The Greatest Lie in Australia

Thoughts for The Week by Ron Owen of Owen Guns.

Thoughts For The Week.

“As in nature, politics abhors a power vacuum.”
History has shown that weak, undefended countries are short lived experiences, until filled by a more violent power.
“We have between two and three years to go, before we have a major confrontation with China.”
History through the ages is littered with examples of Australia’s current demise. The pages of history prove to us that when presented with a power vacuum: there will arise a force; a country and Empire which will try to fill that void. History also shows that the force will be sinister. A force that will take away your liberty, your property, your happiness, and ultimately your life. I have seen the modern examples in my own lifetime, in the form of Communism, and have second generation knowledge of the scourge of Fascism in Nazi Germany, Italy, and the Imperial designs of the Japanese empire. Only 1 in a 100 examples are power voids filled by a benign power and China does not have a record of being benign.

Anson Chan, the former chief secretary of Hong Kong, occupied a position of trust unique in history. She was the last head of the Hong Kong civil service under the British and the first under the Chinese. She served four years under each, evidence that both powers trusted her impartiality and professionalism.
“I don’t think Australians understand the sort of country they’re dealing with. Look at the way they are infiltrating, even in Australia,” she said during a visit to Melbourne in 2016. “Australia is a very open society, so it wouldn’t occur to most people the designs of the one-party state. And it wouldn’t have occurred to the people of Hong Kong until we experienced it first-hand. No one should be under any illusions about the objective of the Communist Party leadership: it’s long-term, systematic infiltration of social organisations, media and government. By the time China’s infiltration of Australia is readily apparent, it will be too late.”

We’ve seen the pattern throughout history, with the empires, monarchies and savagery of forces seeking to conquer their known world, Babylonians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Norman, Mongols, the Spanish Armada, Napoleon, National Socialism, Hitler, Japanese Imperialism, Communism, Lenin and now Chinese Communism. They all have to try, as they know that if they fail to take an area someone else will fill the void. Power always seeks the ultimate in power. The opportunists are always rewarded, but not all win, some ultimately fail, but all leave behind them a total devastation, battlefields, personal human losses that in every instance the surviving common folk have to deal with until the next tyrant comes along. If there are any survivors at all.

Our Current Appeaser.
China’s ‘game-changing’ position will ‘reset the world order’, PM Scott Morrison says. China’s increased influence needed to be understood in terms of its rise.
“China in our lifetime has gone from a developing country, one of not great economic size or scale and not a large military, to the second biggest economy in the world with one of the largest militaries,” he said. “So it’s obviously been the game-changing country of our era and our generation. That’s obviously going to reset the world order. “We just need to understand that in its context. They’re a much bigger country than they used to be with much more influence, and that’s just something the system has to absorb and adapt to.”
Asked if the average Australian should be worried about China, he said “worry is not the word”.

Would “Petrified” be more of an honest response?
Is he mentally retarded, or is he a paid traitor for the Chinese like some of our other parliamentarians? Could he really be that blind to Chinese intentions.
Since 1949 China’s policy has been a never-ending pursuit of power, the relentlessly expanding influence and paranoid nature of the Chinese Communist Party invaded Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkestan, India, Vietnam means that it will continue to press outwards unless and until it meets resistance. It would be in Taiwan in a heart beat and is bursting to suppress Hong Kong. It has invaded Philippine’s Territory in the South China Sea and the world has done nothing. It has invaded Australian Antarctic Territory and Australia has not even asked them to leave. At home and abroad, it imposes one control after another until it is satisfied that it has total control. It is an ideology of authoritarianism animated by a psychology of totalitarianism.

The Appeasers are Sedated by this sort of Nonsense.

1. “No China can’t invade Australia.
China cannot break out of the first Island Chain or successfully invade Taiwan with a guarantee of success let alone Australia.”
Answer. The USA is not going to risk losing half its major cities to Chinese Ballistic Missiles to save Australia, South Korea, or Taiwan, or the Philippines. Once the threat of Nuclear War with the USA is removed, or fully cancelled Taiwan will not last a week.

2. “The distances are massive, 9,000km to Sydney, let alone Melbourne, Adelaide and the interior. China’s long supply lines can be easily interdicted by naval and air forces.”
Answer . China no longer has long supply lines it has bases all around us. Besides the South China Sea bases it has these as marked on the map.

3. “The forces required to invade Australia and secure it, are massive. Think of the Germans invading the USSR, Australia has great depth to fall back, hide, and counter attack at our choosing. No nation can successfully hold onto Australia with the deployments of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, perhaps a million.”
Answer . China has over 2 million men in its Army and millions more to call up. The Chinese also have a large well paid fifth column within Australia and subscribe to the creed to “Win Without Fighting”. Similar to Hitler’s strategy with the Appeasers he took the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia without fighting. Once they cut off our oil supplies and military goods our leaders will surrender and fly off to the South of France.

4. “The ADF would not engage in head on battles after a successful invasion, instead hit supply lines, logistics, hit and run tactics, use terrain and local knowledge to our advantage. Prior to the invasion force arriving which will need to traverse tight sea lanes and be visible to anyone who is looking.”
Answer. Amazing that people still see danger coming from the North of Australia, they imagine an enemy would be stupid enough to land in Northern Territory and march down to the southern capitals, when if all of their other ploys failed and they did have to fight they could either fly into the airports that they already own, or land anywhere between Sydney and Melbourne and drive to Canberra, or both. We have nothing to stop them. They have a Navy and Air force and we don’t.

5. “The Jindalee over the Horizon Radar System can track planes and ships in the South China Sea as far as Southern China. A large fleet headed to Australia would be tracked by this system or via satellite. Submarines and Aircraft would be used to either stop this fleet or reduce its effectiveness.”
Answer. More than likely China will take an off shore island like Lord Howe Island and one of the Chesterton Island and once supplied with J20 supersonic jet fighters and lots of missiles before turning off all our imports. From our six Collins Class Submarines we might get one to go to sea, as they are based in Western Australia it might take a fortnight to get to Torres Straits for its suicide run. China has 60 submarines and submarine drones even if we could send one or two destroyers or frigates they would be committing suicide again Chinese battle fleets with plenty of air cover.

6. “China would have limited or no air support. China has 1 Aircraft carrier with 1 locally built carrier soon to join the fleet. The limited numbers of aircraft they carry do not pose a significant threat to Australia’s air force which is also obtaining the F-35 Stealth Fighter. You only need to hit the air craft carrier to take out China’s air cover, then prevent China taking an airport/base as part of its invasion which would leave Chinese troops at the mercy of the Australian Air Force, it would be a slaughter. Australia would lose a number of F-18 Super Hornets to ship based defences, however combined with limited numbers F-35’s, P-8 Poseidon maritime strike planes, let alone the Australian Navy which would first use Collins Class Submarines.”
Answer. The Government stooge who writes the above clap trap has obviously not been informed of the two Chinese airport already here in Western Australia both controlled by Chinese State Corporations Citic and China Southern Airlines. The writer obviosly would not know that off shore Islands unlike aircraft carriers are un-sinkable, that China would not have to bring its carriers into the range of our air force, yet Chinese aircraft could dominate all of the East coast of Australia as the J20 has a range of 1100 miles. The J20 aircraft is considered a good match for the F35 maybe better, but no matter China has a lot more of them and has the factories that produce more when needed.

7. “Tiger attack helicopters would attack and landings and without air cover Chinese invading Ground forces would be decimated and easily repelled by the Australian Army. The US would also quickly resupply Australia with new aircraft, they have plenty of F-18 Super Hornets in the inventory to send us, plus the F-35’s will be rolling of the production line, they would be sent to the Australian air force to replace losses just as they did to Israel in its wars, we could also obtain resupply of smart missiles/bombs and other equipment we would require.”
Answer. Our 22 Tiger attack helicopter might have 12 working, China can draw on 1004, it also has 1500 fighter jets to give it as much air cover as it needs. The F-35s can role off the production line in the USA but Australia will have no means of flying or sailing them into the country. Re-supply of anything will be zero, as all sea way and air ways will be blocked by Chinese missiles or aircraft.

8. For China to successfully have any chance of invading Australia it would need to secure air bases and ports closer to Australia such as in Indonesia or PNG. This build-up of Chinese forces and bases would be seen and known well in advance and preparations would be made for a potential Chinese invasion. Without land based support from aircraft and a much shorter supply line an invasion would fail. Even with this the numbers of troops required to secure Australia’s population and hold the land against counter attack by Australian allies such as the US, Britain, NZ, Japan, Singapore to name a few would be immense and not possible.
Answer. We know about it already in advance anyway, we are surrounded by Chinese air bases and deep water ports. It has been seen, but our Appeasement Governments are too scared to alert Australia and place it on a ready for war footing. Defence problems happen quickly, China has land based support for its aircraft and short distances to its local ports and bases. China’s bases in Antarctica would assist with targeting Chinese missiles to knock out all government infrastructure. China has had much experience in securing civilian populations, it eliminates the none useful and makes slaves of only the ones worth feeding.
Good British, Canadian and American people would want there governments to assist Australia but they would be powerless to assist, China has its bases all in a row, it would control the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the vast resources of the Southern Ocean, China’s southern flank will be secured they might be able to impose trade sanctions on China for a few years, they might stop the World Bank paying China a Billion US dollars every year in aid, but with all the resources from Antarctica, Australia and the South Pacific China will be an unstoppable world power. Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia. Indonesia, Africa and India will be the next ducks in the row.

China will not care about Global Warming, or Save the Whales, they want world domination and nothing will stand in their way. Ron Owen

Got a gun? Meet the MP who thinks you're better off dead

Minister for Police Mr David Elliott.

Got a gun? Meet the MP who thinks you're better off dead

In late 2017, the Deputy Premier of NSW tasked a committee of the New South Wales Parliament to consider changes to the NSW Firearms Act to support the rights of homeowners trying to protect themselves.

The committee has just handed down its verdict.  In this blog we reveal the verdict, and why the NSW Police Minister seems to think:

 people are better off being Dead than Alive with a gun

Minister Elliott’s response

We have now received Mr Elliott’s advice. You can read it by clicking here (check your ‘download’ folder if you can’t find it).

To say it is astonishing is an understatement.  We have summarised what Mr Elliott's said below in bold, with our comments in brackets:

 The issue about whether you can use a gun contrary to your ‘genuine reason’ arises in the National Firearms Agreement  (Wrong.  Genuine reason is regulated by the NFA, but 'use' is not.  The 'use' of firearms is regulated by section 7A of the NSW Firearms Act which is out of step with every other jurisdiction and the NFA, and is something Mr Elliott could fix)

 Mr Dunstan acted outside the NFA (No.  If anything Mr Dunstan arguably used his firearm outside section 7A for the apparently trivial purpose of staying alive, but he was fully compliant with the NFA);

 "There is no intention to amend the genuine reasons provision" (We’re not asking Mr Elliott do that. We’re asking his government to amend 7A to allow for 'reasonable lawful excuse' so that courts can consider each matter on their circumstances and merit);  

 “… the use of a firearm in self-defence is a serious and lethal step which would not automatically protect the person from a criminal charge, despite the assertion they were defending themselves or their property” (Mr Dunstan was not charged with any offences, so Mr Elliott’s comments on this are not relevant);

 “In either case the use of a firearm is not endorsed as a means to self defend, given the potential lethality of a firearm, the risk to the person, the risk to any other person in the vicinity (including the criminal) in a highly volatile and emotionally fraught moment. The risk of escalating the violence is extreme” (Anyone who says this should not be allowed near guns ...); 

 “We also trust in our police to come to our aid and our criminal justice system to prosecute offenders and hold them to account for their actions” (Except that the police are 45 minutes away from Mr Dunstan’s property, and according Mr Dunstan, sometimes don't turn up to intruder calls. If you are going to wait for the NSW Police to come to protect you from a druggie with a knife, you will be dead by the time the police arrive)

Mr Elliott’s response is remarkable. It suggests the better outcome would have been for Mr Dunstan to have been dead, rather than be proactive and stay alive. 

… which is ironic given Mr Elliott was a captain in the army ….

https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/got-a-gun-meet-the-mp-who-thinks-youre-better-off-dead?utm_source=NSC&utm_campaign=bf7c3ad5b6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_04_08_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34b833c762-bf7c3ad5b6-27924541

Australian government Now Controlling & Ruling the People!!!

'Absurd' bail conditions prevent Extinction Rebellion protesters 'going near' other members.

Civil liberties groups say bail conditions imposed on Sydney climate change activists are usually reserved for bikie gang members.

We are skating on thin ice here people, we have already seen many of our civil liberties revoked, our freedoms taken from us. We have senseless firearms restrictions & gun confiscations. This is the first sign of a government who is seeking to control & overpower the people!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/absurd-bail-conditions-prevent-extinction-rebellion-protesters-going-near-other-members

'Firehose' of complaints about NSW Police not investigated as watchdog faces cuts!!!

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/firehose-of-complaints-about-nsw-police-not-investigated-as-watchdog-faces-cuts-20191101-p536jo.html

Why the creeping militarisation of our police has experts worried.

Why the creeping militarisation of our police has experts worried

Australian police are increasingly being "militarised".

Front-line officers in Queensland and Victoria, and specialist units across the country, are being trained in military-style tactics and thinking.

Lawyer and former Australian Defence Force officer John Sutton describes this "convergence" as slow and worrying.

"Typically, a close ideological and operational alliance between the police force and the military has always been associated with repressive regimes," he says.

"Australia has a very strong democracy and a very robust civic mindedness among its population.

"Nevertheless, these developments are certainly concerning."

So just how concerned should we be? And what's driving the shift?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-20/creeping-militarisation-of-police-why-experts-are-concerned/11517266

Compromising On Gun Control. The Cake Story.

Why We Won't Compromise - The Cake Story

Maybe I'm the last one to know this story. My shooting buddy, Dan, couldn't believe I had never seen it. But, it's the perfect explanation to use when someone asks "Why won't you gun people at least compromise a little?"

When we originally posted this article, I said I didn’t know who had written it. Now I do. Credit goes to the Law Dog Files.  My apology to The Law Dog Files for not knowing, and my thanks for their contribution. You can see more at The Law Dog Files.

The Cake
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment.

Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one-eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise". ~ Tom

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/no-compromise-the-pro-gun-article-that-takes-the-cake

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/?m=1

A Warning to the Gun Owners of the World

Self Defence Laws In Australia. Dunstan: NSW Police Minister to brief on self-defence gun laws

More Information Here: https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/dunstan-nsw-police-minister-to-brief-on-self-defence-gun-laws?utm_source=NSC&utm_campaign=ff1bff1358-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_16_11_32&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34b833c762-ff1bff1358-27924541

And Here: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/05b20b0c-895a-4792-84d2-d2fc0403bcd5/downloads/Dunstan%20-%20NSW%20Deputy%20Premier%20to%20NSC%20-%20response.pdf?ver=1565950170350

Let us be clear here, using a firearm to defend yourself & your family in an armed, violent home invasion is not the only issue here!

Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence in Australia!!! There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal,  would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/an-assault-on-our-right-to-selfprotection/news-story/f743f8b76f21a586a6efb2396c9b2f8d

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen. 16th July 2019

Thoughts For The Week.
“Potentially, a Government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights; for it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.”  Ayn Rand
Most of the world has been watching the valiant protests in Hong Kong, young people mainly who oppose the Chinese Governments policy of silencing criticism of Communist China by removing them from Hong Kong and putting them into a secret trial system within China’s mainland where nearly everyone is found guilty. Its basic Freedom, the David and Goliath story but Goliath might awake and smash the Hong Kong freedom protestors at any time.

Meanwhile in the Socialist republic of New Zealand Madam Prime Minister follows China’s lead enforcing a disarmament campaign on the good citizens and banning the people from watching a video supposedly of the killing of 50 people in a mosque, however on close inspection it is a farce similar to a video game, showing toy firearms with flashing torches to imitate muzzle flash. So why ban something that is not what its properted to be? None of the supposed victims are recognisable all have conveniently covered their faces after lying down. When other news media film clips on the six o clock news show mass murders, which are more horrific they are not banned, no one is threatened with 14 years jail for watching the Bali Bombers. The governments are not banning other video games so what is in this video that it makes the removal of the freedom of exchange of information so necessary?

The real objective is to have servile people.

The media and politicians rush with swords drawn to protect the integrity of the Freedom of Speech when it’s a Federal raid on the ABC, when people lives and national secrets are at risk, but not one of them offers to say a word in the defence of protecting the freedom of Speech on the internet. No one wants to glorify in any way the creatures who attach un-armed defenceless people, but to take away the right of people to send it about and say “hey this video is nonsense”, shows that governments and media have other motives. Motives that they are not disclosing.
” We can say that the challenge to protect freedom, is now a challenge the Australian parliament has failed to meet. “Senator Eric Abetz
Motives that are similar to the sinister suppression of the Freedom of Speech in China, are not too dissimilar to the restrictions of freedoms in Australia and New Zealand, while Israel Folau explores legal avenues, the broader fight for freedom of religion and belief continues. Supposedly, the new federal parliament is now in session and the government is promising religious freedom legislation. I will only believe that their intentions are honourable when not just 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act is removed, but when all of this Act is removed, plus the all inclusive State Anti Discrimination Acts are removed. These Acts do not just suppress the freedom of speech, they create public funded witch hunt inquisitions that use the power of the State to create legal precedents that nullify any safeguards that were put in these Acts to sell them to the dumbed down majority.
Just recently, a man described as the “UK’s Israel Folau” recently won a similar case, the British Justice system must not be as polluted as ours in Australia.

One man with integrity can change the world.

Christian student Felix Ngole was expelled from his social work course at Sheffield University for posting comments critical of homosexuality on Facebook.
After fighting a four-year legal battle, the UK Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Ngole.
The decision, which overturned an earlier High Court ruling in the university’s favour, found that “the University adopted a position from the outset… which was untenable” and that the university “wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination.”
The presiding judges pointed out that “The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.”
Ngole’s comments were made in the course of a debate on Facebook over the jailing of US marriage registrar Kim Davis. Davis, you might recall, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky and was jailed briefly for contempt of court in 2015.
Our Australian courts have always taken the opposite view ‘that if any person could be offended, no matter how slightly then there is breach of the Act which has to be prosectured.
Senator Eric Abetz describes this sort of  discrimination correctly,
“In an exercise of Orwellian proportions, these sports stars were targeted for exclusion in the name of inclusion and discriminated against in the name of tolerance. You don’t have to agree with Izzy to agree with his right to express his religious views, or his wife’s right to back him.”The Senator then outlined why the Folau precedent is a threat to our freedom.
“Today it’s Izzy’s religious views and his wife’s loyal support. Yesterday it was the Professor Ridd’s scientific views. Tomorrow it might be somebody’s political view. The next might be someone’s environmental view. This is a fight for freedom of speech which impacts us all. The government must, and I am confident will, respond to the expressions of the quiet Australians on 18 May and ensure our freedoms, which were bought with the highest of prices, are not sacrificed and squandered on the altar of political correctness.”Any normal Australian who does not have the financial backing or profile of Andrew Bolt or Israel Folau stands no chance before government selected Tribunals, composed of one person. Their selection is not based on their knowledge but on their opinion and in most of the Tribunals the Rule of law and the Rules of evidence do not apply. One Tribunal member in my case bragged from the bench that he could take his opinion on evidence presented from what he read in the morning papers and ignore whatever I presented in my defence.
We do not have a Constitutional Monarchy, or a Constitutional democracy when we cannot comment or we are prevented from reading comments from others, without the freedom ot interchange information we are no better off than the Chinese people, or the Hong Kong people, the difference in the degrees of suppression we are in is just academic debate.
One Law For All.
We are either one nation with equal justice for all, or no justice for those without government support. Government now will support Muslins, homosexuals, and people with a darker skin colour, but won’t support Christians, firearm owners, and white skinned people. That is Discrimination in itself. If we had a correct justice system we are all at liberty to take any offence of Libel or Defamation to the civil courts, if the government wanted to do something right for once they could easily make the Justice system more affordable. Instead, they increase court fees and work to keep the legal profession exclusive. Without Justice we have nothing to fight for, we are just slaves and unfortunately very soon we are going to have to fight to exist in our troubled world.

This reminded me of someone, but when I remembered who it was, I felt that the Gorilla had been defamed.

“A Labor and Greens paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns.”
And believe it or not, such a place does indeed already exist. It’s called Prison.”
The War with China? Trade, or Missiles? Either could be terminal for Australia.
Australia is in a very vulnerable location with only a flea bite defence force that is more concerned with attracting more women and homosexuals than defending our continental shores.
Just these latest headlines should wake up our  politicians.
“On Monday, the US State Department announced the $2.2 billion potential arms sale to Taiwan, which includes 108 Abrams tanks and 250 Stinger surface-to-air missiles.”
The Reaction was.
“Beijing lodged formal complaints through diplomatic channels expressing “strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition” and demanded the US “immediately cancel” the arms sale.”
“Taiwan stands in the frontline of China’s ambitious expansion and faces enormous threats and pressure from Beijing,” the Taiwanese foreign ministry said in a statement.
Lieutenant General Yang Hai-ming of the Taiwanese Army said.”Having the M1A2 to replace our older tanks will quickly and effectively boost our defence capability.” Meanwhile, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen arrived in New York City on Friday- for an official visit. Tsai dismissed Chinese criticism of both her visit and the arms deal. “We don’t need our neighbour to make irresponsible remarks,” she told reporters in New York, according to Taiwan’s official Central News Agency. She has rejected Chinese pressure to reunite Taiwan and China under the “one-country, two-systems” framework that governs Hong Kong. She said the people of Taiwan stand with the young people of Hong Kong who are fighting for democratic freedoms in ongoing protests.””Hong Kong’s experience under ‘one country, two systems’ has shown the world once and for all that authoritarianism and democracy cannot coexist,” Tsai said.
China Threats, Trade Sanctions.
China has threatened trade sanctions and “Urges the US to abide by the “one China principle” and to “not allow Tsai Ing-wen’s stopover, cease official exchanges with Taiwan, and refrain from providing any platform for separatist Taiwan independence forces”.So the 2020’s presents a real risk of a US-China military clash, seeing as Xi Jinping has said he will not tolerate Taiwanese independence, and they’re not willing to let go of the South China Sea— which is fundamentally at odds with what the US wants.”

Insecurity of Australia’s Oil Supply.
The Coal-To-Liquids Imperative For Australian Fuel Security. (click to read full report)
Stocks in terms of days of consumption cover
Petrol: 20 days
Aviation Turbine Fuel: 18 days
Diesel: 17 days

We are living on a hair-trigger in maintaining supply. There are localised shortages of diesel due to bad import batches, but we have immense dangers to our import supply. (Seems silly as we have a underground lake of Oil Shale in Queensland, but no refineries for it)
Either:
Australia continues as is with potential for enormous economic disruption from supply squeezes and a ballooning trade deficit.Or:
Australia installs Coal-To-Liquids capacity, insulates itself from supply disruptions and generates a large amount of income.

This is a Chinese coal to petrol plant, they have 20 new plants. Australia has lots of Coal.

At 2 barrels to the tonne, one tonne of coal produces 318 litres

The Mazda 3 has a fuel economy of 17.5 km to the litre.

Thus one tonne of coal will fuel a Mazda 3 for 5,580 km.
The Gulf between the Straits of Hormuz and the South China Sea is Growing.The Trump administration is planning to send US Navy ships to help escort oil tankers in the Gulf in order to protect them from possible Iranian aggression

Plus more trouble in the Middle East with the
US-Turkey standoff.The US has strongly urged Turkey to pull back from the deal, the first such move between a NATO member and Russia warning Ankara that it will face economic sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act if it goes ahead with the purchase, reportedly costing more than $2 billion of Russia Cruise missiles.

The first shipment of the Russian S-400 missile system has arrived in Turkey, according to the Turkish defence Ministry, moving the NATO member closer to a new standoff with the United States.
“Once the system is completely ready, it will begin to be used in a way determined by the relevant authorities.””As far as we have been told, the systems will be operational by October 2019.”
Plus we have Trouble Brewing at Home.
The Australian Defence Force is closely tracking a high-tech Chinese spy ship as it makes its way towards Australia ahead of this month’s Talisman Sabre war games on the Queensland coast.
Australian military officials believe the laser attacks on the Navy helicopters came from fishing boats, but it has not yet been formally confirmed if the vessels were Chinese flagged. Beijing maintains a robust maritime militia in the South China Sea, composed of fishing vessels equipped to carry out missions just short of combat. “The Australian Government would view reports of military aircraft being targeted by lasers as an unwelcome and potentially dangerous development,” a Defence spokesperson told the ABC in July 2018.

These Chinese lads are not playing ‘Space invaders”, they have their finger on buttons with power.

The confrontations with the People’s Liberation Army are believed to have occurred as China was conducting its largest ever naval exercises in the hotly contested waters.
Defence sources have confirmed HMAS Anzac, HMAS Toowoomba and HMAS Success were challenged by the Chinese PLA Navy. The confrontations with the People’s Liberation Army are believed to have occurred as China was conducting its largest ever naval exercises in the hotly contested waters.
Hyper Velocity Rail Gun fitted to Chinese Navy Craft.

A Chinese navy warship armed with what looks like a mounted electro-magnetic rail gun has apparently set sail, possibly for testing in the open ocean. Chinese media outlets, such as the state-affiliated Global Times, revealed in March – nearly two months after the first pictures of what was dubbed the “Yangtze River Monster” showed up online – that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy is “making notable achievements on advanced weapons, including sea tests of electromagnetic railguns.”

The Type 072II Yuting-class tank landing ship Haiyangshan and its weapon were spotted along the Yangtze River at the Wuchang Shipyard in Wuhan earlier this year.
Global Times reporting in March that Zhang Xiao, an associate research fellow at the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Naval University of Engineering announced her research team was responsible for the “largest repeating power supply system in the world”.The sighting, which comes as China marks the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Navy in 2019, appears to pre-date US intelligence estimates that Chinese railguns would arrive by 2025. A US intelligence report found that China’s weapon would be able to strike 200 kilometres away with a projectile velocity of 2.5 kilometres per second (9,000kph — greater than Mach 7). While US developments remain classified, the US Office of Naval Research (ONR) gave BAE systems $48.3 million to test phase 2 of their railgun program in 2013. This phase will usher in the development of a multiple-shot railgun, alongside the development of a Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) that would see missiles fire at hypersonic speeds — technology that Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russia had successfully tested in December 2018. The US thus far has spent around $710.5 million on the railgun program, but experts fear it will languish as research weight pulls toward HVPs. “The Americans certainly aren’t going slow. They’ve realised they’ve lagged behind Russia and China and are racing to catch up.”
Yet while the future of our nation is perilous we have governments in Australia and New Zealand advocating disarmament, it brings to mind past follies.

Last time the world was in this much trouble only the lucky ones were given a rifle the un lucky ones had a broom handle.

Past Follies Taught the World Lessons that We Should Never Forget.
In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British Colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled, “What is Fit to be Done with America?” Knox advocated. To keep them servile, the panacea of disarming all of the people and relying solely on a standing army:
“The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, the Arms of all the People should be taken away, & every piece of Ordnance removed into the King’s Stores, nor should any Foundry or manufactory of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without License: they will have but little need of such things for the future, as the King’s Troops, Ships & Forts will be sufficient to protect them from any danger.”The British resorted to every possible tactic to disarm the Americans—entrapment, false promises of “safekeeping,” banning imports, direct seizure and finally shooting persons bearing arms.
In response to this repression  a group of the freeholders led by James Otis and John Hancock met at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions, including the following:
“WHEREAS, by an Act of Parliament, of the first of King William and Queen Mary, it is declared, that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence; it is the Opinion of this town, that the said Declaration is founded in Nature, Reason and sound Policy, and is well adapted for the necessary Defence of the Community. And Forasmuch, as by a good and wholesome Law of this Province, every listed Soldier and other Householder (except Troopers, who by law are otherwise to be provided) shall always be provided with a well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accoutrements and Ammunition, as in said Law.”
The law that they were quoting from was not at the time the American Second Amendment to there Constitution as that was not established until 1787 and 1791, the law they resorted to was the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Where it lists twelve policies by which it was wrong to“endeavour to subvert the laws and liberties of this kingdom“, one of which was
“by causing Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;”
“all which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm.” and later it states in the seventh paragraph ”Subjects’ Arms.
“That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”
This and more was the reason for the 2^nd Amendment to the USA Constitution and the reason why that law, the Bill of Rights of 1689 with those famous words unchanged is still engraved in the law books of every State of Australia and New Zealand. Its just suppressed by the same mentality of William Knox from 1777 and dictators in Hong Kong and the treacherous politicians here in Australia who want the good people left defenceless and servile.
Ron Owen
“whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” John Locke
 owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

Thoughts For The Week 18th June 2019 By Ron Owen.

Thoughts For The Week.

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” Ayn Rand

The results of the latest Federal election show that the 2 million licensed firearm owners in Australia chose which ever shade of socialism that they considered least onerous rather than voting for independent/minor parties who stood for the rights of the individual. Many of us did vote the right way, but most followed their traditional voting patterns handed down by their parents, or moulded by university academics. If the 2 million of us who own 6 million firearms, per the Commonwealth Crimtrac /Registry had voted for pro shooting parties we would have had a voice in the Senate, and meaningful block that could protect us from more impositions and begin to correct the atrocities of the past. Instead we have more of the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer, Lab/Lib/Nat/Gr the ‘Oligarchy’ that has enslaved us for thirty years.

While we suffer un-warranted searches, 12 month waiting periods, rising fines/fees for doing no wrong, but begging for a renewal, Permit to Acquire, a new application, or one day late in a renewal and start all over again, this whole firearm registration organization is a waste of billions of dollars and human endeavour. Everyone who thinks about this knows that the system is only controlling the good people and does not one twit, to prevent crime, solve a crime or save a life, in fact it costs lives as it leaves the harmless people defenceless. Anyone with the intent to take life is not going to be inhibited by breaking a firearm law.

Just in this last month two interstate policemen visited our premises and I had to give them a statement attesting that I had not received some firearms that had allegedly been sent to our premises from interstate two years ago, the firearms had been located elsewhere. I was informed that they were part of 300 handguns that had been misdirected by one person in their state. I naturally asked why was this not immediately noticed by the new 25 million dollars (or was it 50 million) computer run by the Commonwealth that consolidates all the states firearm registries? I was told that even the new Commonwealth computer system that recorded the information from all states has not got the ability to cross reference State transfers. He also added that the State registries were two years behind in up dating the information.  I reminded him that the last Senate inquiry had found that a third of the items of information that had been recorded had some information/content that was incorrect. Within a few days of this incident another inquiry from another State Police force with another list of firearms.  We had sent (within the two week time allotted for submissions), the detailed Form 10 to QPS but they had not yet informed them that these firearms were now on the Queensland register, again two years old information that had not been processed. Then again a few days later a customer from 2017, who we had registered firearms to his licence and recorded that information which had been sent to the QPS amnesty registry told us that the guns had not been added to his list of firearms. A few days after that we read the press release that the Victorian Police had lost 189 firearms. We know that this has happened in all states and the Defence Forces, so besides all those fake news 3 D printed firearms and all the real ones coming in from overseas there is no shortage of illegal firearms for those with ill intent to acquire. Such as the paroled prisoner in Darwin who was wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet, he had an illegal pump action shotgun and killed 4 people. The only thing that stops these people is a person with another gun.

Phone 000 and wait to die as the Police are only there to tidy up afterwards, they are never going to be at the incident quick enough. In those situations you have a human right to defend yourself and others, and if you or another are armed, lives can be saved. Governments know this, but chose to keep the people defenceless.

Do We Own Our Lives?
We buy our firearms, we buy a permit to own our firearms and without you doing any wrongs that permit or that licence is removed and so is your ownership. The State controls your property so do you really own property, not just firearms property but house property, or business property, or vehicle property? We used to own and control our own property but with creeping socialism, Bob Hawke’s Gradualism, and John Howard’s Fabianism our rights to control and own our property have been extinguished. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.

There is no difference between communism, national socialism or socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end, communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism, by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two tyrannies. Just “more honest,” not “better”, because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the leaders delude their enslaved subjects.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such differences as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives.  If the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattels.

Today in Hong Kong good people are making huge sacrifices to stop their people from being extradited to Mainland Communism, we used to observe the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun fire, it is un-believable that in our time we have our academics and journalists advocating a return to a full on socialist state on a daily basis. How can anyone believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare. To day you cannot use your land for your benefit, your told where you can walk, where you can go, which cars you want to drive, how your employ people, what business you want to carry out and where it is. Find me a free person in Australia someone who has never been forced by the government to do something?

No genuine person of intelligence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale as the social slavery imposed by socialism, but we like the Germans of pre war are accepting it on a daily basis, bit by bit.

Socialism has never been a movement of the people, or from the people. It is a movement of the people with huge amounts of money and power that pay the intellectuals like Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Hitler, and Lenin they originated it in the early 20th Century, and their successors today lead and control today's university intellectuals, from their stuffy ivory towers sending it into those bloody streets of practice where they unite with their allies and executors, the thugs like Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot.

During the 1930s the National Socialists ‘Nazis’ defended their policies, and the German did not rebel, they like us today accepted the Nazi arguments. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, Socialism. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. “Socialism” for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism, in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

The generations that preceded us sacrificed their lives and fortunes to stop socialism in all of its forms, people died on both sides either opposing National Socialism or Defending International Socialism and those that lived had it imposed on them by stealth in the ensuing years.

George Soros, the modern day Dr Gobbels who controls the Media.

“To be a socialist,” says Goebbels, “is to submit the ‘I’ to the ‘Thou’; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practised it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

We firearm owners are the “I” that have to be sacrificed to the “Thou” our rights to the ownership of property and the right to defend our ourselves and our families are to be sacrificed on the alter of Socialism. Forced and pressured not by Dr Goebbels and the Nazis, not by Stalin and Communists but by faceless nonentities from the Socialist /Green/Oligarchy funded by George Sorus and his foundations.

Ron Owen

“whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” John Locke

……………………………………….
Any Inquiries email owenguns@spiderweb.com.au