Surrender Your Land To Us Or Die. Resistance Is Futile And Harmful To Your Life

Thanks to John Ray for putting this up...

'Communist' Zimbabwe Steals All Farmland: Genocidal left-wing dictator Robert Mugabe, who has already turned Zimbabwe from a breadbasket into a basket case, announced today that he was taking all remaining farmland he hasn't already stolen.

"There shall be no such thing as private land," decreed John Nkomo, minister of "land reform," who apparently never heard about similar catastrophic "reforms" imposed by the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Cuba and other communist dictatorships.

The regime will not "waste time and money" in disputes on seizures of farms whose owners hold deeds and other legal documents, Nkomo said. "Ultimately all land shall be resettled as state property."

Even black families who in recent years were handed once-successful farms stolen from murdered whites will lose "their" land.

John Robertson, an economist in Harare, rejected the dictatorship's claim that leases doled out and sold by the regime would serve as collateral for farmers to obtain supplies.

"The banks aren't going to lend to an individual against a lease that belongs to the state. It doesn't work that way. You can't borrow on the strength of something you don't own," he said.

"It is a very big step away from a market economy to the communist-style command economy of state control of the factors of production."

The Stalinesque Mugabe once admitted planning to starve millions of those opposing his dictatorship. Stealing every farm in the nation will be a huge boost to that scheme.

And in a recent interview telecast by BBC, Mugabe had the nerve to call Tony Blair a dictator. A claim which went unchallenged by the BBC's reporter.

This story broke on June 8. WHERE is the outcry from the "champion of the people" left? WHERE is the outcry from the Greens? WHERE is the outcry from the mass media? This news is HUGE. We have, at this very moment in time, a murderous dictator systematically taking control of privately owned property right in front of our very eyes. And not a peep out of anyone. The United Nations is "quiet as usual". Nelson Mandela is silent. Everyone, it seems, and especially those who thump their chests at how much in favor of human rights they are, is not saying anything about it.

So what will now happen to Zimbabwe?

Economically, they will go down the gurgler. Glug glug glug they will go. Because no-one owns land anymore, no-one will be able to get a loan. The banks will not lend money without collateral - and land you don't own but are allowed to live on, is not collateral (if the bank had to take it they would be taking it from the government, and they can't do that). Expecting otherwise would be expecting the bank to lend you money on a house you rent. And no bank on the planet will ever do that.

With no money being lent, investment and civic projects will come to a grinding halt. Those employed in the construction business will be out of work. No work means no money. No money means no spending. Retail stores will likewise begin to flounder. Even close. More people will be out of work. Economic collapse complete. Next.

Latham Threat To Australia's Security

GOLD COAST - In news much kept quiet by the mass media, it has come to light that opposition leader Mark Latham is a threat to Australia's self defense and security.

Part of this is obvious and based on his words that HE would bring the troops in Iraq home as soon as possible - by Christmas as he likes to say. He would have us do a "cut and run" on our strongest military ally. Never mind that the whole concept of being an ally means sticking together.

And part based on his recent action of bringing the wealthy and staunch anti-American environmentalist come anti-nuclear power come pro worker come pro-Abo, former Midnight Oil singer Peter Garrett, into the party. When the leader of a party enlists the help of a staunch loud-mouthed anti-American, it gives our friend, the U.S.A., a clear and present message.

In response to Latham's protestations, the U.S. has today made it quite clear that if Latham is elected they will not be sharing as much intelligence with us any more.

And, quite frankly, who can blame them. Latham has already voiced his disdain for America. He is also a self-confessed socialist. And it could easily be surmised that information provided to him would very quickly find its way into the hands of more-extreme enemies of the U.S.

This means, Mark Latham is a direct threat to the security of Australia. His very presence in office puts our alliance in jeopardy. And a win for his party would pretty well end said alliance. We would become an isolated nation like New Zealand.

Not only would we suffer from a security point of view, we would also suffer from an economic point of view. As America would NOT continue to do business with a country who is not an ally. And certainly not one who had basically told them to get stuffed. We would find ourselves being boycotted just like France.

And in a move which can only be seen as pandering to the left, the free to air mass media were not all over the story of the U.S. not sharing as much intelligence if Latham is elected. As Latham winning office would result in a reduced security and self defense ability to the country, this is something the Australian public has a right - in fact a need - to know. So now the mass media is guilty of gross negligence.

Hopefully, however, word will still spread. And mayhaps the public will awaken from Latham slumber.

Winning At Any Cost

The left (yes, another left rant) seem to have this habit of saying one thing today, then doing the next thing tomorrow; of overturning their claimed beliefs and stances at the drop of a hat; if it serves the "common good" of the party.

Look at Peter Garrett's joining of the ALP. The day before he accepted the offer, ALP members were outraged. One grey-haired polly particularly so. Mainly because Garrett was NOT an existing party member and had not "served his time" within the rank and file of the party. If he would become the "rep" for the area it would mean he was jumping the queue.

The day Garrett accepted the position, that same outspoken polly was full of praise for Garrett.

How does a person change their opinion 180 degrees in 24 hours?

It cannot happen.

A polly who believes in "serving your time" and "slowly progressing up the ladder of political achievement", cannot suddenly think a queue-jumping person who has NEVER been a member of the party in the party's history, is the right person for the job. And any praise they offer is a lie!

It is a reflection of the underlying nature of a person when they can just so flippantly change their view so radically overnight. How can anything THAT polly ever says at any time from now on until his career is over, be believed by anyone but the "la la la, I'm not listening" party faithful?

Any person with a modicum of common sense can see right through the outraged polly's behavior. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see right through Latham's effort at trying to garner votes from the Garrett loving environmentalist brigade as well as the dopey fans of Garrett's old band Midnight Oil. Latham doesn't have to worry about the Abos because they would vote for the ALP anyway. So bringing Garrett, an Abo "I'm sorry" sympathizer, on board was not for the Abo vote.

It says to me that a party is getting desperate to "win at any cost" when they have to drag a well-known singer and lobbyist into their party.

And what of Garrett? How can he just up and change his beliefs like so? He has joined a party that has many policies he is diametrically opposed to. And yet, he has joined them.

This shows the depth that these people will sink to just to try to get power. They are willing to throw their claimed beliefs out the nearest window as long as they can get power. It also shows that everything they have ever claimed to stand for, has been a bold faced lie. Forget their claims of wanting to help "Australians." They just want power and will say and do anything to get it. We can never believe anything these pollies say, ever again. Judge them by their actions and not their words.

What they say and what they do are two completely different things. And it is a sad state of affairs when this kind of thing from the left does not come as a surprise to us.

If Greenies Existed Way Back When

A recent turn of events in NSW has given rise to an interesting question that needs to be asked.

Recently, under pressure from the human hating Greenies, the premier of NSW "rezoned" land that had been ear-marked as a possible site of a new dam to increase water supply. Without having any idea of an alternative site for a dam, he has tossed aside the chance to provide more water to Australia's largest city. What foolhardiness is this?

What if the Greenies had been around for the last hundred or so years?

We would have no Cataract dam, no Avon dam, no Warragamba dam. The city of Sydney would, in effect, not have been built to preserve the precious fresh water stream known as "The Tank Stream" which the early settlers used for fresh water.

The city of the Gold Coast would not be anywhere near as large. In fact, it wouldn't exist because much of the land the city is built on is reclaimed land. Reclaimed sand bars, sand banks, sand islands, mangrove swamps, mud flats and so on. All of it, I presume, the habitat of some insignificant insect not seen anywhere else on the planet.

And there certainly would be no Hinze dam to supply water to all the people living on the Gold Coast. In fact, there would be no dams anywhere because dams result in large areas of land going underwater. And that land is certainly home to some little creature we should all respect, right?

We would also actually not even have homes to live in. Because homes require wood, and chopping down a tree might not be good for trees, or the things which live in trees. Clothes? Forget it. That requires cotton farming. But the land must be cleared first and that could result in some poor bush mouse needing to move elsewhere.

But the Greenies forgot to tell the animals. Because a top a high power electricity structure - the type of structure that looks like the frame work of a large robot - is a HUGE nest of some kind of eagle, around where I live. I wonder if the Greenies will now require us to pass laws protecting large metal structures because birds nest on them?

You know, I wouldn't mind the Greenies so much if they practiced what they preached. If they feel so strongly about natural environments, why don't they raze their house to the ground and let nature reclaim it. Lead by example.

Of course that will never happen. That's because Greenies don't give a toss about the environment. They simply use that as an excuse to garner some kind of control over the rest of us.

And as I wrote previously, I welcome any contact from a Greenie who can extol their virtues and SHOW ME how they are actually doing what they want others to do. So Greenies, please write me because I have some questions I would like you to answer. (If any Greenies do write - and I seriously doubt they will - I reserve the right to put the contents of any email on this site for others to see. You will, of course, stay anonymous.)

Other things we would not have if Greenies had been around way back when: cars, roads, heating (electricity comes from burning coal, and coal has to be mined - double bad one this), electricity, any forged metals or alloys (and thus no surgical instruments nor machines to help monitor patients or keep people alive while they recover from accidents and illness), no computers (no metal allowed, no plastic allowed, no electricity), no electronic banking, no record keeping (even paper has to come from trees).

If Greenies has been around way back when, we would all be walking around in the nude sleeping on open ground (can't live in a cave in case an animal wants to live in it, or already does live in it). Of course, if the Greenies were around way back when, the sensible people would have bumped them off. Remember survival of the fittest? And that humans are the TOP of the everything chain.

What's Your Bent?

Left. Right. Control. Freedom. We all have a political bent that we tend towards. And during elections we will vote for the party that most closely matches out individual political persuasion. (Although some people vote for a politician for silly reasons. Such as what Madonna said of Wesley Clarke, "I think he would be good with people.")

People also don't want to know the truth. And any politician who told the truth would be committing political suicide.

So we end up with a system where we vote for politicians who "say" things that fit more closely with our internal standards and codes of conduct. And because politicians are trying to appeal to the widest audience, most politicians are pretty center with a leaning to either side. Anything else will lose the votes of the centrist public (the swing voters) and won't see a polly elected.

But how do people view themselves and is that view accurate?

Years ago while chatting online, the person I was chatting to said I was what was called a "libertarian." I checked out the libertarian party website and pretty well agreed with it.

Time travel to today. I just discovered a small and quick quiz to help you determine what your true political leaning is. I took the quiz and according to it, I am a Libertarian. Ahhh... I feel so much better now I know what to call myself hehe.

Anyway. Take the test yourself by going here. And have you husband/wife also take the quiz, without knowing what your result was. Then compare results. You might find it interesting.

For those that wonder just what a libertarian is:

To quote Roderick Long

The most succinct formulation of libertarianism I can think of is this: Other people are not your property.

In other words: They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of.

It doesn't matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you'd like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them - nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf.

To read the full article go here.

And this reminds me of a conversation I had with someone about the new "can't smoke in clubs and pubs" law. In essence, they were for the law and I was against it.

They were for it because it would mean they wouldn't have to subject themselves to a smokey environment the occasional time they went out.

I was against it because, as a business owner, how dare anyone tell me how I can and cannot run my business and who I can and cannot allow into my business. I am of the view, I never forced you into my club to mingle with the smokers. YOU decided to come in of your own free will. If YOU didn't like it, YOU shouldn't have come in.

They pointed out how the numbers showed no drop off in business. I pointed out WHERE those "no drop in business" numbers came from and that the actual Association of Restaurant Owners (or whatever it is called) revealed a dramatic decline in business to the point of restaurants, pubs and clubs having to close their doors.

IF the situation was left to its own devices, the Profit Motive would have come in and saved the day as certain entrepreneurial individuals opened "Non Smoking" Restaurants for all the non-smokers to go to whenever they wanted to go out.

It also reminded me of the time a teenager from Melbourne (Australia's second largest city) went to Sydney (Australia's largest and most polluted city) for a vacation. This Chronic Asthma sufferer CHOSE to vacation in the country's most heavily polluted city. She then chose to go to the heart of said city. And she then chose to enter a pub filled with people smoking. No-one forced her into any of this. She did everything of her own free will, while totally aware of her congenital breathing problem.

As you can guess, her lungs rebelled at this assault SHE subjected them to and she had an attack. After the attack she sued the pub!? Incredulously, she won! (what the fuck?) And that pub was forced to become a non-smoking pub.

What makes this even more ridiculous is, she subsequently went back to Melbourne where she came from.

So in short, a person who knew of a medical condition, willingly and fully aware of the consequences of their actions, put themselves into a situation that aggravated their medical condition. They then blamed the establishment for their body's reaction and made them change the way they conducted business, also knowing full well that they would never be going back there again, nor be visiting the city again in the foreseeable future. Thus, the change the establishment had to now make, was to satisfy a person who would never be back there again.

THAT kind of thing is typical lefty stuff. Look at me, I made someone change to satisfy me. It wasn't my fault. Everyone should bow down to my whims. Aren't I so important. Aren't I such a good person for saving everyone from the bad bad smoke.

IF this person had been a regular patron of the business, then there might be a case for ASKing the business to change its rules. After all, as a business your REGULAR customers are the ones you need to listen to to improve. Because what your customers REQUEST is what will make them keep coming back, and make you more money.

But this person was NOT a regular. This was the first time she had been to the city and likewise to that business. AND she didn't ASK them to change, she imposed her desires onto the business whether the business liked it or not. She thus infringed on the business owners right of what to do with their own possessions. As the snippet from the article said... People are not yours to boss around. Their lives (and businesses) are not yours to micromanage.

In a similar vein there is the Poofs vs Business Owner thing which happened recently. Basically, some homos wanted some stuff printed. The printer, exercising his right to choose who he wants as a customer, refused to take on the poofs job. They sued him... and won!

It seems the homo-brigade can boycott anyone they want, but don't dare anyone boycott them. Otherwise they sue you. Of course, they are merely exercising their right to do business with whomever they please. But you aren't allowed to exercise that same right. Oh no. You, my little pork chop, have to bow and scrape to the whining liberals. The same ones who want to infringe upon your right to have a cigarette, while forcing you to put up with heroin injecting rooms near schools. The same ones who want to take a child away from its mother because she smacked it, while helping a school girl get a growing baby scraped out of her womb without letting the mother know.

Again, we need to get the word out: People are not yours to boss around. Their lives (and businesses) are not yours to micromanage.

If you are a lefty and you are reading this, please write me and let me know your take on the no smoking in clubs thing. Please write me and let me know why its not ok for someone to have a cigarette but it is ok to have a heroin injecting room near a school. Please write me and let me know why you want rules placed upon others while simultaneously not wanting those same kinds of rules placed upon you.

I'm serious. Let me know why it is ok for you to force a business to alter the way it functions to satisfy your whim, while you won't simply choose to take your business elsewhere? Why the business has to be mindful of you while it is fine and dandy for you not to be mindful of the business. Please let me know. And please provide supporting arguments. Don't just give me "because it's fair" garbage. Back it up with solid "why" arguments. Why it is fair? Elaborate.

And note: when you do write - if you write, which I somehow doubt - I reserve the right to put your writing up on this website (anonymously, of course).

Danny Glover Scumbag

I have no respect for actor Danny Glover. Not because of politics. But because of his staunch anti-gun stance while making millions of dollars from movies involving violence with guns. In short, his personal convictions are obviously for sale to the highest bidder.

But now mister hypocrite has sunk to an all time low. And I now view him as big a scumbag as that ugly fat white man Michael Moore. Why? Because of Ronald Reagan's death Glover said this...

We all know Reagan's legacy, from the Iran-Contra affair to the funding of the Nicaraguan military in which over 200,000 people died. The groundwork for the move steadily to the right happened with the Reagan administration. People want to elevate him to some mythic level; they have their own reason for doing that.

This hypocrite can't even show one of the world's greatest leaders of the 20th century (if not THE greatest leader) a simple common courtesy of not saying anything bad about him moments after his death.

For his total lack of common decency I hereby award Danny "The Hypocrite Shithead" Glover the Golden Golly Award (it's a lovely shade of mucus green) for snotface of the year.

I'm Lazy. Give Me Money

Got a knock on the door today from some stranger asking for money to help buy a wheelchair for some person who is in hospital after a car hit him while he was on his bicycle.

I had no idea who this bike rider was and before the stranger could tell me I told him "I don't give money to people who come knocking on my door." He closed his little pitch book - which had a couple of photos of someone all banged up in a hospital bed - and walked off.

The episode prompted a series of thoughts. Namely, here is a guy spending untold hours and effort, walking the suburbs asking people to give him money so he can buy a wheelchair for someone. How much money would he accumulate if he spent the same time in gainful employment? How much money is needed anyway? Surely a wheelchair isn't that expensive.

Googling for wheelchairs I discovered you can get your stock standard folding wheelchair for $169. And the price increases gradually as you go up the quality ladder (quality usually meaning made of lighter material) until you get to the top of the line folding wheelchair for $752.

These prices are NOT out of the realm of someone to afford by exchanging their hours for money in gainful employment. But what about electric wheelchairs?

I found electric wheelchairs from $1,995. And, there is 100% financing on ALL electric wheelchairs. So a person doesn't even need a deposit and they can pay off an electric wheelchair over time.

As these wheelchairs can be paid off, it is also not outside the realm of someone to pay off the wheelchair through their efforts of gainful employment.

What about if they already work during the day?

First, surely everyone has a spare $169 right? And with 100% financing of the electrics, there really is no excuse.

But on the slim chance that all available income is spoken for and there are no prospects of doing overtime, then a second job should be had. I know for a fact, Cleanevent is ALWAYS looking for people to help clean the sporting stadiums after the games. And at $18.96 an hour, a weekend of 9 hours (4.5 hours at two stadiums) would generate $170.64 in income. Thus, the cheaper wheelchair could be bought for one weekend's work and the electric for 12 weekend's worth of work.

Did this person get off their ass to work - thus creating value - to raise the money?

No. They tried to con it out of other value-producing people. They could have spent the time that they spent trying to con money out of people, in productive value-creating work cleaning a stadium, for example. Instead, they chose to be a leech and con the money out of others.

I say con, even if the money was truly going to go towards a wheelchair, because that is exactly what it is: conning you out of the fruits of your labor so they can benefit and so they don't have to do any work themselves.

And this says nothing of hiring a wheelchair. Which is even cheaper still.

But this attitude is nothing new. Why just last week out local newspaper ran a sob-story about a woman whose computer went on the fritz. And now her daughter can't use the computer to learn stuff and is stuck watching TV in the afternoon after school.

HEY! Instead of watching telly, why isn't she out doing odd jobs to earn money to buy a new (second hand) computer? Why isn't the mother doing weekend work to raise the measly $300 or $400 a second hand computer costs?

Instead, these people want to sponge of the fruits of other people's labor and have things handed to them. I have no time for such people who complain to the public about their lot in life, and who won't lift a finger to help themselves.

The Smart Dumb State

Everyone knows the government is inept at getting things done. Politicians comes up with ideas, command an underling to "make it so" and then spend the rest of their tenure trying to fix a problem they will never admit to having created in the first place. At every step of the way a new law or addition to an existing law is implemented and more people employed in the useless pursuit of the new directive. So when all is said and done, no matter what is said and done, no-one will be responsible if things go wrong and more people will be employed in waste-of-time tasks.

From the files of Silly Government Initiatives comes this:

Our state leader has implemented a program to help technology poor and technology illiterate community groups (those who don't have computers, internet access, and/or know how to use computers or the internet) become technology savvy. By going through the program the community groups will be able to get computers, access the internet and learn how to use computers and the internet.

Sounds good right? Your typical lefty government spending money taken from value producing members of society and giving it to value leeching members of society. Of course, it's made out to be the usual "helping the disadvantaged" thing.

Anyway. The problem is that someone, somewhere has left their brain behind. Because to apply for the program, the technology poor and illiterate (those without computers and those who don't know how to use them or how to use the internet), have to get online, go to a website and fill in an online application form.

It doesn't seemed to have dawned on our oh so clever Pollies, who like to call our state "The Smart State", that if someone has a computer and is able to use it to get online to fill in the application form, then they don't need the program which will give them a computer and teach them how to get online.

Of course, what will happen is, the program will be launched. People will need to be employed to run the program and do the teaching. A new government department will be created. And the state leader will then boast how he created jobs. Never mind the fact he just increased the size of government by implementing a program designed to help people but which is accessible only to those who don't need the help.

Oh well. What more can one expect from lefty politicians? All smoke and mirrors with no substance.