Saturday, April 30, 2016

Public opinion supplied to ASIO for free

Australia's secret government surveillance organisation ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) employs people to gauge the masses.

As we should all be aware that electronic surveillance has been carried out since day dot on the government carriageway called the 'internet'. 

There are many other ways that the 'enemies of the state' are monitored, and one of those methods is 'old school'.

This involves the 'foot soldiers' being able to blend in with the masses.

This is far from 'conspiracy theories' but rather from accurate sources.

One task of the 'foot soldier' could be is to go out into the war zone community and document general consensus of the plebs.

One of those tasks could involve the employee sitting down at a cafe, with regards to a specified 'person of interest', or just mingling with the herd populous in order to gauge the political climate of the peasants.

We have obtained a reaction to an article published by The Age publication from the 30th of April 2016.

See illustration of what one of the 'plebs' thinks of Australia's 'executive'.



In this instance the service was provided for free to any government organisation that wishes to use this information to obtain the truth.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Australia is run by criminals above the law - Arthur Sinodinos will not attend Senate inquiry

Cabinet secretary rules out appearing at inquiry set up by Labor to investigate associated entities, such as the Liberal party’s Free Enterprise Foundation

Cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos won’t be attending a special parliamentary inquiry into political donations on Thursday, despite a “demand” from the Senate that he show up to give evidence.

Sinodinos wrote to the committee late Wednesday saying he wouldn’t be attending during the two hours scheduled for him to give evidence on Thursday morning and that the “direction” was “objectionable”.

“It would be inappropriate for me or any minister to appear ... the purported direction ... is without precedent, and violates well established Senate practice,” Sinodinos wrote.
He said the inquiry had a “ludicrously” short time frame and the public could be forgiven for concluding that it was a “stunt”.

As revealed by Guardian Australia, Labor used the special sittings of parliament this month to set up the snap Senate committee to investigate the oversight of associated entities, like the federal Liberal party’s Free Enterprise Foundation, which the New South Wales electoral commission says was used to “wash” property developer donations illegal in that state, at a time when cabinet secretary and senator Arthur Sinodinos was the NSW party’s finance director.

The government said the “demand” set a dangerous precedent and labelled the inquiry, by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, as a “stunt”.

It then also requested that the inquiry hear from the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and six other figures involved with a $40,000 political donation Shorten failed to declare for eight years before revealing it in evidence to the royal commission into trade unions.

The committee, on which Labor and the Greens have the numbers, declined.

Other NSW officials have also reportedly declined to give evidence and the chair of the NSW electoral commission, Keith Mason, has written to the committee saying it cannot provide a submission because the issues being discussed are still under investigation by the commission.

That leaves the Australian Electoral Commission as the only organisation actually providing evidence on Thursday.

The federal director of the Liberal Party, Tony Nutt, wrote to the committee saying in the Liberal Party’s view “the current arrangements set out in the electoral act for the funding and disclosure regime in general and for annual returns by parties and other entities ... works adequately” and that it helped to encourage “engagement with the democratic political system by a wide cross section of our society.”

Sinodinos has always said he did not know about the banned donations.

The committee will now report his failure to attend to the Senate, which may vote to refer the issue to the privileges committee.

The royal commission did not make any adverse findings against Shorten. In evidence to the commission he revealed he had failed to declare a political donation of about $40,000 from a labour hire company that he received for the 2007 election campaign. The labour hire company, Unibuilt, had donated money through the AWU that was used to pay $40,000 of the $52,000 salary of Shorten’s campaign director Lance Wilson in February 2007. He declared the donation only a few days before he gave evidence to the royal commission last year when it came to his attention. The donation came at a time when the AWU was negotiating an enterprise agreement with Unibuilt.

Shorten said he didn’t believe Unibuilt was seeking something in return for the donation.

The committee has three Labor members, two Coalition members and one Green.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

1973 - The Birth of Corporate Australia






1973 The Birth of Corporate Australia & The Death of the Commonwealth of Australia.

By Jeremy Britton.
 
The year was 1973: It was the the year that the US ceased its decade-long offensive in Vietnam. The year of the final moon landing. The US dollar devalued by 10% in a single day. The Watergate Scandal was top news. OPEC doubled the price of crude oil, leading to a large fuel crisis. Queen Elizabeth II of England visited Australia’s capital city on a special mission of great importance, and signed a new secret Act into force inside Parliament House (more on that later).

1973 was also the year your money died.



Up until 1966, Australia used pounds (L), shillings (S) and pence (D). Each pound note was inscribed with the words, “Legal Tender, guaranteed by The Crown and the Commonwealth of Australia”.

On February 14th 1966, amidst huge ceremony, the (LSD) pound, shillings and pence were discontinued, and replaced by the Australian dollar and cents. There were ads placed on TV, radio and in newspapers for weeks beforehand announcing the change. People aged 60+ may even remember the musical jingle from TV.

Each new dollar note bore an inscription saying that the note was “Legal Tender throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and the Territories of the Commonwealth”. The notes were all denominated and titled under the heading “Commonwealth of Australia”. Hooray for us!

A few years later, in 1973, with ZERO ceremony, and zero announcements, no TV commercials, the dollar notes were changed again. This time, the notes bore a new inscription, saying that the note was “Legal Tender throughout Australia and its Territories”.

So, what happened to “the Commonwealth”?

First, look up the word “Commonwealth”. It does not mean the Queen, or England. The Commonwealth is the “common” people (you and me) and their “wealth” (gold, silver, real estate, basic property, and the work of your hands, or your labour).

The original (British) pound notes used in Australia prior to 1901 were backed by physical gold, and guaranteed by the reigning monarch of England.

Since 1901, the Australian pound notes were no longer backed by gold, but said to be guaranteed by the Crown, an entity (not a person) who was assumed to be able to exchange the notes for gold, if required.

Australian banknotes from 1901 to 1973 included a guarantee from “the Commonwealth”, which assured the receiver of the note that if they could not exchange the note for gold, then they could be assured that the slave workers of Australia would provide some form of value through giving up their work or property to honour the paper debt.

In 1973, the “common” people and their “wealth” were removed from all Australian currency.
This means that a) the common people are no longer liable for the debts incurred by the government, and b) the common people are no longer able to benefit from the wealth created by the government.
Effectively, you’re on your own.

The government will NOT look after you, they are NOT here to help you and you cannot trust them.
If you think that the government will look after you, please examine closely what governments did to Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans…

OK, so millions of executions and mass theft of land were heinous crimes, and thanks to the overt nature of these offences, we can all look upon them and see that they were “wrong” and should never happen again.

We the people learned lessons, that we should not allow government to slaughter people and steal their possessions. However, the government also learned lessons: if you make your crimes and thefts obvious, people will rise up and overthrow the ruling class. So it is best to keep your crimes hidden, and keep your theft invisible.

The Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia commenced under their own power in 1973. They were not legally voted in and have no constitutional power. (Like a fake cop with a plastic badge and a plastic gun, the only power they have is the power you give them, when you bow down and assume they have authority.)

Their first act was to remove the word “Commonwealth” from the Australian currency. Again, this was unannounced to the public, and millions of people carrying the money in their pockets may not have even noticed.

They then proceeded to remove the word “Commonwealth” from the Corporate Australian system of government and from numerous Statute Laws.

They removed the word “Commonwealth” from the Currency Act (1965-1969), and the Banking Act (1959-1967), and Banking Act Amendments, Acts #116 and #193.

Not content to screw with the money in your pocket, they even messed with the laws regulating how the money was made and lent, and to whom it was repayable.

Even the Act that was formed to help people to understand the other Australian Acts (the “Acts Interpretation Act” (1901-1966)) was changed in 1973.

Prior to 1973, the Act read, “Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia…”

The canny criminals altered this for the new act to read, “Be it enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia…”

As you can see, they removed the word “Commonwealth” again, meaning that theirs is a separate and different entity. They also removed the “Most Excellent Majesty” clause, separating a natural-born person of the royal family, and a royal position. To understand why this is important, try to personally sue Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the Queen of England (a naturally-born person), as opposed to sueing the “Crown” (a separate legal entity).

Understandably, Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha living in Buckingham Palace would not wish to be personally liable for any wrongdoings of her Church of England, her British empire, its employees, agents, subsidiary countries, nor for any debts incurred in her name. It is far easier and more sensible to have a separate entity, in the same way as a builder or a doctor will operate their business under a company, so if somebody dies, or a house falls down, lawyers will sue the company, and not seize the assets of the individual person.

Speaking of companies and corporate entities, it may interest you to know that there was a corporation known as “The Commonwealth of Australia”. It was registered with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC in 1934, just after the Great Depression.

“The Commonwealth of Australia” was registered as a “sovereign nation” (which is legally NOT the same as a sovereign country).

It seems that the original country/government/commonwealth/organisation known as “Australia” may have declared itself bankrupt sometime during the period from 1929 to 1934, during the Great Depression. There were no “GFC-like” corporate bailouts back then, and you would either have to go bankrupt or borrow heavily from another nation, thus making yourself subservient to them.

Just as a billionaire would close down a troubled company and start a new one, the ruling class of Australia registered a new company with a similar name in 1934, to continue operations whilst not having to settle its old debts.

Interestingly, it seems that the new “Commonwealth of Australia”, registered in Washington DC in 1934 may have been set up by the creditors of the old Australia…

That is, the new company/nation was registered by the people to whom the old “Australia” owed money to: the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the “Crown” (corporate England) and several international banksters (Rothschild central banks).

It would appear that an arrangement was made by those lending the money, to allow Australia to operate under a new name, so long as it agreed to pay back a few pennies in the dollar, rather than writing off the entire debt, running away and changing its name to Austrabekistan…

The corporation known as the “Commonwealth of Australia” then existed from 1934 to 1973, when the new pirates came in and registered a new corporate identity, simply known as “Australia”.
The entity known as “Australia” was also registered in 1973 at the SEC in Washington DC, alongside a secondary level of debt reconstruction and reorganization (not a bankruptcy, more like a Chapter 11, or a Scheme of Arrangement).

After the fictitious entity known as “Australia” was registered in Washington DC, they also registered new entities, including the “Parliament of Australia”, and the “Queen of Australia”. Like the building company, these organisations are also corporate structures made of paper, not real people who can be sued, imprisoned nor held accountable for their actions.

Government publications in 1971 were called “The Acts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia”. Government publications in 1972 were called “The Acts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia”. Lo and behold, in 1973, government publications were called “The Acts of the Parliament of the Australian Parliament” (with the word “Commonwealth” removed).
You can see the PDF with the three years here: http://truth-now.net/wp-content/uploads/Parliament-of-the-Commonwealth-vs-Australia.pdf

1973 — the year that Australia was sold to the USA, the banksters and the IMF.

Sceptics are now tut-tutting and looking for tinfoil hats. More open-minded people will click on the next link and see the SEC filing on the US government website.http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Commonwealth+of+Australia&CIK&filenum&State&SIC&owner=include&action=getcompany

There are hundreds of pages of documents and filings on a US government website: all notarised and all verifiable.

It is clear that the nation known as Australia is a registered corporate identity in the USA. Does the USA have a reciprocal registration with ASIC in Australia? No. Because the USA is not owned by, nor indebted to, nor does it owe anything to, Australia. Think about that.

If sceptics care to check the SEC filings to see if the USA registers its other trading partners, or those with whom it does business, you will find that the biggest trading partners of the USA are not listed at the SEC nor are other countries registered in Washington… because these other countries are not owned by, nor indebted to, the USA.Think about that for a minute.

If you believe that Australia is a registered corporate entity in Washington DC (and according to the US government website it is), you may see why your freedom is being eroded, or why Australia tends to blindly follow the USA.

You may open your eyes to see that Australia has to file reports to the US government every year (it does, and you can see them on the above SEC website).

Even the famous Australian Coat of Arms is a business trademark, and registered as a business trademark in the USA.
 
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=89000535&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Australia files annual reports to the SEC in the USA (just as any business would report its earnings to a tax office, or to a creditor, or to someone to whom it owes money).

This may help you to understand why Australia follows the USA into every war, including the invasion in Iraq, which was illegal, and based on falsified data about fictitious weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s), which did not exist and were never found.

The country of Australia is a large landmass located in South-East Asia. It was founded by the British, uses British law, and a British monarch as its head. Its largest trading partners are Asians in China and Indonesia, yet Australia holds so much affiliation with the USA, and so much (baseless) loyalty to the USA, so much interest in the politics of the USA, that one could almost consider the land of Australia to be the fifty-first state of the USA. Why is that?

Australia is a US corporation, and can be treated like a company, not like a Motherland. Its so-called government “administrates” and is essentially legally powerless, unless you acquiesce,  sign an agreement with them, or bow down to their false authority.

You can see a two-minute clip about how an ordinary bloke, who wanted to import an American car to Australia, ended up taking on the Australian government and challenging them to prove their authenticity and authority, right here:

https://youtu.be/EeYQNq7znH4

The full one-hour version of his documentary can be found at http://truth-now.net/

Not only is Australia a corporation registered in the USA, but the so-called “Australian government” is an administrator who has been appointed to administrate a bankrupt country. 

When you understand that the government has been defrauding you for many years, you may just change your mind about paying council rates, income tax, parking fines, failure to vote penalties and so on.

If a company whom you do not recognise sends you an invoice; an invoice which you did not agree to pay, do you have to pay it?

The majority of people pay the fines (*invoices*) without question, and so the illegal government can keep their money, keep their authority and maintain their power. (I’m pretty sure that Al Capone ran a similar racket in Chicago, called “pay me or I’ll bust you up”. Like Capone’s money-grab, it would seem that the seated Australian government also has no legal rights to your cash; they only get it if you hand it over without a fight and if you pay up without asking questions.)

 realnewsaustralia.com 24 Apr 2016

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Australian 'charities' defrauding millions annually from taxpayers

Australian charities are businesses where 'money for mates' deals are setup, where up 95% of the monies obtained can be dissolved into the running of the business before even one cent ( technically not possible in physical terms) makes it to the actual cause.

WE have obtained figures from various charities which shows a consistent average of 90% of funds going into 'administration' costs.

The CEO of the 'charity' is on a high salary together with many other benefits, like using the company's motor vehicle for private use, extra curricular activities as a tax 'dodge'.

They then hire their 'mates' on a decent salary in order to 'administer' the organisaton, where it all may look legitimate on paper, but once an audit is done, it's a 'money for mates' scam, all at the expense of the Australian 'mums and dads' taxpayers.

When purchasing equipment they hire their 'mates' services or obtain products which are grossly inflated, in easy unscruitinised purchases effectively defrauding the 'mums and dads' yet again.

This is only one minute example of being 'busted', but it is with little doubt that this practice will go on uncurbed, as this also implicates people in government, who are also 'supporting' this fraud.

It is very doubtful that a Royal Commission will ever see the light of day on this matter.

See article from 24 Apr 2016 by The Age of the headline:

Anzac charity in firing line

We’re calling it: Coke is dying


Diet Coke: just another of Taylor Swift’s unfortunate exes.
Emma Reynolds, news.com.au

THE love affair is over. After so many hot summer days together, nights out, nights in and cosy Christmases, we’re moving on.
Coca-Cola is dead, and no one is sorry.

The iconic brand has tried everything to keep that fizz going. As it realised people were turning on its signature teeth-rotting drink, it created diet choices.

When the healthy eating movement decided sugarfree sodas were almost as bad, it came up with Coca-Cola Life, made with natural sweetener stevia.

It unveiled new packaging, “unifying” its labelling so that all of its drinks feature a red disc like the original Coke, so fans feel more like they’re drinking The Real Thing.

Tragically, what the brand just doesn’t understand is that’s precisely what we’re no longer interested in.

It’s not you, Coke, it’s us.

There was no fizz in Coca-Cola Life.
There was no fizz in Coca-Cola Life.Source:News Corp Australia

IT’S GONE FLAT

This week, Coca-Cola’s profit slipped in the first quarter as the world’s biggest beverage maker was squeezed by weakening foreign currencies and costs around transforming its North American operations.

Worst of all, soda volumes were flat, with its original drink in decline and a lack of consumer demand in Europe and Japan.

Net income for the quarter ending April 1 was $1.9 billion, down 4.8 per cent year-on-year. Revenues fell four per cent to $13.3 billion.

“They’re banking growth on third world countries, and that’s tragic,” Geoff Dart, of retail consultancy firm DGC Advisory, told news.com.au. “When you’ve exhausted the Western market and you turn to countries like Africa ... There are better choices third world countries could make regarding nutrition. Water would be a far better resource.”

With celebrities like chef Jamie Oliver calling for a sugar tax, and anti-sugar campaigners Sarah Wilson (I Quit Sugar) and Damon Gameau (That Sugar Film) speaking out against the sweet stuff, our former favourite needs to wake up and smell the sucrose.

“There’s a global movement towards health,” said Mr Dart. “McDonald’s is struggling as well. It’s still associated with hamburgers and greasy food. Coke has been going for 100 years, McDonald’s at least 80. It’s hard to change consumers’ perceptions.”

Just as Coca-Cola made that painful discovery with Coke Zero, Diet Coke and Coke Life, there’s only so much the fast food chain’s gourmet “create your own” range can do to alter that image.
We’re not lovin’ it.

Repackaging couldn’t stop sales from going flat. Picture: The Coca-Cola Company via AP
Repackaging couldn’t stop sales from going flat. Picture: The Coca-Cola Company via APSource:AP

STOP BEING YOU

The way Mr Dart sees it, Coke needs to stop being Coke.

“I don’t think the answer is using the Coke brand,” he said. “To evolve the brand would be extremely difficult.

“You can’t have all your eggs in one basket. Being innovative is not just about having a sub-brand like Diet Coke.”

While Coca-Cola owns various other brands, it hasn’t had large-scale success with products that aren’t carbonated drinks. It could pour far more energy into developing other popular items in the refreshment arena - mineral water, mints, juices.

Alternatively, it could be a brand in its early stages that has already established a consumer following.
“Nestle have done it successfully,” said Mr Dart. “They’ve changed the perception around how healthy they are.”

Pepsico have achieved it too, growing into a far bigger brand than Coca-Cola.

CEO Muhtar Kent must be getting in a froth.
CEO Muhtar Kent must be getting in a froth.Source:AFP

Happier times.
Happier times.Source:AFP

THE MAKEOVER

With more choices than ever, customers are increasingly discerning about the brands they choose.
The healthy trend has come hand-in-hand with a movement towards boutique, niche products, which give the illusion of being better for you, even if they aren’t.

Mr Dart gives the example of beer. While low-carb versions of regular beers haven’t been a huge success, craft beers are everywhere.

The same applies to cider. We love to see labels mentioning organic apples — it sounds healthier — and the drink has seen huge growth in China.

“They just need to reinvent themselves and build a strategy around another brand,” said Mr Dart. “They need a strategic direction and it needs to happen at board level.”

Can we still work things out with Coca-Cola? Or will we be watching the bubbles as it sinks without a trace?

news.com.au 23 Apr 2016

You buy this 'poison' you deserve every aliment you get!

 Taylor Swift promoting Coke - Just another corporate whore promoting poison for a price.