It’s high time to control our damaging political party leaders!

It’s high time to control our damaging political party leaders!

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/the-hypocrisies-of-professional-leaders/

That political reform is needed here and elsewhere is more than obvious, and there is a crucial first step  which should now be taken in New Zealand  – and elsewhere. Look at the fiasco in Theresa May’s Britain alone…If we want to grow up as a people, we need to stop our dug-in Prime Ministers from basically dominating us all.

We have seen the damage done by tyrannical rulers – reflected both in the pages of history  – and constantly highlighted in today’s media.

But what about the fact that throughout the West those in democracies such as New Zealand are seeing a political class, dominated by party leaders with the bit between their teeth – virtually ruling their own parties – and us? Why are we letting this happen?

Although neither Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party nor John Key’s previous National government attracted more than about 37% of New Zealanders voting for them, Ardern is now posturing as the virtual ruler of this country. She is acting as if she has mandate from the country at large which she certainly doesn’t have   – as with the ideologically-driven UN Compact On Global Migration now forced upon New Zealanders.

The same with the ever-smiling John Key   – who, as a political commentator noted at the time – virtually ruled National…with one MP giving the show away when he stated that when the leader told him to jump – he asked:  “How high?”

Leaders don’t like being opposed from within their own party, and although there were damaging policy issues under Key with they disagreed, none of them apparently had the integrity to say publicly say so.The threat of losing ministerial portfolios, the extra salary, the perks, privileges and special cars …seemingly counts more than representing one’s electorate –  or standing up for once principles. So the practice of kowtowing to the party leadership means a particularly determined leader such as Helen Clark or John Key can remain dominating a party and inflicting their own agenda on the country for several years. And we all pay.

Would Helen Clark ever have been able to destroy the combat wing of our Air Force, even claiming at the time that we lived “in a particularly benign environment” (palpably quite untrue – even before the Communist Chinese infiltration of our Pacific Island neighbours, with the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and East Timor among other hot spots of unrest) if she had not become  so dominating within the Labour Party?

More and more New Zealanders are becoming restive at the racially divisive policies being forced upon this country,   the quite deliberate reinvention of the very simple provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi; the canard of the so-called “partnership” supposedly established between the Crown and Maori as an ethnic entity  (rather than aggressive opposing tribal groupings.)  And, as always, “the squeaky wheel gets the most grease”. Our politicians, dominated by our vote-seeking party leaders, give most of their time and attention to those special interest groups clamouring for more and more funding, more and more antidemocratic liberal policies – no matter how socially divisive and damaging.

The most  ignored voice of New Zealanders is now the conservative voice – the voice of families – of those wanting to preserve the best of what made us as a country, underpinned by Christian principles  and the voice of conscience in our dealings – the voice of those unwilling to embrace damagingly new directions when these mean white-anting everything that once made us proud to be New Zealanders.

And dug-in leadership has become one of the most damaging of all today.

The concept of the leader as not only party leader but  as the ruler of the country – a mantle Ardern  seems to have drawn around her own shoulders
is arguably the first that needs modifying – if we are to begin to claim back this country.

Basically,  it means that it is high time we insisted our political parties set a term limit of one year only  for a current leader, at the end of which time he/she should be obliged to step down, while another steps up for a similar term.

During this time, the party leader should be regarded as basically simply a chairman of the board, there to ensure that proper debate is held within the party, and that where policy consensus is not reached, this should be acknowledged. While directions may be set by a majority vote,  issent should also be respected and recorded.

Switzerland, that  far smarter country,  the most successful and prosperous democracy in the world, with a cabinet of only seven individuals, has long been long aware of the danger of an entrenched and determined leader. So it allows its President a one-year term only. At the end of that time, he/she steps down, and another steps up – usually the previous Finance Minister –  and so on – in rotation.

Why are we not insisting on following the best established practices to work towards genuine democratic reform?

Politicians of course, do not want genuine democratic reform. But when enough people begin to realise that this can be actually achieved, given a tipping point of New Zealanders working towards this, then it will be an idea whose time has well and truly come. We can well argue that this is  now certainly the case.

Our country is in a mess with damaging and costly ideologies – such as – but not only – the anthropogenic global warming cult being forced upon New Zealanders. We are being increasingly taxed by both central and local government policy…although it is acknowledged by Australia, too – (a far larger contributing economy than ours) that suppressing every emission from the very minor CO2 contribution to the atmosphere methane contributes far more to the atmosphere) would have absolutely no effect on the climate!   

And yet, while China and India, and other major contributors continue to rack up pollution, we are forced to pay for what has become basically a con – the political pretence that taxing New Zealanders to change the climate will be of benefit!  But it benefits nobody except our government   – always keen to take more and more of our money, which it thinks it has more right to spend than we do.Time for NZ to come of age?  Then let’s start insisting Prime Ministers and party leaders move aside – after one year in power.

Power – so consistently misused…and we all pay. We can change this.   Come on board  to help!  

See:  www.100days.co.nz  and https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

 

©  Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “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.

 

 

Help Helen Houghton – for the sake of New Zealand children

Congratulations to Helen Houghton for her terrific initiative!

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petitions/document/PET_83774/petition-of-helen-houghton-stop-transgender-teaching-in

Given the ongoing attack on New Zealand children in what are now utterly inappropriate “sex education” classes, this petition is well worth all our support.

27,000 signing is a good start for this country.

A similar one in the UK has now reached 100,000 signatures. And it’s time for everybody to stand up and be counted. Do support this – and let others know!

It’s also time to claim back New Zealand from the very small, but highly radicalised, stroppy sectors of the population which our politicians are giving far too much mileage – against the wishes of the majority in this country.

Join us to help! And see facebook  https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Please visit our DONATIONS  page to chip in and help us reach out even further. Thank you!

Amy Brooke – Convener – The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand.

*Why* is our NZGovernment shockingly failing to protect Dr Anne-Marie Brady?

 *Why* is our NZ government shockingly failing to protect Dr Anne-Marie Brady? Peter Hatcher, Sydney Morning Herald

What are you all doing, our elected representatives, to address this disgraceful situation?

No longer safe: Researcher harassed by China in her own country … Peter Hatcher … Sydney Morning Herald

What has happened to this country when a  scholar of the calibre of Dr Anne-Mare Brady, well-known and well-respected internationally, is, together with her family  being threatened, her home and office broken into, with pressure on the University of Canterbury to sack her – even having her car tampered with – all very obviously because of  Communist Chinese annoyance  – with  our coalition government, headed by the caring Jacinda Ardern and a greatly changed Winston Peters apparently indifferent to what is happening –  being offered  no public support whatever?

Remember the shocking incident of Chris Finlayson, former Minister in charge of the SIS (our Security Intelligence Services) rubbishing Anne-Marie’s warnings about what was happening in this country –  because of the well-targeted penetration of Communist Chinese influence?  Disgraceful.

If the SIS itself behaves in such a cavalier fashion when it comes to the protection of a very important and brave New Zealander, then  this country has become a basket case.

Many have been arguing  this for some time – on  by no means negligible evidence.

Where is there one single member of Parliament taking urgency on this issue, raising well overdue questions about why this is happening – and why an official protest has not been made to the Chinese Embassy?

Why are you MPs not asking  why  Dr Brady is not being offered the highest possible protection?

Why do you  apparently consider it acceptable that she is no longer safe – and that her overseas colleagues are now being harassed?

Let’s have some answers  from you…

 

Amy Brooke – Convenor – the 100Days – Claiming  Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/no-longer-safe-researcher-harassed-by-china-in-her-own-country-20190128-p50u1n.html

New Zealanders: too slow learning the lessons from overseas?

New Zealanders: too slow learning the lessons from overseas?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/parris-and-the-mob/

Our politicians also have no intention of trusting New Zealanders.

There isn’t one MP with whom I have discussed this issue in recent years who doesn’t think that they, the politicians know best … which might be amusing enough – if we weren’t always faced with the costly and damaging consequences.

It’s not just that MPs think they know best. Where their agenda has become self-serving and damaging to us all, it has gradually become more and more translated into what we now have. National now indebted to Communist Chinese backed interests… The foolish Jacinda Ardern discounting any possibility of there being Russian spies in this country. How incredible that she could be so ignorant – not reassuring in a Prime Minister.

But has she in fact been ignorant – or does her socialist agenda (she has apparently been fond of calling her fellow travellers “Comrades”) not allow her to see this as a problem?  The question needs to be asked, because our PM, with her winning ways,  has also been adroit at dodging the very real, well-substantiated evidence that Communist China has long been taking an undue interest in acquiring a concerning degree of influence in this country  – including donating money to political parties.

And what about the charming Arden’s apparent naivety, or ignorance, in relation to the costly economic consequences to us all of the Green’s ridiculous claims in relation to global warming? Not only has this now cult theory landed us with economic penalties in virtually every area now of our lives. Their wish-list also apparently embraces including a halt to any wealth-creating industries, in an apparent effort to return us to pre-industrial society.

What about Miss Ardern’s support of the deeply compromised United Nations – in its constant attack on the West? Odd, isn’t it?

Or is it?

Whatever political party is in power in this country, the result in essence has now become a case of the politicians versus the people… as with the disgraceful selling out of New Zealand on the UN’s Global Compact on Migration…what many regard as an inexplicable betrayal by Winston Peters. Given that nobody doubts Winston’s level of intelligence, and given that he must have known full well the reason so many of our democratic allies – including Australia, the closest of all – refused to sign this politicised attack on the West, what was Winston up to?  Was this his revenge on his old foes in the National Party?  Or was he subjected to Miss Ardern’s charm offensive…coaxed into acquiescence? Whatever. Winston has questions to answer – and many now regard him as having already deservedly lost the next election. The comment made to me today by one disappointed individual, that “Winston is not the man he was” may well be what many others feel.

How are other countries reacting to what they feel is a betrayal by their MPs on too many fronts – betrayals going on for far too long?  The French, a more volatile people, now have the fed-up gilets jaunes letting the ridiculously arrogant Macron know they have had enough. Those sleeping giants, the English, are feeling betrayed over Brexit.

But how much longer is it going to take us, we New Zealanders, to protest against the sellout of this country in so many areas today? When is this country going to say it has had enough?  What do we think our forebears would think of us today  – those men and women of whom we are so proud… they who fought for freedom in that ongoing battle against democracies – in that never-ending aim to establish new tyrannies?

Is it time to be ashamed of how our inertia has already betrayed them?

If you understand what has been happening to this country, please help support us to claim the genuine capacity to take back control of New Zealand from the political parties costing us all so much – promising us the earth at election time – and doing just what they please in between…

All we need is what the clever Swiss realized – and won – to control their own politicians.   Like them, it just needs enough of us! See www.100days.co.nz
 

 © Amy Brooke.  Buy my highly relevant book “The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.” Available through Amazon’s Kindle – or directly from my website  – www.amybrooke.co.nz

Join us to help, with SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.

 Every DONATION helps! Thank you! See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

Are men or women superior?

Are men or women superior?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/wimmins-notes/

The highly politicised Sisterhood cliques do us all a disservice, so let’s have some balance here.

What about the most important women of all – the home-makers…

Is this the tragedy of the day  – that we need to hear many more of them speaking out?

Amy

© Amy Brooke – SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.  And DONATE to help!   Thank you!  

See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

 

Not good thinking, Fran – who trusts the media?

Not good thinking, Fran – who trusts the media?

It’s a very strange suggestion from Fran O’Sullivan, long dug in as a New Zealand Herald columnist and named in the New Year’s Honours list as an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, that the government should be involved in funding the media. New Zealanders like to be generous with their congratulations. But most would argue that the government already has its tentacles reaching into too many areas of our national life. Arguably, her suggestion is an especially dubious proposition, given the potential of the media to be highly partisan – an issue already causing worldwide concern.

Well worth reading is ”Rex Murphy’s: ‘Time is wrong. Today’s journalists are not ‘guardians of the truth’   Contemporary journalism is frequently as wayward as the social media it deplores. It has long since given up any attempt to be objective.’ ” See below. *

New Zealanders have longed regarded the Honours nominations with mixed feelings, some as highly deserving, some raising eyebrows, baffling.  Most would celebrate the one given to that outstanding philanthropist, Sir Stephen Tindall, Knight Great Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit    – and to other some deserving candidates. But there are always those  that are debatable, some viewed as politicised choices – such as the highly controversial Lloyd Geering, who, while professing to be Christian, repudiated the central tenants of Christian teaching  – and then had Honours heaped upon him, initially by Helen Clark’s Labour government.  The extraordinary succession of these that Geering received was topped when, as recently as 2009, his previous Honours awards were elevated to that of Tindall’s – Knight Great Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

However, this former minister’s highly opiniated stance has been regarded  as  extraordinary for a man who apparently decided that his views on the Resurrection were superior to those of  the apostles of Christ’s day  – as well as those of  the hundreds of millions of individuals down through the centuries who repudiated any notion that Christ was either a knave or a delusionist – and who stood by St Paul’s simple assertion that the truth of Christianity depends upon the reality of the Resurrection.

Lloyd Geering decided otherwise. And of course individuals are free to believe what they like, rightly or wrongly. But whether it was a realistic decision of his to still claim to be a Christian – when this depends upon its millennia-held truth  –  even if his stance  was basically fudged as his “belonging to the Christian tradition”  – and, more recently,  as an atheist  a   “non-theist”  – his nomination became arguably an untenable choice. Very many New Zealanders regarded Geering as having done an enormous amount of damage to Christian belief – particularly because of his still confusingly claiming to be inside the Church – rather than a more appropriate acknowledgement of where he had in reality arrived – repudiating it. He acknowledges he sees no point praying -“There’s nobody up there to answer them.” His out of left field preference rejecting the importance of the individual nation state safeguarding its interests in favour of the concept of One World Government would certainly mirror Helen Clark’s long maintained socialist philosophy.

Society has always had its mavericks and its eccentrics. But when they challenge, with no basis for proof, the beliefs and values that underpin and stabilise our society, they do not usually have Honours upon Honours heaped on them.  What these signified, in the eyes of many, is that his views were meeting with political approval at its highest Left-wing level in this country. On form, he regards the anti-the West UN as doing a great job. As with others who, in the eyes of many have been dubious recipients of the awards – including businessmen, politicians, and sportspeople  – the selection process appears to so often depend upon the priorities, or the agenda, of the government of the day.

When Fran O Sullivan uses her own Honours listing to argue that   governments have a responsibility in addressing how journalism is funded, she strays into the grey area of special pleading – as a journalist herself at the time when public perception of the media, at an all-time low, means that even major media corporations are losing the advertisers that fund them.  Although she states that “this doesn’t mean that the government should step in and run media…“ her argument that “a public-private partnership could be set up in some of these areas in the same way it’s made to creative arts ” will be regarded by many as a more than dubious proposition.

Government- funded print and on-line media, no matter the nature of the arrangement, is simply not acceptable. Neither our government-backed broadcasting nor television is regarded as producing an even-handed, quality product. On the contrary, standards are viewed as having markedly declined, and continuing to do so. Moreover, thanks to liberal government backing, the “creative arts” she instances have long become monopolised by sharp-elbowed in-groups of the Left distributing the literary grants among themselves and their politicised fellow travellers – while blacklisting authors and artists who will not toe their politicised line.  It is an important and relevant contention that all taxpayer funding should be removed from these well-heeled cliques, and that it should be left to the public to decide which writers and artists they choose to support on the basis of merit alone – not on their politicised agenda.

Miss O’Sullivan’s plea for government funding for the media within which she works – or even for government-owned entities such as the New Zealand Super Fund and ACC to take a stake in media companies “to ensure they were locally owned”  – will not meet the approval test of the man in the street – nor the highly intelligent home-maker – nor all those in the trades and professions  already fed up with the ever-increasing burden of government edicts, the increasing new areas of taxation – and the mounting compliance issues. Faced with a future prospect of the media “explaining” and supporting these – to satisfy the government of the day – is unacceptable.  If there is no such thing as a free lunch, O’Sullivan’s wish list is more than unrealistic. She should well know that bargains are not made on the basis of something for nothing.

Her contention is that “We’ve got to have media that acts in New Zealand’s interests….and it would be great to have a government that valued that.” But that  real thinking concerning what New Zealand’s interests really are should never be left to the media, nor to successive governments of the day, each very much with their own agenda – and each long wooing flattered or compliant journalists to help achieve this. Moreover, when the flagrant bias of our media is already so obvious in relation to the stance of highly politicised editorialists and journalists – particularly so in relation to the fact that they themselves are often quite culpably ignorant in areas where their research is far from in-depth – then the prospect of journalists being leaned even more upon by governments of the day is ominous.  The standard of most of today’s columnists is basically abysmal.

Examples? The complete lack of genuine debate,  or even well-substantiated media writing in relation to the ever-ongoing gravy train of treaty settlements  pouring into an already $40 billion Maori economy –  many now well argued to be on fraudulent grounds. That these grossly politicised settlements have long deprived the country of vital funding into health, housing and other grossly under-funded areas has been arguably a disgrace. Similarly, with the almost totally one-sided presentation of the highly dubious, man-made global warming claim – long well-challenged in reputable publications overseas – but where the New Zealand media have locked themselves into an over-comfortable relationship with the global warming cultists within this country.

Flying in the face of our media establishment’s claim to objective reporting and impartiality, its palpable bias is almost ludicrous, when one is faced with: “Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denials or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in”Quick! Save the planet” and to our moderation standards for reader comments.”

Quick! Save the planet…” ? The claim of the editorial writer who produced such nonsense to promote “robust debate” that is completely its opposite is not only doubly ludicrous – it is childish. It brings me back to Fran O’Sullivan’s virtual plea – which could well be titled –“Quick! Save the media.”

We already know what the public response to this would be. New Zealanders, with good reason, are walking away from their mainstream media and the flagrant bias with which, insultingly they have long been treated. Even the ability to allow for public feedback and debate in relation to most columnists’ and editors’ pronouncements has been largely removed. Space for readers’ comments has largely gone –dissent is not encouraged. Editors reject from correspondents letters with which they don’t agree. Robust debate, as this ridiculous Stuff notification so well highlights, is largely a thing of the past, as far as our media giants are concerned.

There is far better material now available for public information and debate away from the former long monopoly of the giant media corporations, and their day is arguably over – as everyone knows – apart from those still wedded to a new Utopia – or to a past with far more rigorous standards in journalism – a past that has long gone.*

© Amy Brooke. Buy my highly relevant book “The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.” Available through Amazon’s Kindle – or directly from my website  – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz

SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.  And DONATE to help!   Thank you!  

See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

* https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-time-is-wrong-todays-journalists-are-not-guardians-of-the-truth#comments-area

”Rex Murphy: Time is wrong. Today’s journalists are not ‘guardians of the truth’.Contemporary journalism is frequently as wayward as the social media it deplores. It has long since given up any attempt to be objective.”

Rex Murphy
December 28, 2018
1:06 PM EST

”Time, that tattered, shrunken revenant of a once-popular news magazine, continues in its endless decline to delude itself that it has either the authority or the competence to name the “Person of the Year.” Brilliantly it named journalists — “The Guardians” — as 2018’s collective heroes, with Jamal Khashoggi given pride of place on the once-iconic cover. Time neglected to check on Khashoggi and now finds that it nominated a Qatar stooge, whose columns were midwifed by officers in the Qatar government, and whose “journalistic” career was but a distracting pendant to his many more serious activities, latterly as an anti-Saudi lobbyist, nephew to the one-time world’s biggest arms dealer, and a host of other shadowy mésalliances. The neatest summary I have read of Khashoggi, the journalist, is: “a highly-partisan operative who worked with a handler to publish propaganda at the behest of the Emirate of Qatar … in other words, an agent of influence.”

”Great cover photo for a Time “guardians of truth” issue.

”A highly partisan operative who worked with a handler to publish propaganda

”As far as journalists collectively being honoured with the ascription “guardians,” that surely cannot apply in North America or Europe if we take most of their coverage of Donald Trump as the testing ground. Trump journalism will some day earn its place in medical literature, side by side with malarial fever and LSD as engines of hallucination and fitful nightmares.

”Throw in the scandal saga of Der Spiegel, whose star investigative reporter, Claas Relotius, has been proven to be an industrial-scale fraud, a fantasist fictionist, who gulled Der Spiegel and its readers for years, and is now the face for “fake news” worldwide, and ask again how journalists could even be considered the heroes of 2018? The Relotius problem was correctly described in a Facebook post as “a product of an absurdly leftist writers’ fraternity that is increasingly seldom prepared to leave its own convenient moral comfort zone in favour of the facts.”

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=167fd942fdee3887&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1> Der Spiegel reporter Claas Relotius, who has admitted to fabricating stories, is seen during an award ceremony in Munich, Germany, on March 27, 2014. Ursula Dueren/dpa/AP

”Journalism is frequently as wayward as the social media it ritually deplores, propelled by a lust-like drive to the parts of a story that accord with its prejudices and predispositions. It has long since replaced the attempt to be objective with a commitment to activism and advocacy. Much of contemporary journalism does not report on the game. It sees itself as part of the game — it seeks to massage opinion, reinforce favoured perspectives, take down its “enemies” and shield its heroes.

”There is an old word, not seen much in modern writing, quite possibly in near full decay from lack of use. Which is a shame for it still remains possibly the only full semantic vehicle for certain phenomena. The word is incompossible, and its meaning (taken here from the Oxford English Dictionary) is: adj. – Unable to exist if something else exists. Two things are incompossible when the world of being has scope enough for one of them, but not enough for both.

”Much of contemporary journalism does not report on the game. It sees itself as part of the game

”To illustrate the meaning, I offer a few sentences: Environmentalism and journalism are incompossible. Hatred of and contempt for Donald Trump and honest reporting on him are incompossible.

”Place the adjective environmental to govern the noun journalism and the former swallows up, nullifies, extinguishes quite the latter. What we may call real journalists on the global warming file are, to use a familiar category, on the very sharp end of the endangered species list. The majority of environmental journalists are a choir in perfect harmony on a one-note score, the settled-science symphony of the IPCC and Al Gore.

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=167fd942fdee3887&attid=0.2&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1> This combination photo provided by Time magazine shows its four covers for its 2018 “Person of the Year.”

”Trump journalism is obsessive, manic and unboundedly adversarial. Much of it is wish-fantasy in print or online. The evidence was clear from the night of his election, when that great organ of higher reportage, The New York Times, was giving Mr. Trump an eight-per-cent chance of victory, and poor Hillary a wild 92 per cent. Error of that magnitude doesn’t spring from faulty polling or inadequate assessment of the public mood.

”It is incorruptible evidence that a once great newspaper had chosen to report what its owners and reporters wanted to see as reality, its fantasy of reality, as the reality. They had cut all anchors to objectivity and fact to drift on the currents of advocacy and wish-fulfillment. On that same night, as the results came in on the networks, people saw on the crestfallen faces of the anchor “guardians” for whom “speaking truth to power” is their prayer and motto, just how unwelcome the real truth was, when their power to declare what that truth should be, had been denied them.

”This was infallibly not the year to declare journalists the heroes of our time. but then, it was Time that declared them so, so who, really, thought they were?”

© Amy Brooke – SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.  And DONATE to help!   Thank you!  

See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN Compact on Global Migration – a disgraceful affair

The UN Compact on Global Migration – a disgraceful affair

What many regard with good reason as the sneaky signing of this potentially damaging agreement is going to be the turning point for so many.

Right across the country, well-informed New Zealanders are shocked at what is seen as a thoroughly underhand  effort by our Left-wing Coalition government to deliberately postpone  endorsing this UN agenda-driven, control move against the West  – (no matter what Winston thinks about it)  – until just as Parliament closes down for the year.

Why should we be surprised? It’s certainly not the first time that determined politicians,  very well aware that  the country, nationwide, is strongly opposed to  some agenda-driven legislation, have deliberately pushed it through right on the verge of Christmas when Parliament is closing down. And, of course – hoping that we will all be too busy at this very special time of the year to be able to mount a sufficient protest.

Well, the days of civic protest, of marches on Parliament  – not by special interest groups but by New Zealanders now increasingly concerned about what is happening to this country –  are coming closer. What sort of democracy do we now have when this delayed decision has been deliberately contrived  – in order to prevent the Opposition from providing much-need debate – and from highlighting the flaws in the government’s arguments?

But it is certainly helping New Zealanders further towards coming of age politically.

The level of anger that the government has taken this route is palpable – much of it directed at Winston Peters – whose intelligence has never been doubted – but who is now quoting the Crown Law Office as virtually saying everything is just fine… that all the other Western countries, acting on obviously far better informed, expert advice – and saying no to signing this weasel document  – are just wrong.  In Winston’s view…

Regardless of what lawyers from the Crown Law Office have said – apparently more or less to the point that everything is hunky-dory – we just don’t believe them – with very good reason. Moreover, although at the moment that’s another issue, the Crown Law Office has arguably already proved itself less than competent in the past.

This country is now divided into two camps – that of the political class – versus the people. And we all now know the former take no real notice of New Zealanders,  except at election time. Jacinda Ardern’s hard-Left, Labour-Green  socialist grouping now has the bit well and truly between its teeth – and we’re all going to be paying… And paying. As one commentator has noted, socialism is basically fascism – and inflicting this legislation on a country strongly opposed to it is basically a fascist move.

Winston –  I hear on all sides – is going to be toast, at the next election.  He is widely regarded as having let down this country.  One perception is that his obvious, extreme  antagonism towards the National Party, strongly opposed to this insidious UN Compact, has led the position he has taken – which, to many now shocked New Zealanders, is a betrayal of their trust in him.

Which way to go now?

It has become more and more obvious to so many that politicians simply can’t be trusted  – and that the only way forward  is not through launching and backing yet another political  party, but through achieving a tipping point of New Zealanders to support our highly winnable movement  to win back this country.

See http://www.100Days.co.nz- and join us to help in this crucial fight! 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand.