charges of treason..
A copy of The Lima Declaration may be obtained from the United Nations in your Capital City, or the department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra, by phoning the treaties support unit on (06) 261 3590. While you are on the phone ask them how many treaties, declarations, conventions, etc exist. Ask for copies. Ask for the complete set including with The International Treaty on Civil & Political Rights. (The Bill of No Rights).
How can Governments give effect to The Lima Declaration ?
Simply, The Lima Declaration is an agreement to wind down Australian manufacturing by around 30% and to import that amount from other preferred Countries together with as much primary produce as we can consume. Such as fruit, meat etc. The 30% was a target that has now blown out, current estimates are that 90% of our production capacity has gone, and our jobs with it.
There is no mention in the agreement about what will happen to the Australians who lose their jobs, their factories or their farms, it appears they are expendable.
How can Government wind down Business Activity?
Simply by making an un-level playing field. Increase taxes, interest rates, the cost of employing people (without the worker gaining any benefit) Environmental planning controls all these things in combination either destroy or increase our ability to produce.
A good example would be:....
If you wished to manufacture widgets in Western Sydney, you may require, say, 5 acres of industrial land at around 2 million dollars, on which you will pay 25 thousand dollars a year rates, and 25 thousand dollars land tax, it will cost some hundreds of thousands in 'contributions' to Council coffers, and environmental studies, all of which you may borrow at 15-20% interest then, if you are lucky you will be up and manufacturing in maybe 2 to 5 years. Then the unions will step in and cause loss of production, the Government will make you subject to time consuming unnecessary costs, paperwork, insurance and payroll tax and force you to collect sales tax (GST) on your product, and threaten you with heavy penalties including jail sentences for late or non-compliance.
You can simply set up business offshore and export your ideas back to Australia. Our offshore neighbour, also a party to The Lima Declaration will give you the land, assist you in every way and not tax you for the first five years, their interest rates may range from nil to 4%, not to mention the Australian Governments incentives available to importers from preferred countries, and so the playing field is drastically tilted to get the result required by a combination of Government and financial activities.
How does The Lima Declaration effect me?
* Simply 50% of the productive Australian workforce becomes unemployed.
* Taxes on the remainder in employment increases, to pay for the unemployed
* With new shortage of income you are forced to buy cheaper -- imports, or go without thereby aggravating the spiral of well planned economic transfer (oppression)
Government (unproductive sections) will increase their numbers to cover up the real unemployed statistics or/and change the definition of unemployed; if you work 10 hours a month you will be considered employed. We then have more people in Government at all levels with little to do, other than think up more ways of controlling those who are left to produce what little we don't import, employed thinking up new revenue raising schemes, and raising penalties to ensure their salaries. And last but not least, the obscure reason behind The Lima Declaration, Australia becomes a dependent nation, dependent on other nations for it's shoes, it's machinery, it's food, it's survival.
There is no doubt, that within the grand plan of international control there is no room for self-sufficient nations. Any nation that has all the minerals it needs and can grow all the food and fibre it needs cannot be totally controlled by any international body such as the United Nations the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank.
An independent nation (independent in it's production of all the things it needs) cannot be bought to heel by sanctions, such as in South Africa was and Iraq is at the present.
The international control cannot starve the infants of an independent nation, nor deny them medication, as is the case in Iraq.
If Australia cannot make it's own shoes, clothes, and machinery, then others will control us. That is the real purpose of The Lima Declaration, and that is why those who support the Lima Declaration, including those in influential positions are all traitors. Joe Bryant. Jan 1992
Briefly, How the Treachery in Lima Occurred
The second general conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (U.N.I.D.O) met in Lima, Peru from March 12-26, 1975,. The outcome of that meeting was The Lima Declaration, a blue print for the transfer of technology, tools and jobs to 3rd world or developing nations, leaving the "Developed" nations such as Australia short of technology, tools and jobs.
This is now a reality with around 90% of our productive jobs gone and insufficient income from the remaining 10%, to fund the loss of jobs that alone the importing of what we once made right here in Australia with Australian hands, the result yet another 3rd world country in the making.
Whitlam, Frazer, Hawke, Keating, Hewson, Howard, Beasley, the democrats, greens and the Nationals all subscribe to this type of economic genocide, albeit under different names "North South Dialogue" - "G.A.T.T." - "Internationalism" - "Inter-dependence" - "International Monetary Fund" (I.M.F) "World Bank" or the newly uncovered "New World Order".
All different names for the same plan of total control of the world through the money system - control by sick minds, treasonous politicians and bumbling academics and bureaucrats.
The following are some of the recommendations of The Lima Declaration.
Resolution 5........Recognising the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a New International Economic Order based on equity, Sovereign equity, Inter-dependence and co-operation as has been expressed in the declaration and program of action on the establishment of a New International Economic Order in order to transform the present structure of economic relations.
Comment....In 1975 Australia. (or at least one Australian) agreed to destroy our economy so that it fitted into a "New Economic Order"
Resolution 27 -------- Developed Countries such as Australia should expand it's imports from developing countries.
Resolution 28 ------ Requires that developing countries increase their Industrial growth by more than the 8% recommended in earlier United Nations meetings and increase their exports by 350% by year 2000.
Resolution 35 -------- Developed Countries (Australia) should transfer technical, financial, and capital goods to developing countries to accomplish resolution 28 above.
Resolution 59 ------The developed countries should adopt the following measures.
(a) Progressive elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and other obstacles to trade, taking into account the special characteristics of the trade of the developing countries, with a view to improving the international framework for the conduct of world trade. Adherence to the fullest extent possible to the principle of the "standstill" on imports from developing countries and recognition of the need for prior consultation where feasible and appropriate in the event that special circumstances warrant a modification of the "standstill".
(b) Adoption of trade measures designed to ensure increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products including processed agricultural products from the developing to the developed countries:
(c) Facilitate development of new and strengthen existing policies, taking into account their economic structure and economic, social and security objectives, which would encourage their industries which are less competitive internationally to move progressively into more viable lines of production or into other sectors of the economy, thus leading to structural adjustments within the developed countries, and redeployment of the productive capacities of such industries to developing countries and promotion of a higher degree of utilization of natural resources and people in the latter
(d) Consideration by the developed countries of their policies with respect to processed and semi-processed forms of raw materials, taking full account of the interests of the developing countries in increasing their capacities and industrial potentials for processing raw materials which they export;
(e) Increased financial contributions to international organizations and to government or credit institutions in the developing countries in order to facilitate the promotion or financing of industrial development. Such contributions must be completely free of any kind of political conditions and should involve no economic conditions other than those normally imposed on borrowers;
For further detail get your own copy of The Lima Declaration
Note.... It would seem that basic economic considerations are ignored to lock the world into a New Economic Order, by which complete control of the world and it's people is planned, through the total control of their economy - their means of existence.
The basic economy I refer to is "people". People create the need, the need is then supplied by people's activity.
All that is required for economic growth is for people to supply their own market, the proposed New Economic Order, is not about developing 3rd world countries economies for the benefit of their people , it's about developing for the establishment's benefit, our would be masters. The would be masters of The New World Order.
It is an absolute nonsense to say a country needs to export to survive and prosper. Of course one must export an equal amount to that which it imports to balance trade, but the less it imports the less it needs to export to effect the offset.
What is required is a locally owned and controlled credit system, the essential ingredient in remaining independent of International finance the exact opposite to the plans of The New World masters
Every country should work toward import replacement exactly the opposite to the strategy set out in The Lima Declaration and exactly the opposite to the current policy of export - export - export. Currently Australia exports below the cost of production, therefore the more we export the faster we go broke. Some years of this policy has seen our foreign debt go to $630billion in 1999. By November 2000 expect it to be $750 billion and the IMF to walk in and demand drastic cuts in pensions a 25% GST.
If the fundamentals on which The Lima Declaration is purported to be built were half-correct, our world would have to carry out export/import trade with another world in export-to-survive. This is quite obviously nonsense. The whole world will continue to fall for this treachery while ever the man in the street remains as a mushroom, under the spell of bankers trickery and that of their stooges who fill both elected, and public service positions.
... The New Economic Order is mentioned no less than 21 times in The Lima Agreement, that is what The Lima Agreement is all about, locking the new developing countries into "their" economic trap and "their" plans for total world economic control, at the same time reducing developed countries to third world status, clamping the shackles of International debt on every human being, bringing about total world slavery, and the legally enforceable shackles of debt, chained to the slave master, money power.
Every Australian is immediately required to make a decision between debt controlled slavery in perpetuity- or the age of prosperity. Both are eminently possible, one we will have! Which one? Now rely on your gut feeling, ignore the controlled media propaganda - it's owned by your would-be masters, but decide now between perpetual slavery or the age of prosperity.
Joe Bryant 1992.
Alternative Three, PO Box 270, St Marys, NSW 2760 Ph; 02-9623-6177 Fax: 02-9826-1670. E-mail: email@example.com
Written, authorised and printed by Joe Bryant 418 Roper Road St Marys NSW 2760.
For your copy of the current A3 Draft Better Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia please send $5 with your request to PO Box 1010 St Marys NSW 2760.