Last month I reported that:
December a husband and wife team murdered 14 and severely wounded
another 20 odd in San Bernadino (East of LA.) ISIS has not
claimed responsibility, but it has applauded.
and wife were Muslim of Pakistani stock. The husband was
born in the USA. The wife was a new immigrant after marrying her
husband apparently while he was in Mecca on Hajj. She produced a
baby who is less than a year old. They left the baby with the
occurred at a conference centre. The Husband's workmates
were there. He would probably have known if any were armed.
California has among the most restrictive gun laws in the USA.
not feel safe in Australia. We have very restrictive gun
laws. That means no law abiding citizen can be in public
with a concealed gun. Of course the terrorists and criminals will
have guns. The fact is that the authorities cannot
stop tons of illegal drugs entering Australia each year. So how
can I have any confidence that the authorities are able to stop
grade weapons from entering Australia and finding their way into the
hands of terrorists.
would feel safer if I knew that law abiding citizens around me were
armed. Sure there are the nanny staters, who think that
total control is the way to go. So why is it the most gun law
restrictive states in the USA get most of the per capita gun violence?
Prime Minister, use your influence to relax the
gun laws in Australia. In the USA the relaxation of gun control
has produced less gun crime, and reduced incidents of mass killing in
those places where gun controls are reduced. OTOH the mass
killings happen with increasing frequency in those cities/states (Ca,
NY, Boston, Chicago) that have restrictive gun laws.
I wish I could afford to move into a gated community with lots of
meantime, I avoid crowd events, shop where possible on the
internet, and avoid public transport (especially aircraft).
thinking wishfully of attempting migration to Texas, or a similar gun
state of the union.
situation can only degenerate. Our political leaders are
atheists) are not going to solve the problem with conventional
suggest we get out, and sell guns at giveaway prices to everyday
citizens in those Arab countries we abandon. Why should our sons
and daughters solve their problems?
if we arm civilians, the terrorists will have to be a bit more careful
daughter they rape, whose mother they kill, whose boys they recruit or
just maybe we will end up having a viable caliphate rather than a bunch
the news, Finland plans to abandon it's unemployment social security
scheme and replace it with what a website called zerohedge.com calls
plan is to pay everyone (employed and unemployed) a minimal living
amount. This amount would not be reduced (as at present) if the
recipient obtained employment. Hopefully the disincentive to find
employment would thus be removed, and the economy would boom.
Swiss plan to vote (Swiss style referendum) in 2016 on a similar
scheme. Apparently the Swiss parliament is dead set against the
is reported that the proportion of Swiss citizens who would vote for
the initiative has recently risen to the high 40s%
am becoming increasingly cynical of the narratives promulgated by our
media. The Australian (Murdoch Press) for instance seems to
report with great glee on the trials and tribulations of Clive Palmer.
The ABC seems to only ever report the negative aspects of
guns, is ultra apologist about terrorists, and favours Gillian Trigg's
contribution to refugees (how many lives did she save?) over Tony
Abbott's saving of hundreds of refugee lives.
Donald Trump (The US version of Clive) is reportedly loathed by the
elite and wealthy. The polls show Donald to be way ahead of
republican contenders, however the latest attack by the media elite is
that Hillary would beat him. Perhaps they should wait for Donald
to shift his focus to Hillary? At the moment he has very
successfully destroyed and deflected all the attacks on himself.
the media is a diminishing issue. Newspapers are in rapid
decline, and the ABC is doing such a bad job that hopefully someone in
government will make further cuts to their budget.
what is to replace the mass media? Will it be some sort of
community facebook? Can we trust Zuckerberg not to twist
a network of websites will arise. Perhaps providing
entertainment? Already I watch the internet comic strip
"girlgenius online" and "Questionable Content" linked to from my links page.
Perhaps those authors should provide links to other politically active
news is that IKEA has increased sales by 13% whilst reported profits
(and presumably tax) in Australia had fallen by 30% (Source Eli
Greemnblat, The Australian, 28th December). This transfer of
profits to low tax regimes is a worldwide phenomenon, and there does
not seem to be an effective solution.
the same issue of The Australian, the founder of IBISworld wrote an article
arguing for an increase in the GST. Being a logical person, he
addressed other possible taxes. In several paragraphs he argued
that Business and personal income taxes were regressive, and then wrote:
"Some suggestions involve removing tax
breaks on superannuation, negative gearing on property, other
exemptions, and introducing a land
tax. But the amount of taxes raised are either politically too
brave or won't raise enough anyway to balance budgets."
Well....I have already discussed land Tax
as an alternative tax source
heading in my July blog).
brave"? Yes. I think I can see that. Charging
say 5% of land value might not make property owners happy.
Especially the elitists (who presumably occupy the best and most
expensive harbour frontages in Sydney). Those people presumably
have little trouble avoiding income tax (think all those possible
deductions, income splitting, etc. etc.) or avoiding GST (just buy
raise enough anyway to balance budgets"? My
solution would be to increase land tax until (say) the tax rate was so
high that 5% of land in any council was abandoned. The evidence
from the July blog is that real estate values collapse as rates
tax collected should then be paid after costs to the shareholders of
"Commonwealth of Australia."
further information on the advantages of land taxes, read Henry
George."Progress and Poverty".
the Elitists have realized the dangers of Henry George, and he and his
book get no mention in the media. (I confess I am surprised that
Phil Ruthven had the guts to mention it, even if only to dismiss it.)