Kevin Rudd's Stunning Nuclear Disarmament Announcement!

I was right. I knew we would see Whitlamesque Bullcrap like this.

From Andrew Bolt:

Kevin Rudd’s latest big idea:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced the creation of a new international body that will push for nuclear disarmament.

Er, like the bionic eye that Rudd said should be invented, here’s yet another Rudd idea that’s already been invented. In fact, Australia is already a member of the United Nations’ Conference on Disarmament whose aims are identical to the ones Rudd has in mind:

The terms of reference of the CD include practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems. Currently the CD primarily focuses its attention on the following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament...

But of course the Conference on Disarmament suffers from one fatal weakness - it wasn’t Rudd’s idea.

(Thanks to reader Dylan.)

My own quote: "I feel safer already, Kevin Rudd is doing his bit for 'world security'!" More
like a bankteller trying to tell the robber that putting his gun down is going to make everyone
feel nice. Wow I wish I could meet Mr Rudd, he would make me feel warm all over!

?If having and using a nuclear weapon ended the World’s most devastating war ever, are we to
believe that nuclear disarmament will make the world a ‘safer’ place? The biggest question
here is, what is the logic of Kevin Rudd’s move to ‘push’ nuclear disarmament? In the case of a
nuclear weapon, having and using the device, actually ceased hostilities and saved millions of
lives(that is Japanese lives!), won’t disarmament actually empower the dictators that Kevin
Rudd actually ignores to build, harbour and use nuclear weapons? After World War One,
disarmament was a major theme for preventing another world war on a massively devastating
scale. And those anti-nuclear advocates take note, World War Two, before Hiroshima, caused
casualties on the biggest scales before two nuclear weapons were detonated in Japan. In
retrospect, had the bombs been used against Hitler 5 years before, it would have either crushed
him totally thus ending the war, or causing a total surrender of Germany and Hitler suiciding
like he did in 1945. In addition and most importantly the people killed by the Nagasaki and
Hiroshima blasts pale in comparison to the vast numbers that perished throughout the war from
1939-1945.
This is what Mr Rudd doesn’t want to know, a victim of the Sixties feel good culture where the
nuclear disarmament cycle began and during the most dark time of the cold war. And when
Ronald Reagan massively expanded his nuclear stockpiles in the 1980's, what happened? He
strategically defeated the Soviet Union by bankrupting them with the huge expansion in nuclear
weapons, something the Soviets feared, and clever counter espionage.
The only way Kennedy (although he did complete a backdoor deal with the Soviets) managed
to compel the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear weapons from Cuba was confrontation, not
disarmament. Kennedy could have said ‘disarmament’ but it wouldn’t have phased the Soviets
one bit.
While Iran has the 2nd largest oil reserves (and President Bush didn’t invade Iran, did he?) in
the world, and they are mostly untouched due to a backward religious Government focused on
buying the people rather than allowing development of the oil fields, it is not going to back off
building its nukes, even if Mr Rudd tries to ‘scare’ them, which he won’t. Mr Rudd will carry
on with his silly little meetings of elites and making themselves feel good through having
excellent meetings and setting up more commissions and treaties.
Basically nuclear disarmament is a philosophy used by the elites that think it would lead to a
non-nuclear world. Unfortunately for the elites, that will never happen.

Western Australian Liberal Leader Crisis-Poll

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=70394

With the above story in National Newspapers and TV, it is about time we had a poll to see who should be our next Premier. It is time the electorate be given a chance to choose that Leader, and not the 'Party'.

Here is my poll:


http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/336602

Australia's Aircraft Carrier Plans

The Navy (RAN) wants to buy an Aircraft Carrier. Well they should get one, since the last was supposed to be replaced.


THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.
The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list

Why not just build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier which doesn't need 'constant refuelling'? Also it would ba able to complete long missions.

Australia also needs to consider its Strategic options. That is the F111 and our Submarine fleet. Without the F111 we are going to lose our Strategic superiority in the region, and we will solely rely on Defence and any Navy warships (which we have few of) to offer any strategic value. A long range or medium range bomber option like the F111 is going to keep Australia's stategic options in play. If not, we are going to have to end up like those on the Kokoda track, Defending, defending and defending. The best form of defence is attack, and it seems Government has forgotten this principal. The Kokoda Foundation has (in its latest newsletter) suggested Australia needs 400 fighter aircraft for a reasonably secure future, considering the power of China and India's growth. Also, Indonesia and Malaysia are arming themselves with excellent weapons from Russia. We should be alarmed, but we are not.

Be Prepared............

The newest submission from the F111 and Air Power expert in Australia, Dr Carlo Kopp, is also defintely worth reading.

Book of the Day: Londonistan

Melanie Phillips has written this absolutely brilliant account of the Islamist takeover of Britain. All Americans and Australians should read this now.

Her web site is here.

Labor Twisting its Election Promises on Defence Spending

Yes, I told you so. Labor is heading in the direction of cutting its spending on Defence spending, just like I predicted (knew). Nick Minchin has a fair bit to say here.

The federal opposition has accused the government of breaking its election promise to maintain the coalition's minimum three per cent annual increase in defence spending.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said Labor now appeared to believe that three per cent should be the ceiling for defence funding increases rather than the floor.

In its election defence policy, Labor pledged to maintain defence spending, including a minimum three per cent real growth until 2016, but said it would ensure defence dollars were spent more effectively and efficiently.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner on Sunday warned defence faced very considerable cost pressures.

"Even getting savings to ensure that we don't go beyond that three per cent real is a very important exercise. Yes defence is very much on the table," he told the Ten Network.

"We are scrutinising both the capability (equipment) aspects of defence spending but also the more mundane organisational bureaucratic aspects which are substantial as well."

Read the rest here.

Inflation, Housing Affordability, Welfare and the Mining Boom

Inflation, Housing Affordability, Welfare and the Mining Boom
4th March 2008

Housing prices have tripled in Western Australia over the last 8 years and we have seen very little action taken on dealing with this issue with the Western Australian State Government. Rather, they have built a ‘wonderful’ railway line to Mandurah. In the mean time Environmentalists and Native land claims have also contributed to the acute shortage of land in this state, where, once the land is claimed, is used as a tool to make royalties from mining or agriculture for Native ‘Owners’. I have never heard of a person on this planet being entitled to land like this. Of course the Indians have their reservations, but nothing like the ridiculous amounts of land liquidation we have seen all over Australia.
If Aborigines wish to benefit from our Economy, they must do this one, plain, simple thing. If they wish to have the ‘land’, then so be it, but never shall a person who lives or partially lives on that land should receive any welfare or Government money.
Otherwise, negotiations must resume directly with the Government to return this issue to a sane balance, where only 10% of land in Australia at maximum shall be ‘titled’ to native recipients. And then we should not allow welfare to be handed out to the natives or anyone any more. Welfare was meant to tide people over, but these days it helps people buy big TVs, alcohol and helps immigrants to exploit our economy courtesy of hard working Australians.
Whoever wishes to confront this problem effectively, shall have to hit the environmentalists on the head (the EPA) and the Native Land Title Claimants, current and receivers. We should not allow minority groups to determine Government policy where the Government merely becomes puppets to set themselves in front of media to look as though something is being done.
Housing in the North West is extremely expensive and this alongside Aborigine public housing, often wrecked and Government money kept being poured on the ‘social’ problem to take responsibility for the houses. So you have an extremely unfair situation unfolding, where workers (non-indigenous-Very few are Aborigine even though Government programs are encouraging ‘equal opportunity’) are working very hard for high wages, yet are being punished with the cost of living. The Aborigines get a free ride in their Government supplied housing, and usually are on welfare. They don’t earn any money, amongst a worker shortage, and are using Government money to live. Where is the logic in this? We have become a social state where we don’t think logically. No wonder there is no common sense around.
The Railway stations in Perth should be developed so that apartment/hotel/shopping centres are built on top of all of them, thus making use of the public transport system. The Public transport system should be re-worked as well so that buses are used to ‘feed’ train stations (buses feeding from the same main road every 5-10 minutes in peak hour), and industrial/commercial areas enjoying heavy bus services so that people can get to work easily using public transport. This would mean buses making a round route service from a nearby train station often, especially in peak periods. This would also allow less cars to be used in these busy areas where the mining boom is making them busier.
The Train station mega-complexes would envelop better car parking as well, and the vast amount of permanent accommodation to be made available would lower the demand in outer suburbs, thus curbing inflation. Releasing free land in the North West would do the same for the Perth Metropolitan area, but we need to concentrate in dense residential in the Northwest cities of Port Hedland, Karratha, Broome, Kununurra and as well as Perth. Allowing developers to build triple story townhouses thus making better use of less land in the Perth Metro would also be a good solution to the demand of accomodation in Western Australia. Unfortunately, with the cost of housing all over Western Australia (which is the least populated state per square kilometre yet the largest in Australia), we are going to see some very painful financial times ahead, unless a Western Australian Government determines to make the tough decisions to go ahead and do what needs to be done. Supply demand.

In the mining boom, this will need to be on those terms, ‘boom’, which is massive.

The worker shortage in this state is absolutely contributing to housing demand (and supply shortages). It is the Government’s responsibility to act accordingly and manage this responsibly. This hasn’t occurred and we are going to wear the consequences.

Prime Minister John Howard Vindicated on 'Sorry Day'

Letter to The West Australian, 20th Feb 2008-02-20

Prime Minister John Howard Vindicated


Several 'unionists' writing disdainfully in your letters pages of Prime Minister John Howard's rumoured 'Order of the Garter' have stated only specific issues with which to ridicule him with. In fact these so called writers ignored the fact that John Howard was elected because the Unions were so powerful they needed sorting out, and sort them out he did.
Not only this, but he was re-elected 3 more times and the last time with a powerful majority in both houses. It was only the successful propaganda ran by heavyweight unions (loaded with cash) that scared the life out of the voters.
PM John Howard has been fully vindicated, and even more so, since he refused to attend the 'Sorry Day' last week in Parliament. As Brendan Nelson mentioned there will be no compensation, many indigenous people turned their backs on him. If the Aboriginal people, like Noel Pearson, admitted their problems, they would then be admitting that they would have to solve them (which Noel Pearson is doing rather well). No, it is up to Mr Rudd to say Sorry and for his state counterparts to hand out the large sums of money to already welfare dependant people who due to the Socialist dogma imposed on them often live lives of destruction, with no meaning or purpose.
As soon as the apology was over, call upon call was made for compensation by individuals and special interest lobby groups, obviously intent on pocketing sums of money to keep them going and assure a culture of endless welfare dependency.
Although Mr Howard has shown strong leadership and is gutsy for standing on his principles which I deeply admire him for, it will take much more to cease welfare dependency altogether in this great nation of Australia, where Aborigine children die all too often as children, and get raped whilst in the care of their parents.
John Howard was vindicated in the most extreme sense by the reaction to Mr Nelson's comments and most importantly the calls for compensation. As we have an extremely large problem with welfare dependency by the current indigenous people, with Government too scared to 'force' them into work, or to live off the land (since much of Australia is theirs now), we are not going to do any good at all by throwing more money at the problem. They will keep drinking and having babies with foetal alcohol syndrome unless we establish the fact that before they were 'given rights' in the 1960's, they worked for their money and were responsible for themselves.
These days it is the reverse, with the Government being forced to take responsibility and working for them by handing out welfare, which is encouraging Politicians to pump up Government even more to what it shouldn't be, the nanny state.