Could the next Pope be the last? *Doomsday*

The next Pope will be an African & he'll be the last according to the St. Malachy's prophecy...scary if true..

 

Is the world only a Pope away from the End? Yes, if you believe a chilling 12th-century prophecy. Attributed to St. Malachy, an Irish archbishop canonized in 1190, the Prophecy of the Popes would date to 1139. The document predicted that there would be only 112 more popes before the Last Judgment — and Benedict XVI is 111.

The list of popes originated from a vision Malachy said he received from God when he was in Rome, reporting on his diocese to Pope Innocent II.

 

The story goes that St. Malachy gave the apocalyptic list to Innocent II and that the document remained unknown in the Vatican Archives some 440 years after Malachy's death in 1148. It was rediscovered and published by Benedictine Arnold de Wyon in 1590.

The prophecy consists of brief, cryptic phrases in Latin about each Pope. It ends with the 112th pope, named "Petrus Romanus" or "Peter the Roman."

According to the premonition, Peter the Roman would "feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the City of the Seven Hills shall be utterly destroyed, and the awful Judge will judge the people."

Often highly enigmatic, several prophetical announcements in the document appear to have come true.

For example, Malachy prophesied the first pope on his list would be "from a castle on the Tiber." Celestine II, elected in 1143, was born in Toscany on the shores of the Tiber River.

Malachy predicted another pope would be "elevated from a hermit." Nicholas IV, pope from 1288 to 1292, had been a hermit in the monastery of Pouilles.

The 45th pope in the prophecy is described as coming "from the hell of Pregnani". Indeed, Pope Urban VI (1378-1389) was born Domenico Prignano and came from a village near Naples called Inferno (hell).

Most scholars consider the document a 16th-century elaborate hoax. Until 1590, when the prophecy was published, the mottoes were easily derived from the pope's family, baptismal names, native places or coats of arms.

After 1590 the epithets become much more vague. According to the Catholic Pages, "the inclusion of anti-popes would also appear to militate against the authenticity of the prophecies."

Yet, uncanny similarities also appear when reading the mottoes associated to modern-day popes.

For example, the 109th pope is described as "of the half of the moon." John Paul I, elected pope in 1978, "lasted about a month, from half a moon to the next half," the Catholic Pages noted.

As for his successor, the late Pope John Paul II, Malachy described him in Latin as "de labore solis," meaning "of the eclipse of the sun, or from the labor of the sun."

"John Paul II (1978-2005) was born on May 18, 1920 during a solar eclipse… His Funeral occurred on April 8, 2005 when there was a solar eclipse visible in the Americas," the Catholic Pages wrote.

Finally, "Glory of the Olives" is the motto for Benedict XVI, the 111th pope in the list. A branch of the monastic order founded by St. Benedict is called the Olivetans.

As for the doomsday pope, one would think we are quite safe: according to church tradition, no pope can take the name Peter II.

However, one of the favorites to succeed Benedict XVI is Ghanaian Cardinal Turkson. His first name is Peter....

 

 

Craig Emerson MP opinion on the mainstream media

I have been a bit lazy lately in not posting to my blog site. I seem to prefer offering my opinions in "real time" via my Twitter account @KezzerSA Its addictive if you don't have the capacity to jot down your thoughts and then move on to the rest of the world soon after.

However I do feel that anyone who might drop into this blog and perhaps missed the contribution federal minister Craig Emerson wrote about the mainstream media in Australia its available on this link. http://is.gd/tN5C1z I believe it is an important contribution to the lack of information flowing to all of us, if we just rely on the Murdoch press and to a lesser extent Fairfax and the Oz TV networks for our information. It truly is manipulative and lacking in informative unbiased Craig Emerson views on the media.balance.

Seasons greetings all.

Kerry

Oh so very ADELAIDE

 Beirut v Paris: the remarkable battle against city growth

Article from Adelaide's InDaily.com.au Wednesday, 5 September 2012

OPINION Professor Andrew Beer
A COLLEAGUE recently emailed me the web address for a group that has been established to oppose the Development Plan Amendment (DPA) for the City of Adelaide. As many people will be aware, the DPA significantly frees up development within the square mile, with a goal of encouraging the growth of the city population to almost 50,000 people.

On August 18, there was a rally to protest the DPA and a website, StoptheDPA.com, was launched to represent the concerns of some residents in one part of the city.
The protest against the DPA is remarkable on a number of grounds. The website proudly proclaims that 60 people have been involved in its establishment, which suggests 0.2 per cent of the resident population of the City of Adelaide find the DPA objectionable. It is also remarkable that the protesters badge themselves as representing the south-west of the city – which they label the “Beirut quarter” of Adelaide – and argue that they will bear the brunt of change, while those in the more privileged “Paris quarter” of the south-east sector of the city will be largely untouched.

Despite such claims of disadvantage, the look and feel of the StoptheDPA website is one of comfortable baby boomers vociferously opposing development in any form.
There is no thought for those who are priced out of the inner-city housing market or, indeed, of all housing in Adelaide. The website also fails to acknowledge that the DPA adds considerably to the value of development rights for all landholders, with all protesters effectively recipients of a significant windfall.

The opposition to the City of Adelaide’s DPA raises parallels with recent work undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and discussed at a seminar at the end of August in Canberra. The OECD has recently completed a major piece of work on the impact of the renewable energy sector on regions. One of its conclusions was that there was growing opposition to wind farms and similar developments in many regions because communities as a whole had little or no stake in such investments. Privately owned wind farms have potential costs for communities with few compensatory benefits.
The OECD advocated the expansion of community ownership of renewable energy assets as one solution to this problem, with developments along these lines in Nova Scotia, Scotland and Wales leading the way.

Over recent years Australia has also witnessed opposition to wind farms, with South Australia part of this broader national trend. We should ask, therefore, whether the conclusions reached by the OECD have traction locally? Should we be introducing locally based and community-owned renewable energy initiatives which generate within townships a strong reason for accepting change?

If individuals within a community believe they will benefit from a development they will be more likely to accept the slight inconveniences that change may bring. Possible noise nuisance will be overlooked when the sound of turbines equates to cash into a bank account.
The same principles can be applied to urban development. Creating a wide pool of stakeholders in the development and improvement of our cities is one of the great challenges for Australia’s future. Indirectly, all of us have a stake in the economic wellbeing of the places in which we live, but too often it is easy to ignore that connection because we believe the consequences of no growth will be small-scale and the potential benefits of growth are either not obvious or seen to be too far into a distant future.

In other parts of the developed world, many communities have a much more favourable view of development because they see it as an opportunity to reduce the burden of taxes on existing residents, to achieve a level of amenity they could not otherwise afford, or to reshape their community into a more sustainable and prosperous settlement.

Many Australians appear to have an entrenched mindset that is inclined to oppose development in each and every form.
Major changes will be needed in taxation arrangements, public debate and community leadership if that attitude is to be reversed. What is certain, however, is that if Australia is to have a prosperous and sustainable future, the computer needs to be programmed to say “yes”, not “no”.

Professor Andrew Beer is director of the Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Adelaide.

Paul Kelly writes on Labor's pain.

PAUL KELLY:

Labor's choice is Rudd or oblivion

Illustration by Igor Saktor. Source: The Australian

 

EVENTS of the past 10 days affirm that public destabilisation of Julia Gillard's leadership is institutionalised, which has two results: it further guarantees Gillard cannot recover in the polls, but it cannot alone meet Kevin Rudd's core requirement for his return to power.

Labor risks being torn apart. Emotions and animosities are getting hotter. Briefings on the leadership are rife. The Labor tragedy is that Gillard's prime ministership is being cancelled from within by a mood of anger and despair, yet the mechanism that permits a successful Rudd return does not exist. Not yet.

In Washington last week at the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, Rudd was serene and his usual hyperactive self. As delegates moved in and out of formal sessions taking calls from Australia, Rudd seemed the calmest man in the room.

What is Rudd waiting for? For the Labor Party to sink into the depths of despair. In truth, it is only when Labor is absolutely desperate that it can form a collective view on the historic crisis it confronts. That may or may not happen.

Despite relentless media talk, Rudd is not doing deals. There is no Rudd-Bill Shorten deal. The unions remain with Gillard.
It is obvious Rudd feels the tide is with him and his momentum is building. Gillard's failure to build upon her 71-31 caucus defeat of Rudd in February is an abject lost opportunity.
For Rudd, the nation's mood is vital: might significant figures and institutions issue appeals for a change of leadership?

Rudd won't be accepting a poisoned chalice leadership. He won't be returning to lead a lost cause to certain election defeat. Why would he? Why would Rudd allow himself to be conscripted by people who have hated him merely to allow some of them to save their seats while his reputation is trashed as he loses the prime ministership for a second time, this time at an election? How mad would that be?

A survey of his career reveals that Rudd likes to have a viable gameplan for any big decision. And this is his biggest decision. The conclusion is obvious: Rudd could only return to the leadership if he felt the election was a winnable proposition. That is the pivotal point.
Labor has two choices in response to its crisis. It can stick by Gillard in a fatalistic assertion that the logic of June 2010 cannot be successfully undone or a majority of cabinet, caucus and organisation can commit to yet another recasting of the party to give Labor a fighting chance at the next election.

It requires party elders of immense status to lead the second option. Who might they be? Is there another John Button-type figure to persuade Gillard to resign the way Button, in early 1983, brought huge pressure upon his friend Bill Hayden to quit? No, there is not.
Button said that Hawke was a "bastard", but whether MPs loved or hated Hawke wasn't the point. The only point was Labor's long-run self-interest and its responsibility to its supporters. As long as the present contest is mired in emotions about Rudd, Labor falls between two stools - it cannot revive under Gillard and cannot move successfully to Rudd.
Rudd, of course, is not a Hawke. He is damaged goods. He lost the party's confidence in 2010 because of combined failures on climate change, boats and the mining tax - an inheritance that has plagued Gillard from the start.

The Rudd camp makes a lethal accusation - its opponents are willing to destroy the government and ruin the party for many years merely to deny Rudd.
Yet the Gillard camp has a lethal reply - Rudd had his chance, he failed and now insists upon putting his thirst for vindication before the cause of a unified, coherent government.
The shadow of the February contest looms large. Led by Wayne Swan, minister after minister slammed Rudd. Witness Stephen Conroy, Simon Crean, Nicola Roxon, Tony Burke, Peter Garrett. And there are others like Craig Emerson totally pledged to Gillard. Many ministers refused to serve under Rudd. Can they change their minds? Not Swan. Some others can, but most cannot. They would look fools.

Senior sections of the party are immovable - Rudd may be popular, they say, but he cannot run a successful ALP government.
Their message is there is no going back to the "revolving door" leadership syndrome that invites such public contempt.

The clinching case against Rudd's return is that it would totally convulse, even destroy, the government. In truth, this argument is exaggerated. The reverse logic can be applied. If ministers quit, that is their decision, not Rudd's. He wants a united party.
But Rudd needs, above all, to send a public message that he is leading a new and different government. Rudd must return as a circuit-breaker. He must return to end, symbolically yet substantially, the Gillard era.

Rudd's supporters say that constituting a "new look" government with lots of fresh senior appointments would only help this message. A ministry pruning could be a positive when Labor looks terminal.

The pro-Gillard spear-carriers from 2010 confront some hard decisions. Shorten knows that having knifed Rudd for Gillard in 2010 he cannot knife Gillard for Rudd now. That would be cynicism and trust-breaking on a scale to stain his integrity for years. Shorten is with Gillard. If the end comes, how much he is with Gillard is a separate question.

In February, Shorten avoided public assaults on Rudd, and that is significant. As a realist, he won't sacrifice himself if Rudd returns to the leadership.

The recent eruption over the Greens is a boost to Rudd. It is belated recognition that Gillard's 2010 deal with the Greens was one of the worst strategic decisions in the past 50 years of Labor history.
And that will probably prove an understatement. Gillard cannot escape from her alliance with the Greens despite party acceptance of its fatal impact. On this point, she is trapped. Only a new leader can redefine the Labor-Green relationship and start the big job of sharply separating Labor from the Greens forever.

Rudd's policy of moving to an emissions trading scheme as fast as feasible is known. It means killing Gillard's carbon tax - her three-year fixed-price scheme. It means terminating her broken promise. And it means a confrontation with the Greens.

As prime minister, Rudd would sponsor a bill to this effect. After it was defeated by the Greens and the Coalition (and maybe independents too) he would be positioned to take this policy to an election, a policy different from the Greens and Tony Abbott.
On boats Rudd has a serious problem. He positioned himself to the left of Gillard, yet this position doesn't work now. Somehow Rudd must become a hardliner on boats, a tricky transition. His dealings with the trade unions are easier. The unions like and trust Gillard, but dislike and distrust Rudd. That won't change, but any perception that union power is sustaining Gillard and denying Rudd would be disastrous for the party. With Gillard's primary vote at 28 per cent, Labor must choose between oblivion and making Rudd's return a viable project.

        Scott Morrison suggest the 1951 UN Refugee Convention needs revisiting.

THE international agreement that for almost 60 years has formed the bedrock of Australia's refugee program no longer reflects the practical reality of refugee movements across the world, opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said yesterday. 
 
He said the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, conceived in the ashes of World War II when millions of displaced people were in camps in Europe, did not adequately address contemporary challenges. In particular, he said, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees must do more to crack down on secondary movements, where refugees pass through multiple countries in search of preferred countries of asylum, invariably Western ones.

This forum shopping distorted the intent of the convention, which was designed to protect people fleeing from acute states of persecution, such as the South Vietnamese, who took to boats after the fall of Saigon, or Jews fleeing Nazi-occupied Europe. "That's a world of difference between people getting on planes to Indonesia or Malaysia as part of an integrated package to get to an asylum country of choice. That's not what the convention was designed to address," he said. Mr Morrison's comments followed The Weekend Australian report that the number of refugees resettled from overseas camps had dipped to the lowest in 35 years, because of the pressure boatpeople were placing on the humanitarian visa program.

Start of sidebar.

Yesterday, Greens and refugee groups criticised the longstanding policy linking the number of humanitarian visas to boat arrivals, saying it created a deadly incentive for people to risk their lives on boats.

Mr Morrison said countries that regularly agreed to resettle UN-declared refugees - such as Australia, Canada, the US and Britain - were shouldering an unfair burden.
"The big resettlers are being short-changed by UNHCR," Mr Morrison said. "We would work with other resettlement countries to look at how we can ensure the scarce resettlement places are put to best effect."

Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young savaged the policy, implemented under the Howard government, under which any increase in boat arrivals leads to a subsequent decrease in the special humanitarian visas granted to people subject to gross human right violations and to family reunions.
Refugee advocates said some of the world's most vulnerable people in camps across Africa commonly faced a 20-year wait to get to Australia.
Writing in The Weekend Australian on Saturday, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said many of his constituents who had relatives in Africa, Asia and the Middle East spoke of a similar plight.

The minister said "fairness" was a key reason why offshore processing should be supported.
But Senator Hanson-Young rejected Labor's latest attempt to galvanise support for its Malaysia Solution, saying the government's policy of linking humanitarian visas with boat arrivals was "wrong and damaging" and ended up pushing vulnerable people on to boats. "Australia is the only nation that caps and links humanitarian visas in this way, and there is no sound policy reason for it other than to create the false impression of a 'queue'," she said.
"The government and the Coalition are locked in a race to the bottom as they pretend there are 'good' and 'bad' refugees."
Yesterday, Environment Minister Tony Burke told Sky News's Australian Agenda the Greens' hardline position on border protection was at the heart of Labor's frustration with its alliance partner, which had spilled over into a bitter and public battle about electoral preferences.
Refugee agent Marion Le said the backlog of people waiting to be reunited with family or granted special humanitarian visas is "enormous".

"The fact is the most vulnerable people are suffering the most," Ms Le said. "This is a really big problem, and it is extremely serious for refugees in Australia who have family members overseas, there is a lot of guilt and a lot of anxiety and it leaves people encouraging their family to try to come by boat," she said.

Ms Le said many people live and die in African refugee camps with no prospect of resettlement, while others wait about 20 years to come to Australia.
Fellow refugee advocates Pamela Curr and Ian Rintoul said a policy which directly ties the number of humanitarian visas to the number of boat arrivals only encouraged more people to risk their lives making the dangerous boat journey. "I am really concerned at the way that this government policy is setting groups of refugees against each other, I hear it in the community," Ms Curr said.
Scott Morrison suggest UN Refugee Convention needs revisiting.
But she warned that refugee camps were often ripe with corruption and did not always award resettlement places to those who needed them most.
Mr Rintoul called for the number of humanitarian visas to be disassociated from those granted to asylum-seekers.

ABC 7:30 Christine Milne interview 

http://tinyurl.com/cw6jtxs

Transcript: 27.06.2012 

Greens leader Senator Christine Milne on 7:30

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Now, pretty much whatever passes through the House of Representatives, the Greens have said today, as Chris just explained they will stymie it in the Senate and to discuss that I'm joined now by the Greens' leader Christine Milne in Canberra.

Christine Milne, let me just check with you does Andrew Wilkie's amendment, the imposition of this 12 month sunset clause change your mind at all?

CHRISTINE MILNE, GREENS LEADER: No, it doesn't, Leigh. We will be supporting the sunset clause because we don't believe offshore processing is appropriate, it's inconsistent with the refugee convention.

So ending this proposal is better than just having an open ended debate but we will be opposing this legislation put forward by Rob Oakeshott because it's even worse than what the Government proposed in the first place because it's removing any kind of protections in the legislation that was there and it's basically saying that asylum seekers can be sent to any of the signatories to the Bali process and that includes Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - it really is no protections sending people out of sight out of mind. It is actually a major step backwards.

LEIGH SALES: The de facto asylum seeker policy in Australia at the moment is onshore processing which is the Greens policy. We're seeing the results of that policy, dozens of boats coming to Australia, boats sinking at sea, people dying, how many boats will have to sink before the Greens reconsider their position on this?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, that's a really offensive question because the Greens have always supported a safe pathway for refugees coming to Australia and the real question that you need to be asking is it that we want to save people's lives and provide safe pathways?

If that's the case then we would lift our humanitarian intake, then we would actually support the UNHCR financially in Indonesia to be able to process people more quickly.

LEIGH SALES: Okay, thank you, thank you, I'll decide what questions to ask and I want to ask you if you agree with me that onshore processing does not discourage people from coming to Australia on boats?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well the question is do you want to encourage people to come to Australia? Do you want to welcome asylum seekers in this country?

LEIGH SALES: That actually wasn't the question, the question was does onshore processing encourage people to come to Australia and make these dangerous voyages via boat?

CHRISTINE MILNE: People are desperate to seek refuge and asylum in Australia. Our job is to provide safe pathways and we can do that that would discourage people from taking dangerous boat journeys if we introduced appropriate support through the UNHCR and increased our humanitarian intake so that people in camps understood there was actually a way of them safely coming to Australia.

But you're not going to dissuade desperate people from seeking asylum. What we want to do is make sure that safety of life at sea is prioritised, that we support the UNHCR, that we increase the humanitarian intake and that's why I take some hope from Tony Abbott saying today that he would support a multiparty process, that he would actually deal with this issue in some kind of cooperative way instead of as he has up until date and that's oppose it.

LEIGH SALES: Well as you point out Tony Abbott has given some ground today. Everyone in the Parliament seems to have been willing to make a compromise today except the Greens, why do you refuse to budge an inch?

CHRISTINE MILNE: The issue is do we want to act within the law. The law ought to be the fundamental way we proceed because we need to give leadership in the region and why would any other country in the region actually sign up to the refugee convention if Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the region says we won't adhere to international law, that's why the High Court overthrew the Malaysia proposal.

LEIGH SALES: You can talk about the vagaries of international law and UN conventions but as you discuss that people are dying.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Yes and that’s why it would be a very good thing to increase our humanitarian intake, provide safer pathways, actually approach a regional solution and we've proposed a multiparty committee to work with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition providing it's in the context of international law and that really ought to be the basis.

LEIGH SALES: But that is not going to happen, it's clear that the other parties won't support that. Isn't this like the emissions trading scheme where you're saying well nothing is better than us having to give any ground whatsoever.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well what's interesting is there has been kneejerk reaction today. A frenzy of debate which actually doesn’t provide a long-term solution because it doesn't provide anything that can't be struck down in the courts because it doesn't actually fit with helping people who are desperate to a better life.

Now the Greens have a view that we should live up to our obligations, help vulnerable people. Unfortunately other people want to deter asylum seekers and the whole debate has been how to send them somewhere else, out of sight out of mind. Our process says let's actually increase our humanitarian intake, let's support them to come to this country when they land here seeking asylum.

LEIGH SALES: Alright let me just update our audience. The House of Representatives has now voted on the Wilkie amendment to the bill and as expected it has gotten through.

Christine Milne, the Secretary of the Immigration Department Andrew Metcalf says the Malaysia solution provides the best deterrent, why won't you accept their advice?

CHRISTINE MILNE: So the question is are we actually seeking a deterrent, that's the key thing here. Do we want to uphold our obligations and actually welcome people seeking asylum or is the whole basis of this out of sight, out of mind, we don't want to take asylum seekers in Australia. Now the Greens say we should take asylum seeker, we ought to opening up this country to the prospect of an increased humanitarian intake and actually do the right thing.

LEIGH SALES: Sorry to keep interrupting but what you're talking about is so far removed from the reality of the actual debate today and what is going on today which is people are repeatedly boarding these boats trying to come to Australia for onshore processing and are losing their lives.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well people kept boarding the boats after John Howard introduced the most appalling Pacific solution, the Sieve X went down after he introduced the temporary protection visas and if we had spent the billions that John Howard wasted on the Pacific solution actually supporting Indonesia and people in our region to appropriately process and look after asylum seekers we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in today. The issue here is we have to determine what is our objective and our objective ought to be to help people to save lives, to give people safer pathways to Australia.

LEIGH SALES: On the UN convention on refugees, Afghanistan's a signatory, Iran's a signatory, these are the countries that people are actually fleeing from to try to get refuge elsewhere. Why are you putting so much faith in this UN piece of paper?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Because I actually believe in international law. I think the only way we're going to get a regional solution is to actually uphold the law ourselves and actually encourage others to do so. The whole purpose of a refugee convention is to say that when someone seeks asylum in your country you have an obligation to actually look after them and that is something that Australia has to come to terms with and if that's not what people want they should be honest about it because we know how to save lives and we could be out there with stronger procedures for safety of life at sea, for example.

We could be out there increasing the humanitarian intake and we'll be moving in the Senate to actually get a message back to the House of Representatives to say now that Tony Abbott supports an increase in the humanitarian intake so do we so let's do it.

Now that Tony Abbott supports greater UNHCR support let's do it. Now that he actually wants a multiparty committee, great, let's do it. So we are willing to put our shoulders to the wheel and we want to do those things.

LEIGH SALES: Okay, Christine Milne, thank you for making time to speak to us tonight.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Thank you, Leigh.

The Real Tony Abbott

 

Abbott's gamble on cultural change

 

by: PAUL KELLY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE

  From: The Australian

BENEATH his notorious negativity, Tony Abbott and his senior frontbenchers are devising a blueprint to change decisively Australia's national policy and philosophical direction.

The carbon tax is the engulfing fog that dominates yet obscures.
It has defined Abbott's leadership since December 2009 and is the instrument he has used to ruin Labor's brand. Yet the Opposition Leader's anti-carbon tax crusade has constituted a dramatic trade-off: the price he has paid to destroy Labor in the nation has been a negative personal rating.
For Abbott, it is a willing bargain. The consequence, however, is the public either remains unsure about the values that will infuse an Abbott government or still clings to the long list of anti-Abbott prejudices that begins with his alleged hostility to women.
While the media recycles talk of Malcolm Turnbull returning as leader down the track, Abbott's hold is entrenched.
He is far advanced in the recasting of the Liberal Party. It is not a solo project. On the contrary, it is underpinned by tight frontbench collaboration and deep backbench support.
Global and domestic events have imposed essential changes on the old Abbott, once besotted by the utility of state power. Abbott and the Coalition now stand, above all, for three core ideas.
The first is a deep commitment to the prudent state typified by surplus budgets, debt reductions, dismantling "Labor values" spending and an attack of sorts on the entitlement culture, an idea pushed by economic spokesman Joe Hockey, long seized by the fiscal task he faces.
Second, the Coalition seeks a rebalancing between enterprise and the environment with a sweeping agenda to dismantle Labor "green and red tape", purge regulatory complexity, facilitate development, promote northern Australia as an export food bowl and run environmental policies that are more direct and practical.
In this sense, carbon tax repudiation, important in its own right, symbolises a decisive switch in values, policy and political culture.
Third, as a social fabric conservative Abbott wants to curb the idea that "government knows best", limit interference in people's lives, cut social engineering and, as a perpetual volunteer in his personal life, promote Edmund Burke's concept of "little platoons"-Abbott's notion of social communities based on individual initiative and much greater personal responsibility.
Facing an election where he cannot spend much money, Abbott will campaign on values. This sounds fine in theory but, in fact, it is an electoral risk. The essential test is whether the Australian public accepts Abbott as a reliable, predictable and stable leader capable of steering this basic change in the nation's direction.
In many ways there are two Abbotts on display - the uplifting leader with the personal ability to engage and win the confidence of stakeholders for his agendas, and the testosterone-charged political brawler who can't stop throwing punches, bouncing on trampolines, impersonating Teddy Roosevelt and seemingly incognisant of the real scale of the fiscal agenda he enunciates.
Even on values, the risk is that Abbott projects better what he hates rather than what he loves. Above all, he detests what he sees as Labor's fixation that government has an answer to every problem including the ultimate conceit that it can change the earth's temperature.
At this election Abbott seeks to channel public opinion to a revised balance on green issues. This is an article of faith across the Liberal and National parties and tied to the quest for greater productivity.
Finance spokesman Andrew Robb, chairman of the policy development committee, says this is a visceral sentiment: "The stuffing has been knocked out of people. The disconnect between city and country is profound and growing year by year. There is a despondency in many parts of the nation about new projects and the sheer difficulty of getting them off the ground. The balance is out of whack and it must be restored."
Abbott will use the carbon tax not just as a cost-of-living weapon (where his epic exaggerations make him vulnerable) but as a template for the broader changes he wants.
Much of the vast policy, agency and regulatory apparatus Labor has established to cover the environment and climate change will be swept away. Abbott's future environment minister, Greg Hunt says the savings across the forward estimates will be upwards of $10 billion.
Agencies to be abolished are the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Energy Security Council, Climate Change Authority, Climate Commission, and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. This list is not yet concluded.
Abbott and Hunt believe Labor has created a bureaucratic monster tied to carbon pricing and the ETS. The departments of Environment and Climate Change will be merged. "We will be getting rid of 30 of Labor's programs at the national level," Hunt says.
The main item in the $10bn savings comes from abolition of Labor's industry assistance (as distinct from household compensation) to offset carbon pricing.
In addition, the Coalition will save another $10bn off the budget given that this is the capitalisation for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
Environment is a case study in Abbott's philosophy of liberalism - getting rid of green and red tape, reducing agencies and simplifying process. "We have thought through every agency and every policy," Hunt says. "We will be making these changes in the first year of government. We want a single national approach to emissions reductions."
Hunt plans to rationalise the federal-state shambles of multiple green schemes. The new single national agency, the Emissions Reduction Fund, will run the Coalition's "direct action" or abatement funding mechanism.
At the same time, Hunt says the single "one-stop shop" for environmental project approval will be vested at state level. He says federal-state duplication is now absurd and the issue "is no longer about standards but about productivity". This means amending the federal Environmental Act and related laws. The aim is to purge "pointless bureaucracy".
The Coalition argues Labor's "green" record is much talk and poor results - the exhibits being the home insulation disaster and related failures on green loans, cash for clunkers and solar programs.
Labor's problem, documented in the recent Lowy Institute poll, is that most Australians no longer subscribe to immediate action on climate change. The poll showed 63 per cent oppose Labor's carbon law with 45 per cent "strongly against". Only 36 per cent, down from 68 per cent, want immediate action even if that involves significant costs.
On the pivotal carbon-pricing issue, Abbott will give instructions for its abolition on day one. Hunt says the bill will be introduced in the first week of parliament (a simple negation of the price mechanism).
Abbott's aim is to knife Labor swiftly. He will force Labor into an immediate post-election vote on carbon tax abolition. If it refuses, he will launch a renewed campaign as prime minister on Labor's repudiation of the public's verdict as a prelude to creating, as fast as possible, the grounds for a double dissolution. Hunt says the entire process including abolition of carbon pricing at a joint sitting can be accomplished within 12 months of any initial victory.
As the July 1 countdown to carbon pricing approaches, there are two realities: Labor will expose Abbott's "end of the world" exaggerations and Abbott's own campaign will make the carbon tax as unpopular as ever.
But remember the bottom line: Abbott's future, probably his survival, depends on the prolongation of the European and US economic crisis. This is because the sinking of the Western economies keeps any global carbon price on the backburner. If this situation were reversed and international momentum rekindled, then Abbott's epic rejection of carbon pricing would be in trouble.
At present, there is no sign of that: Abbott in 2009 read the future much better than did Labor.
Meanwhile the Coalition, behind the scenes, has finalised about 50 policy documents via meetings of its senior figures: Abbott, Julie Bishop, Hockey, Robb, Hunt, Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce.
A buoyant Hockey said: "We have done the policy work and we will deliver the surplus in our first year and every later year. Our policies are now fully costed, fully funded. The Australian people will see all our policies and costings before the election."
He had better be right given the costing blunders last election. Obviously, the Coalition will not release such costings until the campaign.
Abbott elevates Howard as his model - yet Howard's final years betrayed a fiscal softness rather than the steel Abbott and Hockey will need. Labor is contemptuous of Abbott's ability to steer any consistent course. It points to his record in opposition of calling for smaller government and opposing most of Labor's savings. Is this just tactics or proof of a deeper flaw in Abbott's character?
Abbott has been the most effective opposition leader in decades but the bigger test is his ability to implement his agenda in office.
As a populist he has exploited the natural instincts of the public. Yet the transformation in political culture he envisages is daunting. It works only if Abbott has toughened up with the courage to impose genuine productivity-raising policy.
"Bigger government means smaller citizens" is an Abbott slogan. It sounds great. But delivering smaller government for grander citizenship is truly hard. The whole world knows Abbott is a born sloganeer. But slogans aren't enough. Abbott must persuade the public to trust him and provide

Susan Mitchell questions the motives of Gina Rinehart

                                                       Gina Rinehart

               

                                   OPINION     by Susan Mitchell
                  THE MOST DANGEROUS WOMAN IN AUSTRALIA?

WHY has Gina Rinehart purchased enough shares to get herself three seats on the board of Fairfax?
Has she ever been a contributor or a player in the media? No.
Has she suddenly developed a passion for print? No.
Does she consider that owning three seats on the board will give her editorial control over the two major newspapers in the nation? Yes.
Why won’t she agree to signing their Charter of Independence?
Is it because that means she will have no control over what individual journalists write? Yes.
The board of directors has the right to hire and fire editors of its papers, but that clearly isn’t enough power for Rinehart to yield.
She has form in how she likes to micro-manage power in the media. As a member of the board of Channel 10, she insisted on Andrew Bolt being given his own program. Why? Because he possibly agrees with everything she stands for. That is, no carbon tax, no mining super tax, minimal government interference and tax breaks for the wealthy. Even when Bolt’s show rated poorly, Rinehart insisted it be continued.
Why does she wield this power over programming when other members of the board don’t appear to want to? Because with a net worth of $28 billion, she is the richest woman in the world; within five years, she could become the richest person in the world.
I am not castigating her because she is wealthy. Not all wealthy people want to use their money to have the necessary power to make even more money. Warren Buffet has given away more than $20 billion to good causes. So has Bill Gates. The world is full of generous, philanthropic entrepreneurs, oil magnates and even mining magnates. Even Gina’s children have a hard time getting any of their inheritance.
So what? you may argue. It’s her money, she should be able to do what she likes with it. If the journalists at Fairfax don’t want to do her bidding, they can get another job. Or they can organise a collective and buy the mastheads themselves.  Workers can’t dictate who can buy the business they work for.
But the media business is different. Why? Because it has the power to persuade, to disguise self-interest as argument, to blur fact and propaganda, to slant news reports. This is the power to brainwash entire populations, to make and break governments.
In case you think I am getting carried away, remind yourself that we have just been witnesses to what happens when wealth, media control and governments collude. If you think this happens only in Britain, you are either wilfully stupid or purposely naive. Both sides of politics have fitted their policies to suit the wishes of the Murdoch empire.  From all first-hand accounts, he didn’t even have to ask.
Even though Murdoch has print running in his veins, he is astute enough to realise that he also needs to control other media outlets. Apart from owning 70 per cent of all newspapers in Australia, he is now planning to also own 100 per cent of Fox Sports and 50 per cent of Foxtel. Would you call that a monopoly?
All of commercial talk radio and television dances to his tune and even the ABC has been known to curtsy lately. And he is worth only $8 billion; just imagine what power Gina Rinehart could wield with her $28 billion and growing empire.
Between them they could soon own every major media outlet in the country, and in a few years she could own them all. Given the way in which governments bend their policies to accommodate them now, imagine what the future would look like.
So why wouldn’t a government legislate to prevent this happening? Because it wouldn’t be a government for long.
 As the British historian Lord Acton wrote: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Rinehart doesn’t even have to pretend she is interested in newspapers or television stations intent on producing balanced, quality journalism. So what if they publish what she wants and they go broke? It’s just her lunch money she playing with. Whatever happens, it will be her way or the highway.
And where is democracy in all this? Don’t we get a say? Of course we do but who will make the average Australian informed enough and aware enough about what could happen when both controlling media corporations are run by two people determined to tell us what we should be thinking and who we should be voting for.  Dissenting voices will be heard or read only on the margins of the media. This is not democracy as we have known it.
It’s true the Murdoch empire has taken a recent hit but it hasn’t been terminal. It is also true that Rupert Murdoch is no longer young. Gina Rinehart is at least 30 years younger than him and at least three times wealthier. Her foray into media moguldom has only just begun. Wait until she really sinks her teeth into it.
It’s not the changes in technology that are killing newspapers as we have known them.  We have seen what the monopoly of Coles and Woolworths has done to grocery prices. Just wait until Rupert and Gina rule our media.
This is why she is the most dangerous woman in Australia, if not ultimately the world.
susanmitchell.com.au

Murdoch's News Corp. "contempt" for rules.

As reported in InDaily 6.3.2012 www.indaily.com.au/

The corporate culture of Murdoch’s News Corporation is a based on contempt for rules and contempt for governments, a new Australian assessment of Murdoch says.

David McKnight, in his book “Rupert Murdoch: An investigation of political power”, says the culture bred the recent UK phone hacking scandal.

“[The] scandal came about because Murdoch, in the words of one of his editors, has contempt for the rules and contempt for government,” says McKnight, a Senior Research Fellow at the Journalism and Media Research Centre at the University of NSW.

The book tracks Murdoch’s influence, from his support for Reagan and Thatcher to his attacks on Barack Obama and the Rudd and Gillard governments in Australia.

“His politics are those of the US Republican Right and have been ever since he fell in love with Ronald Reagan, McKnight says.

“His philosophy is one of small government and deregulation – yet on the other hand he has openly supported the two US presidents most responsible for blowing out the public debt.

McKnight says News Corp has a secretive corporate culture and cites as evidence private political seminars for editors, sponsorship of think-tanks, support for neo-conservative military adventures like Iraq, and editorial campaigns to attempt to discredit climate science.

“His newspapers have become the main outlet for climate denial in Australia.

“While he once briefly accepted the science of climate change, in a recent speech he indicated his own thought that climate change “has a lot more to do with the activities of the sun”, which is a standard denialist position.”

McKnight, also an associate researcher at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation [CCI], is the author of three books on contemporary politics, recent Australian history and international espionage.

Labor Values gone wrong

Minister Mark Butler

Member for Port Adelaide

Fax 8242 0744

Dear Mark,

Yes, I was disappointed in Kevin Rudd’s mid term slump as Prime Minister.

However, I do believe it is not “Labor Values” to dump a sitting PM.

In my opinion and obviously the opinion of the majority of Labor voters, he should have been given the opportunity to take Labor to the 2010 election.

To say that Gillard’s woes are because Kevin Rudd is destabilising the government is nonsense.

Gillard’s continual poor polling (polls reflect us they are not just a set of numbers) is because the electorate can not forgive her for the manner in which she took the job of PM.

The fact that we now suffer a minority government in a hung parliament was the only way the electorate could show its disgust in the ousting of Rudd.

This long term instability is the legacy of that treachery.

It is not “Labor Values” to oust a sitting Labor Prime Minister.

It is un-Australian to not give him a “fair go” and take Labor to the federal election. But the power brokers did it, because they thought they would lose the 2010 election.

It is Rudd who defeated 12 years of Howard government.

It is unforgivable in my mind what you did to Rudd. And the electorate shows its disgust daily.

This wrong can only be righted in the minds of the broad community by electing Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister if he choses to stand on Monday 27^th February 2012.

As my local member, I therefore request that as my representative, you give your support to Kevin Rudd.

Anything else will see the Labor government annihilated at the 2013 federal elections.

If Rudd wins, I am sure he will call a snap election, he will win it handsomely and dangerous Tony Abbott, will be relegated to the history books as Dr. NO never being Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely,

Kerry Seebohm

News Group media and their NewsFORCE reader submitted pics and video.

Dear readers,

For many weeks now, I have questioned the "innovation" called NewsFORCE by News Group newspapers such as Advertiser and its AdelaideNow website. It asks readers to send in 'news' video and pictures for publication, possibly encouraging criminal activity.

Last year a train carriage was set on fire in Port Pirie and a reader took a photo and sent it to The Advertiser, which promptly published the fiery scene under the NewsFORCE banner.
I wrote to The Advertiser and AdelaideNow editors, suggesting this notoriety could encourage copy cat activity. Of course I did not receive a reply.

Now we see on the AdelaideNow website http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ , video submitted by a reader, of a hoon driver spinning his tyres, almost losing control on a number of occasions.
It was dangerous and there were people standing close by, filming the event.
AdelaideNow have published this footage with their NewsFORCE logo watermarked on the vision. They would know who submitted the video. Hence surely they would also be aware of the means to identity the driver? Did The Advertiser contact the Police? NewsFORCE is in my opinion, encouraging the less stable in our society, to "create news" and then submit vision of it.

PS: AdelaideNow removed the hoon video from its website within minutes of me emailing them and the media in general of my opinion on this subject.

Jenny Bell on asylum seekers

A brave Australian woman, understanding the difference between Immigration and religious fervor in modern Australia....
The Veteran community has endorsed the sentiments.

The Silent majority...

This was written by Mrs. Jenny Bell of South Australia to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.
It has received wide circulation in Australia and overseas.

To Julia Gillard (Prime Minister) & Tony Abbott (Leader of the Opposition) ...

You BOTH Worry me! ( In fact both of your Political parties worry the hell out of me !!!)

Over the last three years, I find myself becoming more and more fearful of the pair of you, and between you, you are turning this country into a place that I no longer feel at home in, or feel a part of! I watch you in parliament, and no, not just the two of you, but every politician that I see, stand up in parliament sneering at each other, and acting like children !!! (..and if you were my children, I would be ashamed of you all ... What an example to set!)

Although, you would like us all to believe that you are putting the needs of this country at the forefront, NEITHER of you are doing that, you seem more interested in "one-up-manship ", in scoring off each other, & denigrating each other, to the detriment of this country & its people !!! It seems to be all about YOU as individuals, and not about what you can DO for this country ! It is fast becoming a place that I do not recognize, as the place I always thought, was the best place in the world to be !!!

But no longer !!!

You are not listening to the people of this country !!! And here in South Australia , your counterparts are afflicted with the same disease - is it endemic in all politicians ?

I am watching the deterioration of living standards in this country, (and according to you, on a world stage we are doing better than most countries ... REALLY ???) ... And yet the gap is widening between the "haves" and the "have-nots" . I see our homeless on the streets, our hospitals under-funded, and understaffed, our health system is an absolute mess and a disgrace ... And yet I see multi-millions of dollars being sent off shore, in aid to other countries, before attending to this country's needs !

I see the "selling off of the farm", in large amounts, to foreign interests, (In Every State ) including water rights to foreign interests too .... And WHY...? Especially when you go to great lengths to tell us that water is a finite resource, & supposedly, we must ALL be careful with how we use it, so that we ensure we have it for the future ?

Foreign interests "Fracking" for coal seam gas, and riding rough shod over farmers' rights to their own land, AND USING QUESTIONABLE CHEMICALS. (You don't even KNOW what chemicals they use), and possibly causing damage to the water table in the process !!! And those foreign interests I believe, do NOT have to pay anything in royalties back to this country, for the first five years of their tenure ... IS THIS CORRECT ???

A Carbon Tax,( which you KNOW is just another tax with a "Starting Point dollar value") which will make NO appreciable difference, to carbon emissions, AT ALL!

A tax, which in spite of all your arguments FOR it, you are doing alone, when other major countries will NOT & DO NOT embrace it, or believe in it ! All that it will do for this country is put working families and small businesses behind the eight ball, .....what planet are you on, if you think that your few hundred dollars a year, will make even a scrap of difference to the effect of the carbon tax on people ?Blind Freddy can see the holes in that argument !!! Do you really think we are that dumb ???

The CONVOY OF NO CONFIDENCE was real !!! ..and I haven't spoken to even ONE person, who would not have liked to be there if they could, but the tyranny of distance and /or work was the only thing that kept them away, ( myself included ), .. and you KNOW that only a part of the convoy was actually allowed to be in front of Parliament house and ON VIEW ... the rest were streets away, unreported by the media !

For Mr Albanese to stand up in parliament, and call it "THE CONVOY OF NO CONSEQUENCE ", in his sneering tone, shows just how out of touch with the people of Australia , you really are!!!! WE WOULD HAVE ALL LIKED TO BE THERE !!!

DEFENCE ........ Because Americans are our Allies, and we support them in Wars, ......... Korea , Vietnam , Iraq , Afghanistan , ..... and you have sent our soldiers to those places, and our soldiers fought for you, and for Australia ........ some coming home with terrible physical injuries, and some with devastating Mental Injuries as well ... BUT WHERE ARE YOU, WHEN THEY NEED YOU ?????

Veteran's Indexation to CPI only is a disgrace ... and is something YOUR Labor party Julia, used as an election sweetener, to get the Veteran's Vote ... BUT YOU LIED (Again)! You never had any intention of honouring your election promise to them ... and it WILL come back to bite you at the next election !!!! (And Tony, Liberals were NO BETTER, Howard had more than

10 years to "fix it " and didn't !)

Veterans are not alone, they have families, friends and supporters, who are heartily sick of the deception your party perpetrated on them ....AND THEY ALL VOTE !!! THEY are your obligation, first and foremost ..... and it is not your first obligation to give aid to every man and his dog overseas first !!! Look after your own FIRST !!!! Is this what you call SALUTING THEIR SERVICE ???

Have you any idea , how sickening it is for our Vets to see you both, ( Labor or Liberal ) turn up to the funerals of our current young vets for a photo opportunity, to be seen to be "caring " in the public eye, but only to turn your backs on them all, when they need you ??? (Just ask Breanna Till an Afghanistan Soldier's wife, how CARING this government is !!!)

And in light of what you DON'T do for our Vets .......Let's talk about Multiculturalism ......People have come here from other countries, for a better life, for more years than I have been alive ( I am 65 years old !) ... my own family migrated here in 1883, from Germany , and did find a better life ... Pre & Post war immigrants have came for a better life, and settled in and became wonderful contributors to this country, as did those who came here after the Vietnam War, ... all have contributed to the rich diversity of this country, and some descendants have even fought FOR this country, and they have become Australians and were glad to be ..and they had NO handouts from our Government either, ...they worked hard for everything!

I have never before had a problem with all, or any, race of immigrants coming here ... .......However , I DO NOW !!!

Please tell me why we have areas like Lakemba, where police do NOT, & will NOT go, for fear of their life ?

Please tell me why we can no longer have religion in schools, for fear of "OFFENDING" someone ? (The latest little gem is that they are not having, or being funded, for "chaplains " any more , but "Counsellors "?)

Please tell me why religious Christmas observances are no longer allowed in some schools for fear of OFFENDING someone ?

Please tell me HOW Christmas decorations in some stores might OFFEND someone ?

Please tell me why we have to have segregated days in some swimming centres, for fear of "OFFENDING" someone ?

Please tell me why we have some RADICAL clerics demanding Sharia Law in this country ... when if we were in THEIR country, this would NEVER be allowed ?

Please tell me why our laws need to be changed, so as not to OFFEND someone ?

Please tell me why we are fast becoming a MINORITY voice, in our own country, because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ? Please tell me WHY Australians cannot legally wear a face covering bike helmet into a bank ..and yet it is ok to wear a Burqa which covers the whole face ?

And please tell me WHY, when those people who want asylum here, can wreck our detention centres, as in Villawood , and STILL be accepted here ?

SO , in light of the above, WILL BOTH OF YOU ......Please tell me WHY, when some of our Vietnam Veterans FINALLY received (in the last 6 months) the recognition that they should have had after the Vietnam War, (and which they received from the USA & South Vietnam, during and immediately after the Vietnam War), that the families of those Veterans, were refused assistance by this Government, to attend that award ceremony, and yet this Government ....flew , accommodated , and even took on bus tours , to the the families of asylum seekers, after the funerals of those who were killed in the boat which sunk off Christmas Island ?

What does that say, about just who are this government's priorities ?

The Australian people that I speak to have genuine concerns about becoming a second class minority in our own country, and the reasons for it, are some of the above, ..... Are you so blind that you cannot see this ?

And no , I am NOT racist !!!..(if I did not like Catholics or Protestants would I be considered racist ?) Of course not !

Why is it, that if we object to what is happening in our country ... we are immediately labelled RACIST, in an attempt to shut us up ?

We are fighting Radical Muslims, in Afghanistan & Iraq , are we not ?I hear you say, yes but the Muslims we have here are "Not like that " .. well how would we know ? ...do we hear ANY of them coming out & speaking AGAINST radicals ??

I haven't ...have you ???

Islam is not compatible with ANY of the values that we hold here in Australia ! .....Are not the experiences of Britain , France , and the Netherlands an example of that? Why do you think it would be any different here ? We even have an Australian born "radical ", whose message is that Australia WILL become a Muslim country, under Sharia Law, & that we had "better get used to it ".

Will both of you grow some "Balls ", and start sticking up for this country and its people ???

We are the people who put you where you are, and PAY you to look after our interests ! ... And you are NOT doing that, by any stretch of the imagination !!!

I would appreciate an answer, from both of you, if only to convince me that once again, I am not talking to a brick wall !!!!!

In case it has escaped both of you ...I would like to remind you that, in Australia the Government ... is FOR THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE, & BY THE PEOPLE ... never forget that......because you sure have up till now !!!

Mrs Jenny Bell
20 Helene St,

Nuriootpa S.A.