*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

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 Compact for Migration? Yet another control push by the UN…

(Apologies if you’ve already received this. Re-sending, as most didn’t).

 

The Compact for Migration? We all know it’s basically yet another control push by the UN… 

Given all the countries that have pulled out to date, when is Jacinda Ardern going to stop dithering and  take on board the fact that so many other democracies, including now our nearest neighbour Australia, have pulled out FOR GOOD REASON.  Others are facing unrest by populations that have had enough of their governments making bad decisions… 

Why can’t Jacinda look at the actual evidence? It’s incredible and unforgivable that the Labour coalition is still even considering signing this anti-the West, typical UN bureaucracy demand.

Winston is not distinguishing himself   – and he will be toast by the next election if he doesn’t disassociate New Zealand First from it.  He is already changing his tune – but instead of trying to constantly score points about National he should stop having five bob each way – because he obviously realises the implications for New Zealand… if this is one more UN Diktat inflicted on us. So it’s time for him to plainly say so.

Naturally Helen Clark backs it – one of the best reasons for our rejecting it, considering Clarke’s vision was, and probably still is for a One World government to which individual countries are supposed to yield sovereignty. Remember how she destroyed the combat wing of our Air Force – to Australia’s incredulity? Can you imagine the Australians ever allowing a leader with such an obvious agenda   to destroy a vital part of their defence force?

Why did New Zealanders wake up so late? At least, the evidence is that they are increasingly doing just this, that attitudes are changing and that the electorate is increasingly fed up with being basically ruled by leaders whose competence is more than questionable. Either that or their interests are not the same as those of the country at large. And wouldn’t that be considered subversion?

We are buying new planes with surveillance and combat capabilities. Miss Clark won’t like that? And now she is back in the country, from the Beehive come reports that she is constantly stirring the pot.

Time to let go, Helen… or just go…

This UN push is a yet another socialist/ Communist vision, and Miss Ardern looks to be a big fan of Miss Clark. She also likes to call people Comrade.

Comrade?!

We don’t need fellow-travellers running this country. The decision should be made by New Zealanders – for New Zealanders – not by left-wing political parties for a now thoroughly discredited UN – with a record of choosing the most oppressive countries in the world to head the Human Rights Organisations. That  really says everything.

As for heading off to Morocco to oversee the signing of something whose meaning is perfectly clear,  reading the text    – we’re  all tired of expensive jaunts for which we all pay – while the political class  burn up carbon credits  jetting here and there,  inventing more and more fuel and other  taxes for the rest of us.

Haven’t we all had enough?

© Amy Brooke – http://www.100days.co.nz

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

 

 

 

The destructive consequences of the sexual revolution

The destructive consequences of the sexual revolution.

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/10/06/our-sickening-sexual-sewer/

Given the support now in schools to inappropriately promoting notions of transgenderism even to small children, and thoroughly confusing so many with the pernicious nonsense that they can choose to be whichever sex they prefer, it’s high time to question the whole notion of the State inappropriately sexualising our children and grandchildren.

That sex education in schools is largely not only inappropriate, and not the business of politicians,  has long been pointed out. That it fails, destabilising and even shocking many children, needs to be more widely recognised.

According to a long-time British Medical Journal study that reviewed 26 trials, there was no delay in initiating sexual intercourse by adolescents participating in pregnancy prevention programmes. They did not improve the use of birth control by young men and women,  nor reduce pregnancy rates – in fact some programmes were associated with a rise in pregnancies.

The trials evaluated programmes in North America, Australia and Europe, including those in New Zealand which has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world.  There is little doubt that the academic theorists behind so many of the far Left destructive ideology long dumped on our children in schools,  and promoted throughout our  now thoroughly discredited universities,  will produce studies arguing exactly the opposite. But agenda-driven conclusions can be dismissed. What is actually happening is obvious everywhere.

Some years back when I wrote on this issue, receiving feedback from a lot of troubled parents, I was struck by a mother contacting me saying that her young daughter had arrived home from school shocked and disturbed. The little girl  remained upset. No prior notice of the information inappropriately thrust upon her had been given to her parents – many of whom today are conned by being told that it will simply be embarrassing for their child to exercise the right to be removed from her/his classes. In fact, I’ve encountered the opposite reaction from children who find them embarrassing and intrusive.  

That young boys subsequently harass girls in the playground is glossed over. And as one worried grandmother recently told me of a misbehaving 10 year old, “This child now knows far more than she should, and the consequences are obvious in her behaviour.”

That sex education has long been deliberately promoted in schools by those with a neo-Marxist agenda who infiltrated the Ministry of Education with the deliberate aim of destabilising the West needs to be far more widely known.

Check out the relevant, thoroughly documented chapter in my book “The 100 days – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”-   P. 89. “Sex education – from the beginning its ill concealed intent was to destroy lives”. Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

Nigel Farage – Cometh the hour, cometh the man…


For so many world-wide, Nigel Farage epitomises that one outstanding individual saying “Go no further…” to the system whereby political classes, so often under highly damaging leadership worldwide,  have distorted the democratic process. https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1047058901621981184/video/1

We are now in a similar situation here in New Zealand with  central authority  over the whole of the country –  which equates to government and power without genuine  accountability – merely a recycling of the less damaging-looking political party every three years.

Is everyone happy with this?  If not SHARE, LIKE and support us on Facebook, and at www.100days.co.nz – to at last claim back this country for New Zealanders – from rule by politicians. Yes, it can be done – and we can do it…as always, it’s up to individuals,

The runaway situation with the never-ending treaty claims, some imaginatively reinvented;  some, on good evidence,  arguably fraudulent;  is compounded by the mess the previous National government has got us into.

Over 300 claims for the foreshore and seabed from opportunistic iwi and hapu?  That we, all New Zealanders, will  be required to actually pay the costs of those claiming against us – as usual!  – is  a prime example of the damage caused to this country by top-down government decision-making –  from which the public are routinely  excluded.

You’ll remember the smooth-tongued John Key and the Minister for  Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson – (formerly Ngai Tahu’ s only too successful lawyer)  – assuring the country there would be very little chance of any claims,  because uninterrupted occupation of these relevant areas would be required. Should he/they be answerable to the country for the costly consequences,  either of their naivety – or even incompetence. Or was there another agenda here?

The real issue is that, as usual, this legislation and other damaging legislation was imposed upon the country by our successive governments which, historically, have got most things wrong.

And what about the ramped-up claims by today’s well-paid, radicalised part-Maori (by no means representative of the majority of New Zealanders, both  part-Maori,  European and of other ancestry) that an almost totally inauthentic “Maori” language be compulsorily inflicted upon the country?

That the highly activist Wellington City Council is now squandering ratepayers’ money on rewriting street and other signs in largely reinvented Maori, without the consent of the majority of ratepayers –  with our most important language, English, in much smaller letters below, is almost credible – although it is not the only local government heading in these unsupported directions.

Today’s reinvented te reo, bearing minimal relationship to the genuine Maori language,  and now including very many thousands of completely made-up, supposedly “Maori” words,  is very much part of the constant push by well-funded activists, many also feathering their own nests highly successfully.

However, New Zealanders as a whole are fed up with legislation imposing upon them markedly  damaging directions, while  highly impoverished areas of the economy suffer a severe  lack of funding  – because of the slush funds of political bribery directed towards those iwi on the make.

And while the Labour government is marching even more firmly down the road of political opportunism and other disastrous directions, it is almost incredible that the National Party leader, Simon Bridges, has spoken out so strongly against what is really an issue of national security – long overdue. This is the requirement for all New Zealand immigrants to be required to pledge to respect our democratic values, and obey the laws which uphold these.

All around the world the consequences of allowing open immigration have been disastrous – with increases in violent crime traceable to a newly immigrant population whose radicalised young men show little respect for women,  and with demands from a radicalised Muslim sector for Sharia law.

Politicians get too much wrong –  and we are all suffering the consequences. Those who claim that our leaders know best could not be more wrong – as well we know. History itself is the best proof of this, and only, “Cometh the hour,  cometh the man” has saved us from so much worse.

It is well and truly time to insist what the Swiss long achieved for themselves – Government by the people, for the people, and of the people – not by the politicians – and for the politicians.

Join us to achieve a tipping point of New Zealanders aiming for just this!

Amy Brooke – Convenor: The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. See www.100days.co.nz 

--