The Corbett Report prepared this video (split into three brief segments for YouTube).

It should be compulsory viewing for all politicians as a corrective to their daily dose of disinformation on the subject via  the mass media.

The real secret about Al Qaida is a shocker!

Al Qaida doesn’t really exist…

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Is the Gillard Government really planning to force Australian ISPs to retain logs detailing individual Internet usage for several years?

It sounds too surreal to be true. Yet this latest push by a Government dragging Australia fast towards Orwellian hell has been a matter of public knowledge – and some debate – for a while. So far, official denials have not been convincing.

Mandatory Data Retention: 10% of the Government's plans are public

Rumours first surfaced months ago of secret meetings convened by the Attorney General’s Department, in which ISPs were consulted about ways to monitor internet usage.

In June, the story made headlines, at least in Australia’s IT  media. The ripple of coverage began on June 11th with Ben Grubb’s article in Zdnet.com.au: Govt wants ISPs to record browsing history. There was a follow-up article in Zdnet by Renai LeMay a few days later: Govt denies it wants web history records. News Corps’ Brett Winterford was considerably more reassuring – see Call for calm over data retention talks – although it’s interesting to note an acerbic debate with Ben Grubb in comments below that article.

By the end of June, Liz Tay was reporting that the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts has been given a reference to investigate the adequacy of Australian online privacy protections: see Feds launch online privacy inquiry.

Laurie Oakes: likes a leak

The minor curfuffle over Laurie Oakes’ latest leak revelation – coming fast on the heels of Chris Uhlmann’s leak expose following Oakes’ previously announced leak – has obscured the really big leak which this blog is proud to bring to a breathless Australian public.

It’s a world exclusive.

Chris Uhlmann: ABC leak expert

According to an anonymous Canberra insider, Australian Opposition leader Tony Abbott recently told a top-secret meeting of his election team to avoid discussing the Gillard Government’s Internet censorship plans.

“The Coalition would love to gain extra votes by opposing this irrational, authoritarian and highly unpopular Labor policy – but Abbott’s high-level contacts in the mass media and security agencies told him to shut up and conform” the source explained, on condition of  anonymity.

Abbott apparently urged his colleagues to “get elected!”

[Laurie Joakes and Chris Buhllman are senior member of the highly respected Canberra Press Gallery with virtually unlimited credibility]

When growth within living organisms is exponential it’s often described as cancerous.

ASIO budget growth 2001-2009

On that basis, the growth of Australia’s internal ‘intelligence agency’ has become a fully-feldged cancer over the last decade.

More than a year ago, Bernard Keane reported in the independent Australian news website Crikey that the annual budget of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation grew from “$60m at the state of the decade to nearly $300m in the final Howard Government budget”.

The graph, reproduced here from Keane’s original article on Crikey, shows the picture clearly.

Expecting to see some decrease since then – or at least a stabilisation of this sky-rocketing budget – I did a quick desktop search today. The most recent relevant document I could find is a Parliamentary Paper entitled Budget 2010–11: Security Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and related intelligence issues by Nigel Brew. Here are two brief extracts:

After several years of receiving regular annual increases to its budget and experiencing rapid, significant growth in staff numbers under a planned expansion program stemming from the 2005 (Taylor) Review of ASIO Resourcing, ASIO’s overall budget has again increased (from $427 million in 2009–10 to a total of some $717 million this year) as the program enters its final phase…

Here’s a brief extract – consisting of a few sourced quotations – from the webpage on the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth website entitled WTC 7 Gallery of Evidence:

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition“

The near-freefall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: “Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.“

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: “WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

With the dust of 9-11 long-settled – the drama of that day now nine years in the past – things become clearer.

Dr Niels Harrit: a latter-day Copernicus

We live in a world of two principal political paradigms, locked in competition.

One paradigm attempts to explain the most crucial event in recent history with an open mind.

It concludes that the 9-11 atrocities could not have been carried out, as alleged, by marginalised terrorists on the fringe of power.

Consideration of a single aspect of 9-11 alone – the collapse of the THREE world trade centre towers – leads any open minded observer, once appraised of the basic facts, to conclude the official narrative is bogus.

The almost inevitable conclusion to be drawn by such an intelligent open-minded observer, once persuaded that 9-11 was carried out by perpetrators other than ’19 Islamic extremists’, is that agents of the State of Israel played the crucial role in perpetrating the 9-11 atrocity.

As in many a classic whodunit novel, the main accuser turns out to be the villain all along. The first-accused were victims of a frame-up. In the language of our era, 9-11 was a ‘false-flag’ operation: a Zionist false-flag operation.

The other paradigm is that the 9-11 Commission was broadly correct, that the collapsed World Trade Centre buildings fell as a result of fuel fires triggered by plane crashes into the twin towers – and that the perpetrators of the attacks were indeed Islamic extremists, members of an organisation called ‘Al Qaida’ under the direction of a villainous Islamic extremist, Osama Bin Laden.

The symbolism reflects the reality.

This evening, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott will come face to face in the leaders’ debate of the 2010 Australian election campaign. I say ‘the’ – because this is the only leaders’ debate of the campaign.

Gillard and Abbott: this year's choice of News Corp-approved 'leaders'

Two leaders, one debate – and one moderator: Sky News (News Corp) presenter David Speers.

In negotiations shortly after the election was announced, Labor and the Coalition both agreed to these arrangements. It was their choice. They might have widened the debate to include Bob Brown, leader of the rising star of Australian politics: the Greens. Unsurprisingly, they chose not to do that. Why let a serious competitor into a closed shop? As Gordon Brown and David Cameron discovered in the British election, a third participant can be dangerous to a cozy duopoly.

More surprising, they chose to have only one debate. In recent US and British elections – and the previous Australian election – viewers were treated to a series of three.  It’s not as though there’s a shortage of opportunity; the election is still 27 days away. But for some reason, it seems to have suited both sides to keep debate between the party leaders to a minimum. Perhaps this makes it easier to avoid topics neither side wish to discuss – such as the Afghan War and Australians’ fast-disappearing civil liberties.

Israel’s cheer-squad love making the bizarre claim that Israel is the ‘only democratic State’ in the middle east.

It certainly is the only State in the region that tries to enforce a caste system.

Watch this remarkable video from Russia Today to learn more about the Israeli mania for Jewish endogamy.

Vigilantes policing the affairs of young women!? The crime of ‘rape by deception’?

Only in Zionist Israel.

Camel carrying dead weight

One accusation that can’t be levied at the Zionist Lobby is that it’s backwards coming forward.

If The Israel Lobby has a strong opinion that’s for public consumption, the rest of us get to hear about it, loud and clear. No-one ever suggests The Lobby is too shy to play politics. Not in the USA, not in Europe – and not in Australia, for that matter.

Sometimes I wonder what life might be like if the growing anti-Zionist movement developed political cohesion, tactical skill and the political determination of our opponents.

I’ll use this Australian election campaign as an example.

Sitting in the Australian Parliament, at present, are a handful of individuals known for their strong pro-Israel stance.

Why aren’t they targeted for defeat?

The Israel Lobby has a grip on the two major parties in Australia – but not because of its numerical support in the electorate. It would doubtless use voting strength if it had much voting strength. But it doesn’t. Australian Jews represent a tiny percentage – some 0.5% – of the total population. In very few constituencies around the country are Jewish votes significant (and not all Jewish Australians are Zionists, in any case, as we’re often reminded).

So how does The Israel Lobby pack such a punch in Australia?

This morning Julia Gillard made her major pre-election address on the subject of climate change.

For reasons best known to her advisers, she chose to give the speech in Queensland on a university campus.

Perhaps Friends of the Earth moles work inside the PM’s office?

University of Queensland climate change protest

That link again? Six degrees.org.au