Is Facebook interfering again?

Can the reaction to the Gossnell film can be regarded as a victory against the very truth of what happens in abortion?  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-blocks-gosnell-ads-labels-film-about-serial-killer-abortionist-pol

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer is currently playing in theatres nationwide, but one of the film’s producers says that Facebook is doing its part to keep Americans from knowing about it. Why?

Was the great Times columnist, Bernard Levin right or wrong when he said,  “the atrophy of moral judgment is the characteristic disease of our times – the inability to see evil and a willingness to condone it”? 

Is there in fact a great badness underpinning the attack on the truth of what happens in abortion? Is our own Prime Minister dodging this, in her wish to “liberalise” the law?

Why do so many American women – and women elsewhere  – they  who know the reality of a dependent little life growing inside them –  so very desperately repudiate  what is actually true? Why do they fight against taking on board the fact that much more is involved than the highly specious mantra of “a woman’s right to her own body”?

It’s not her own body she’s having killed, is it…

So what about the fudging of the fact that the deliberate killing of a boy or girl child instead is what actually happens?

What if it is no accident that we have progressed – or rather – regressed – to the point where people have become embarrassed about actually using their judgment about what is good or  evil – even about the existence of actual forces of good and evil – because it is now unfashionable to do so? 

Has “evil” simply become an embarrassing word?

But what if there is both good and evil in the world and we are constantly faced with choices between these?  And what if these choices carry consequences?

What is the effect on us – and on our society – if we just don’t want to know – if we pretend it doesn’t matter whether or not we actually try to get to the truth of issues – rather than simply justify to ourselves and others the choices that are “more convenient”, more palatable?

But what if to be human carries an obligation that we must evaluate what we’re doing – what we support and what we don’t support?

What if we are expected to think with our heads as well as our hearts – to make moral choices – to even think about the meaning of the word moral?

What if it is time to stop ignoring or glossing over the damage this dreadful practice has done to so many women, victims of a massive con – many in pain for the rest of their lives… let alone the dead babies resulting?

Is part of the problem with Western civilisation today that basically, individuals have been long propagandised against the necessity for moral and spiritual and spiritual choices in our lives?

What if it is actually true that …”Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians. 

Is it time we faced up to being far less conflicted about talking about  the very real possibility of moral and spiritual evil  – and of the act of abortion being very much part of this? 

And shouldn’t we wonder why those who legitimately raise these issues are subjected to such vilification and abuse?

 © Amy Brooke

 

 

 

Jacinda Ardern – you shouldn’t be signing this!

Jacinda Ardern  – you shouldn’t be signing this!   https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/04/countries-shunning-un-compact/

You haven’t even consulted New Zealanders, Miss Ardern… and yet this is supposed to be a democracy!  Our Prime Minister has no moral right whatever to ignore what obviously far more knowledgeable countries’ leader  are refusing to sign – yet another anti-the West, United Nations edict – The UN Compact on Migration.

What right, concerned New Zealanders are asking, does our Prime Minister have to sign an agreement already rejected by far more knowledgeable politicians around the world, acknowledging the loss of sovereignty to their own country? Her confident conviction – now thoroughly disproved – that rising sea levels threaten Pacific nations so we must take more islanders on board is simply an embarrassment to read. See https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/opinion-evidence-doesnt-support-rapid-future-sea-level-rise-p-189007

The National Party is rightly refusing to sign this migration agreement, objected to not only by the US, but by Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Denmark, Belgium, and now New Zealanders are waking up to its implications – a potential considerable loss of sovereignty for the nations signing to this thoroughly damaging agenda, achieving, as always, more jobs for the girls and boys who dream up these compliance edicts to dump on countries – together with more costly drains on their economies. – i.e. is every one of us. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/12/national-wants-out-of-controversial-un-migration-pact.html

Concerned New Zealanders are now asking if our Prime Minister is out of her depth,  as she appears to be incompetent in this area and other areas. We can recall she confidently declared New Zealand has no Russian spies.

Is she equally as naïve about the agenda-laden Communist-Chinese backed infiltration into our political parties, the very generous donations…the buying up of our farmlands and strategic assets? That the National Party’s former Minister in Charge of the SIS,  Chris Finlayson, apparently showed a quite shocking ignorance of what was happening in this area of national security  and the threat this country is facing – rudely dismissing at a public meeting a reference to the brave Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s well acknowledged competence – is arguably a pointer into how unacceptably ignorant our politicians basically are.

Why aren’t our political representatives routinely saying No to the ever-increasing edicts and impositions being laid upon us by the implacably anti-Western United Nations Organisation? That fact that John Key also allowed Pita Sharples to sneak off to New York to sign the Declaration  on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples  – locking us into more of the U.N.’s pernicious agenda – without even consulting the country or notifying the media  – was an insult  to New Zealanders.

Similarly, Ardern’s played-down intent to sign this document  – without even referring it back to the country as a whole – a document which will undoubtedly serve to challenge New Zealand’s sovereignty with regard to how many refugees we can decide to take. It will pressure us to yield the right to determine that we will – as we should – restrict this right in relation to those whose cultural beliefs will not best to serve the interests of this country.

Intelligent discrimination can only help safeguard those basically Christian values which have so long safeguarded the democracies of the West. And this of course, is one reason why they are so strongly under attack, as part of what is fundamentally a Marxist agenda – using issues of cultural identity to attack democracies worldwide. That these have been well and truly under attack can’t possibly be unknown to our politicians looking at the disastrous effects of radicalised Islamic  immigration into Germany as a result of the feelgood – thinkbad idiocy of Angela Merkel. Her apparent inability to foresee the consequences of importing Muslim  extremists – while attempting to bully other countries into acquiescence – has resulted in a Germany now subject to an unprecedented rise in crimes of violence, assault, rape with which the police admit they cannot cope.

The UN, of course, has long been captured by this determination to brandish “cultural identity” as a political weapon. And in this insidious document, the UN Compact on Migration, we find the same weasel mantra about “non-discrimination” – when in fact the ability to discriminate is vitally important for the survival of any country.

New Zealanders must insist on their right to allow entry into the country only to those prepared to assimilate and support the foundations upon which our democratic society country has been built – not to work towards challenging and destabilising our core values. Moreover, the ability for each of us to discriminate is an important part of our very survival.

The bludgeon of multiculturalism, also invoked, has now been shown to be one of the most effective weapons in attacking the West to destabilise it. Another has been that on freedom of speech – an area where our own Race Relations Commission’s highly flawed recommendations similarly attempt to undermine our very basic freedoms. To aim to regulate speech is to attack the very essence of democracy.

So why doesn’t Miss Ardern listen? Her conviction that she knows best challenges the triumphalist feminist claim that if only women ruled the world things would be very different. Seemingly, self regarding female leaders have no apparent advantage over incompetent male leaders.  We can only deduce that, like the ill-fated Theresa May  – with her apparent staggering incompetence in dealing with the EU’s attempts to turn the UK into a basically vassal state of an unelected, undemocratic Establishment –  or the incredibly foolish Angela Merkel –  women leaders per se have no apparent advantage over incompetent male leaders.

It also highlights the very problem with leadership – the ability of self-regarding, ambitious individuals throughout history to commit their country to actions which so often bring about disastrous consequences.  Switzerland, arguably the most successful of all democracies, does not allow its governments to make decisions on behalf of the people of the country!

Through their 100 Days provision by which Swiss citizens can scrutinise all legislation and decide for themselves whether they wish to back it  – it’s the Swiss electorate who retain control of the politicians.

The only prospect of genuine electoral reform in this country is for New Zealanders to support the same, very achievable aim – See www.100days.co.nz and help us to claim this country back.

© Amy Brooke – Convener – The 100 Days-Claiming back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians 

Join us now! It is, above all, individuals who count…

Why does Jacinda Arden not offer sanctuary to Asia Bibi? We need an answer.

Why does Jacinda Arden not offer sanctuary to Asia Bibi? We need an answer.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/we-cant-we-save-asia-bibi/news-story/0125acb2f055606a4a72d006d29e4c59

Our Prime Minister likes to present a compassionate and caring call for refugees, even when it come to giving the impression she knows better how to deal with Australia’s problems than does our big neighbour.  This is not a good look for her – and it would not be totally unfair to accuse her of a certain arrogance in taking this confrontational stand.

Moreover, although she denies this is the case, Miss Ardern’s activism in this area reportedly has brought New Zealand into focus as a very possible newer target for people smugglers.

Australian intelligence officials say monitored communications over the past few months have put New Zealand into focus as one of the main possible destinations for asylum seekers – see  The Australian reports. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/01/jacinda-ardern-s-caused-people-smuggling-spike-aussie-intelligence.html

Intelligence sources have blamed this on her offer, without any consultation with New Zealanders, to resettle refugees from Australia’s offshore detention centres.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/09/jacinda-ardern-back-on-collision-course-over-refugee-numbers.html

Although Ardern keeps stirring the pot on this issue of opening our doors to more refugees, many New Zealanders would like to see better action on the problems this country already faces in relation to the acute housing shortage affecting so many – and in dealing with the problems of our own homeless people.

Moreover, it is all very well to say that women and children be given preference – and this may well be a more desirable option  for countries accepting young single males as refugees.  However, if a husband and father is part of a mother and children relationship, then any proposal to remove children from a caring, protective father and spouse obviously needs to be rethought.

The refugees that by implication Miss Ardern implicitly accuses the Australian government of mismanaging already have a place to be.

Why then isn’t our Prime Minister far more concerned about some of those individuals persecuted in their own countries, and in many cases facing the death penalty, not for having committed any crime, but particularly because they are Christians now being targeted worldwide by fundamental Islamic activists and terrorists – and by the China’s Communist government turning on its own people?

Why, for example,  do we have Jacinda Ardern’s extraordinary silence in relation to the very obviously deserving,  shockingly imprisoned and now greatly endangered Christian woman, Asia Bibi, mother of two little girls and supported by a devoted husband?

Although temporally freed from prison in Pakistan, she, her family and relatives are now in grave danger, and desperately need help.

I doubt if there is one New Zealander who would object to our country offering sanctuary to this brave, long persecuted Christian woman.

So why aren’t the media asking Jacinda why we are not extending this much needed offer to someone so obviously deserving?

 Why not, Jacinda?

© Amy Brooke _ Convener “The 100 Days-Claiming Back New Zealand” – http://www.100days.co.nz

 

Amy Brooke

Visit my homepage and children’s literature website: www.amybrooke.co.nz

www.100days.co.nz

www.summersounds.co.nz

http://brookeonline.livejournal.com

 

Jacinda Ardern’s priorities aren’t most New Zealanders.

Men count, too, Jacinda.  As do our littlest people.

There are two main areas in which Jacinda Arden’s shortfalls in thinking are potentially, when they’re not already, damaging to the country. One is with regard to her party’s socio-economic agenda, very much contributing to the fact that among the 35 countries in the OECD we have fallen to second worst, with business confidence understandably low. Her new tag of Taxinda Ardern is not unearned.  The other is her unsubtle push to enable even more babies to be killed before birth – an obvious consequence –  if what many New Zealanders rightly regard as a horrific procedure is removed from the Crimes Act.

In recent years, even hardened pro-abortion doctors have walked away from what they eventually found an accumulatively sickening procedure –See https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/abortionist-who-performed-over-1200-abortions-becomes-pro-life/10155873761783728

Yet the attack continues against pro-life doctors for following their consequences.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-wins-landmark-pro-life-conscience-rights-case-in-norway

The unbalanced representation of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is highly questionable. That there are apparently no very much-needed conservative thinkers  there, among these government appointees, has doubtless contributed to our sad statistics of over 13,000 unborn children put to death last year. Shockingly, there are no males on the panel, although a man is as much involved in the creation of a new life as is a woman. Moreover, this all-women committee, especially a committee of liberally-inclined women, is more than unbalanced: Who is there on it to represent the rights of a child already conceived? And when a growing infant is now basically regarded as disposable by the usual extremist groups (always a stroppy minority, to whose radicalised demands our politicians so typically capitulate) what is disregarded are the consequences for a society which treats the unborn child so cavalierly as killing it – and disregards the emotional pain and guilt so many women, given no other real help or choices, will feel for the rest of their lives.

For all Ms Ardern’s claim that she simply wants abortion removed from the Crimes Act, where it resides for very good reason, abortion can never be a simple health issue, so she should stop fudging this fact. The law is now farcical when by far the majority of women wanting an abortion can simply advance a mental health issue, and end up in the obliging hands of those with no wish to disbelieve them. We’re all well aware that the widely-used excuse of the mental health of the mother provides a virtual state of abortion on demand. Moreover, no real help by any government funded agency is offered to desperate women who fundamentally do not want to take this step. Why not?  The government needs to be challenged on the fact that all it offers is death, death after one-sided “counselling”?

What very real help does come is from the voluntary, non-government funded pro-life organisations that work indefatigably to help both worried women and the babies that many of them long to keep. They deserve all our tangible support.

At least let’s have more intellectual honesty from those agitating for abortion to be removed from the Crimes Act, well knowing that the deliberate killing of an unborn child, already someone’s son or daughter, is involved. But then pro-abortionists have always been very evasive when dodging any question of moral or ethical liability.  We all know that the perennially pushed propaganda claiming  – “a woman’s right” – deliberately dodges the fact that the rights of another human being are now also very much at stake  – perhaps even that of another female child on her  own way now to eventual womanhood, with her own right to life.

And of course the rights of the father are also involved. Ignoring this has seen some fathers desperately asking for a son or daughter to be allowed to survive, broken-hearted that they may never see, nor get to hold their own child. So why is abortion wrongly represented as “a woman’s right“alone?  No woman conceives a child alone. And no-one (yet) advocates  “ a woman’s right “to kill her child after birth. So why pre-birth?

We are all very well acquainted with the untruths abortionists have always felt necessary to deal in. At what stage do they become lies? Certainly, using euphemisms to gloss over the actual facts  of what  happens to a tiny  child  both if it is dismembered to be removed  – or if it is born alive and then disposed of – should have alerted any Western society to  the intrinsic badness of this act.

We are all aware that initially there was a total denial of the reality of a human being now on its way after conception until science challenged this. I recall the outrage which greeted a very brave Dunedin MP  years ago when, an effort to illustrate to his colleagues the reality of the unborn child, he held  up a tiny, already perfectly formed unborn baby of about three months,  completely recognisable as such, in a test tube. The howls of outrage that ensued were a sobering reminder of the venom with which, even today, so many pro-abortionists attack those arguing for protection for these most vulnerable of all human beings. No doubt Brian MacDonnell’s proof that this unborn child was demonstrably not “ just a mass of red cells”- the most fashionably invoked phrase at the time, contributed to the outrage expressed. The truth of an issue is never palatable to those profiting from this to be withheld.

I was reminded of this recently when one of New Zealand’s practising abortionists had the gall to claim that the personhood of the unborn child is not recognised until birth. This nonsense is just playing with words. Its intrinsic untruth is shown by the fact that when a premature baby is born not at approximately the normal birth time, of 40 weeks – but even as early as around 23 – 24 weeks – the fact that this is a living child, a son  or daughter, is never disputed!  Extraordinary efforts  by dedicated staff  are then made  to save this baby  – while another  late term abortion may be performed on a child the same age  in a theatre next door  – a situation which one doctor has described as utterly barbaric.

So what is driving Ardern’s agenda – out of step as she is  with the tide of revulsion now growing overseas as the reality of the effect of an abortion on the living, intrauterine child has now bought been brought home to so many – not only through ultrasound scans? That abortion,  in the eyes of many,  is the act of murdering the most vulnerable human being of all is beyond dispute.  The damage this killing has done not only to individuals …to desperate now-mothers persuaded that this is a mere surgical procedure, but are later haunted with regret for the rest of their lives, is swept under the carpet.  It has extended consequences for all those involved in this act of deliberate killing. And as people have become  better informed with regard to  Family Planning’s shocking  practices, including the considerable money made out of selling of the results of abortions  –  the dismembered parts of an unborn child –  more horrific revelations have come to light. The facts of  Dr Gosnell’s practice has shocked the conscience of America.  They are now publicised in a film, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, showing in theatres which pro-abortions are trying to have closed down. See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gosnell-film-convinces-abortion-agnostic-to-recognize-murder-of-the

Given the compliance of the Law Commission, with its also highly contestable recommendation that  abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act, it is time for the all too silent majority – who too often leave an important fight to others – to now stand up to be counted. It has never been easier to ring Parliament (04 817 9999) to be asked to be passed through to the office of a party leader, your electorate MP -or any other of our supposed representatives. Nothing is simpler than to then ask for your  strong objections to leaving the unborn child even more defenceless than it is to be noted – and acted upon.

Alternatively, we can do nothing. But then we will ultimately have to face the consequences of this, too.

For next time.  She promised that taxes would not be raised… And does she really believe, after all these failed precedents that socialism can be taken seriously as a workable philosophy? 

© Amy Brooke.  Read my “The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. “Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

 

On Armistice Day

On Armistice Day –  remembering those for whom it  came too late – and their families, for whom life was never the same…

 

Night Flight

 

Lord, I’m not yet twenty,

My brother only twenty-three;

if one of us must die tonight

let it not be he!

Or me…

 

Yet there the crescent moon

rising gold above the land

cradles the ghost of another;

one reborn, one dying

in the arms of a brother,

a sign of things to be..?

 

He led me by the hand

once when lost and small. I understand

the call for sons, while grieving mothers

listen to our planes climb high,

and fathers pace – and loving others;

my girl who kissed me, smiling still.

I promised to come back. Some day I will.

 

But not tonight. The woods below

are where my pup and I grew up. We owe

that old dog, whining in his sleep

our childhood days. Three pairs of eyes

on silver moving in the stream.

What does he dream?

Do owls still keep

the twilight watch below?

I see our fields are white with snow.

But dark shadows now streak by…

 

Keep them both safe, Lord;

let them go free.

If one must go, take me.

 

***                   Amy Brooke

 

Whom do you believe, Dr Anne-Marie or politicians?

Whom would you believe, Dr Anne-Marie Brady on Communist China’s influence – or our pathetically performing politicians?

The marvel is that any New Zealanders at all still bother to listen to politicians. They, and the mainstream media, now make a pretty hopeless pair. And as, like most, I make a point of not wasting time by watching  politicians perform for a TV audience, it was strictly by accident that I came across the Q&A programme this last Sunday evening. I stayed because of the promise of the appearance of the brave and well-informed Dr Anne-Marie Brady, held in well-deserved respect world-wide because of her deep knowledge of the way that China’s Communist Party – the CCP – interferes in the internal affairs of other countries.

What it has achieved so far, to a culpable extent that would never have occurred if our politicians had not been so intellectually lazy, and culpably under-informed, is what New Zealanders urgently need to wake up to. But shockingly, the reaction of Corin Dann’s political hangers-on, his poorly chosen audience, was incredible. Basically, Dr Brady’s astute, thoroughly objective and well-balanced account of the way (and extent to which) China’s Communist leadership has worked to influence the political decision-making of our major parties was simply derided.

They scoffed. Their ignorance, or assumed ignorance, was simply astounding. What was most striking is that what came across was the level of stupidity in reaction to her fine and timely presentation. It was so marked that it can only bring politicians, plus its  in-group hanger-ons and the political commentariat into even more contempt.

Yet Anne-Marie’s Brady’s scholarly investigation of what exactly is at stake in relation to the targeting of New Zealand, Australia, the UK and other Western democracies is probably unequalled. She has written extensively in books and well-respected publications, and it was for this reason that I invited her some years ago to be a keynote speaker at the annual Summer Sounds Symposium which I founded and ran for a decade and a half to open up genuine debate on the important issues facing this country – both internally and externally. Attending, together with her Chinese husband and children, we were left with no doubt, after her incisive and well-substantiated contribution, that she has become a world expert on this question.

Moreover, because of the deep concern in other countries about the extent to which Communist China has already interfered in attempts to gain control of important businesses and strategic assets, as well as influencing the political process, every one of these countries,  except New Zealand, is now investigating what has been happening and what extra safeguards need now to be mounted to protect our democracies.

When Corin Dann’s Q & A lightweight audience basically dismissed what she said,  not only was their ignorance – or their unwillingness to face up to what has been happening on their watch – a revelation. It also reminded me of Minister Chris Finlayson’s inexcusable dismissal of Dr Brady’s findings when questioned at a public   meeting about China’s soft influence in this country.

https://croakingcassandra.com/2017/09/20/the-political-cone-of-silence-with-slurs/

What shocked many then listening is that Finlayson at the time was Minister in Charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service – and should have been expected to know that Dr Brady’s published research is impeccable. His apparent attempt to personally rubbish her, and to dismiss any suggestion of Communist Chinese influence in this country raises questions about what our political parties are up to.  We all know that our  government’s first duty is the defence of the realm. Yet the then Minister in charge of our security services appeared to be spectacularly ignorant on such an important issue.

Finlayson has not been alone – and not only are National Party spokespersons, present and past, some of whom have had lucrative, special relationships with Chinese organisations   – arguably  none of which would be now permitted to survive without the tacit approval of Communist Party leadership –  dodging the question of just what has been happening.  Jacinda Ardern, who apparently likes to address her followers as Comrades, has also dismissed the fact of the CCP’s involvement in our affairs.

A few other important articles have appeared, particularly, particularly in the New Zealand Herald, and yet the guest speakers on this Q&A programme appeared to be spectacularly ignorant of the well substantiated facts they contain. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11958211

Inevitably, the question is going to be asked right around the country about the extent to which individual politicians have been unduly influenced by the promise of party donations and personal profit through interactions with business associations basically under the control of the CCP.

It’s not the first time that questions have been asked about the extent of the very generous funding of our political parties – as with the National Party coffers pre-election. John Key’s support by wealthy Chinese businessman and his efforts to change our flag – removing the Union Jack, – also raised eyebrows.

In my own  book “The 100 Days –Claiming Back New Zealand  – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians”,  I included a chapter titled State Assets, New Zealand and Chinese ownership.  In it I noted what  a highly educated New Zealand Chinese, who many years ago had protested at the butchery of Tiananmen Square, had read at the time in a Weekend Herald interview with the Chinese Ambassador, and consequently felt both fear and disgust. The reason? The ambassador’s push for military ties between New Zealand and Communist China.

It is no doubt news to most New Zealanders that military to military cooperation between China and New Zealand has developed quickly in recent years…as is also a fact that during Helen Clarke’s time in office,  several dozen high-ranking military Communist Chinese delegations were shown around our own military bases and made privy to our defence capabilities – regarded by concerned and knowledgeable commentators as highly inadequate – which no doubt the Chinese have also noted.

These and other issues were raised at the time  Communist China was involved in buying up our government debt in record volumes,  and it was mooted that at least half our major New Zealand firms were going to end up in the hands of what are basically commercially-fronted, but Communist China-underpinned companies.  Questions were being asked what the implications are for New Zealand when China begins to intrude more and more into our affairs, already exercising pressure on the Falun Gong within this country, and incredibly enough, suggesting joint military exercises. How soon, it was asked, can we expect to see Chinese warships anchored in New Zealand ports?

If these questions seem alarmist we need to make ourselves more fully informed about what exactly is happening. Why has the OIO  endorsed virtually all the CCP- backed buy up of our prime farmland – with questions now being raised about its possible use for military purposes?

For more – read my book  with its well-researched over-view of what has gone wrong  in so many  areas of what was once a far more stable and prosperous democracy –  and how we can strategically work to control our politicians. *

For those New Zealanders with an understandable distaste for now backing any of our political parties – once burnt,  twice shy – its analysis of what has been going wrong in this country, and why –  shows the very achievable way forward for New Zealanders to  ourselves make the decisions determining our directions – not what are now regarded as basically under informed, incompetent and, in some cases, even, possibly corrupt politicians.

Our political class has betrayed this country, and Dr Brady deserves all our support.

*

Join us to help claim it back! See www.100days.co.nz

Amy Brooke – “The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. “ *

 

I wonder if we realise how much we owe Ian Wishart?

I wonder if we realise how much we owe Ian Wishart?

https://investigatemagazine.co.nz/24448/catholic-church-in-crisis-save-money-or-save-souls/

Looking back at the history of INVESTIGATE  magazine should very much bring home to us the fact that writer and publisher Ian Wishart made the holes in the hedges on so many issues of the day. This was not only in his painstaking analysis of so many of the political and social issues given once-over-lightly treatment by far the majority of our journalists. His refusal to look for anything but the truth of issues behind the façades shielding some of our  most prominent – (and most damaging)  – politicians brought home to so many of us what was, and still is,  happening to this country.

It will take a long time indeed before his deservedly bestselling books even begin to date. And given the blacklisting given to my own books and columns by a basically malevolent, government-supported literary hierarchy dominated by a thoroughly unscrupulous Left coterie in this country, I owe Ian for his courage in publishing and supporting my own well-researched columns which, too, were before their time.

The neo-Marxist infiltration of our now third-rate education system,  and the pernicious effects on a formerly more unified, less crime-ridden country  – with the deliberate fomenting of a grievance mentality among so many of part-Maori genetic inheritance – were areas which very much concerned a few of us over three decades ago.

The results are now with us – due to the intellectual laziness and vote-buying propensity of our politicians. But that the churches now seem to have lost their own pathway to carry forward the message of the Christian values and beliefs so long fundamental in stabilising Western society, should give us cause for increasing concern. That the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in particular, long regarded as less likely to give way to contemporary fashions, are  now regarded as needing a reminder of what has always been its central message, is no light matter.

As always, so much depends upon individuals, challenging what has gone wrong. And as one individual who has always stood up to be counted, regardless of whether or not  readers have always agreed with his views –  and as head and shoulders above so many of his journalist colleagues – Ian Wishart deserves all our respect.

© Amy Brooke.