A farcical flag sideshow & out-dated political system

The turning of the tide? Why we need the country run properly.

In spite of the spin Key enthusiasts are putting on it, the Prime Minister has well and truly lost on this sideshow, damaging his own credibility. Nor was it a close call – in contrast to the usual media-mouths’ claims. And what of TV’s Mike Hosking’s assurance that the proposed flag replacement would win, in a tight vote?  Out in the real world, the New Zealand flag romped home – well ahead of its uninspiring competition. And the Prime Minister’s pet project has cost him dearly, in terms of the recognition that leaders with an agenda tend to cost a country too much.

Not before time, some are arguing, looking at the lacklustre performance of his government – in spite of all the spin being put on issues – (a rock star economy?)- where it is not only failing to deliver – but is doing very poorly.  Catch-22 for most New Zealanders is that the prospect of once more simply replacing the party temporarily in power by an equally lacklustre Opposition has become just as unpalatable.

 Few would now claim to have any confidence in our perceivably out-dated political system. And although New Zealand First, its leader constantly demonised by the media,  far more accurately represents in its stated  aims New Zealanders’  own vision for our country –  http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for/fifteen-principles  – the political party game-playing as a whole is increasingly viewed as unsatisfactory. Change is in the air.

The very real anger of so many that even life-saving services have been cut to the bone – while the Prime Minister has prioritised $25 million  in all-out attempt to have his own way on the flag issue –  has brought home the fact that our political processes can be and have been hijacked by political junkies. We are now being confronted by career politicians in the sense that our MPs are perceived to be failing to represent their electorates in favour of toeing the party line, never stepping over it to risk their privileges and perks by voting against a leader’s damaging proposals.

 Why risk the rewards  parliamentarians have long contrived for themselves and their partners –  even after life in parliament  – ongoing benefits contrived at the expense of taxpayers, such as free international air travel for life – not on the basis of need, and not failing to advantage already very wealthy  individuals? And while in office, in addition to generous housing allowances, there are 20 free flights a year for partners MPs (30 for partners of ministers), as well as hotel and meal allowances.

Moreover, the ongoing farce of handpicking arguably over-paid individuals to review potential constitutional proposals – or to select the finalists from flag design competitions – has little to do with ensuring genuinely independent scrutineers. Members of the flag design committee, faced with criticism of the essential sameness of three of the flags featuring a fern leaf, have now admitted that what the Prime Minister personally wanted influenced their choice. Who’s surprised?

So what did the $25 million pay for? And why would this now cash-strapped country, where essential services such as  hospitals, the police force, sufficient refuges for the mentally ill, the drug-addicted  and women’s refuges are being cut to the bone where tight funding has caused CYF to cut beds from its youth justice residences, increasing their waiting-list and causing youngsters to end up in police cells until court…why would the Key government plan to divert  hundreds of millions of dollars to change, world-wide, the images of  our flag, in commissioning unnecessary  replacements, in reprinting specialist books,  new passports, every kind of information necessary  – in representations in embassies? This massively expensive and totally unnecessary enterprise did not originate with New Zealanders, but was pushed top-down by one individual with an agenda – precisely the opposite way democracies are meant to be run.

 The contrast between our own poorly performing one, and that of the Swiss people, who have so successfully rejected being ruled by politicians the way we habitually are, is shown by their MPs holding down day jobs as, for example, business or trades people, farmers or  professionals, housewives and so on, meeting only one day a week in parliament. In this far more successful country, being an MP is not a full-time job or a career, as here.  Moreover, as the Swiss people themselves fought for and won the right  the right to scrutinise all legislation passed by parliament, their politicians know better than to try to push their own agenda onto  the country  – as we saw happen in this country with the infamous  anti-smacking legislation.

Here,  Key arrogantly ignored the views of over 85% of the electorate to endorse  legislation originating from the far Left’s  Sue Bradford, and endorsed by the equally far Left Helen Clark – with her own suspect agenda. Legislation which has done nothing whatever to make any impact on the appalling rate of child abuse found predominantly in one section of the community has had, as foreseen, a destructive effect on the confidence of good, conservative parents using their own judgment when disciplining misbehaving children.  And from it has come the fear of police knocking at the door as a result of an ill-disposed neighbour, the teacher with an agenda. The consequences of this ill-thought legislation were very obvious – and very determinedly ignored. By the Prime Minister.

However, one of very welcome result of the collapse of John Key’s extraordinary personal push to get rid of the flag which means so much to the majority of New Zealanders, is that the question is being asked – why? Why did he constantly denigrate the historical significance of our flag, attacking it as “colonial” – when in fact both Euro-New Zealanders and those of Maori descent have profited enormously from the colonisation of this country? The constant cheap attacks on “colonisation” show not only a marked ignorance of the very real benefits that came with our ancestors (shared by part-Maori today – as there are no longer any full-blooded Maori). The success of the coexistence of both Maori and European of previous generations is shown by the willingness with which each have regarded intermarriage as the norm.

In fact it was not until the deliberate radicalisation of part-Maori by Marxist-indoctrinated, carefully selected Maori individuals in the 1960s – (some sent overseas to undergo a process of destructive Marxist indoctrination)  – groomed to return to beat the drum of resentment – that a climate of resentment among young Maori in particular  was deliberately fostered. And yet, while attacking our inaccurately described colonial flag, the Prime Minister has been extraordinarily accommodating towards the radicalised flag of Maori separatism – a concept roundly rejected by the Treaty of Waitangi…with its vision of One People, united under the Crown.

In contrast to Key’s attack on our flag, comes the comment of a correspondent stating what so many New Zealanders feel: “I value history and tradition, and I don’t think the change came from the community. It came from the Prime Minister.  I just feel it’s been a large waste of money.”

More and more New Zealanders are perturbed about not being consulted on vital issues of the day- such as the signing of the TPPA, the radicalised agenda being pushed onto schoolchildren and staff throughout the country in relation to prioritising notions of Maori separatism and privilege; a highly damaging sex education agenda; and the replacement of subjects of real value with trivia, under the umbrella of environmental fundamentalism. This, coupled with the increasing burden of a multiplication of unnecessary compliance issues being dumped onto the schools, the professions, and the trades are making life less and less attractive for ordinary New Zealanders just trying to get by. Add to this the fact that the country is now being disadvantaged  not only by  being excluded from the decisions being made on important issues – but that the job losses are ongoing , with many faced with not even being able to afford houses in areas where they need to live and work.

Moreover, the exodus from Auckland of well-heeled property buyers making a grab for land and housing in other locations throughout the country means that multiple-house buyers are having a detrimental effect on the housing market in these areas.

The John Key government is not answering to New Zealanders. And the certainty is growing that it is time for a change…but not the usual cosmetic change of replacing one political party with another, until it in turn is perceived as being equally damaging to the country.

It has been said that nothing is more successful than an idea whose time has come. And the time has undoubtedly come for a new political configuration, to replace the anachronistic and outworn system of simply temporarily exchanging the politburo at the top for the next one in turn. And as Barbara Tuchman reminds us in her intriguing assessment of the performance of MPs in history, “Governments get most issues wrong.”

We can do better.  We can elect to govern ourselves, as the Swiss people do. It is the last thing that our politicians want. What politicians do want is power.  And politicians holding onto power has nothing whatever to do with the country operating as a genuine democracy.

Switzerland is the only country in the world which has achieved what is so often derided by those who mostly fear it – government by the people themselves.  And it undoubtedly makes our politicians highly uncomfortable to face the fact that it is the Swiss people’s ability to control their own government which has made them the most successful and prosperous country in the world. Their government acknowledges this – and calls them, the people, sovereign.

How did they do this? Ultimately by one particular piece of legislation which enshrined their right to call a halt to any legislation passed by government, while they examined it themselves. What has too often happened here – late-night sittings of parliament to push legislation through before Christmas or before the Easter holiday would be a waste of time in Switzerland. Their 100 Days scrutiny period – for the country to say yes, or no – prevents the deal-making by political parties behind the scenes which our country has too often had inflicted on it. And most importantly, it prevents self-willed individuals like John Key essentially having his own way.

As politicians (and the very wealthy – whose agendas so often interplay)  will be implacably opposed to any notion of supporting our 100 Days initiative, to help make our country as democratic and successful as it should be, this movement needs your grassroots support. If all those  concerned about what is happening help to send  it around the country, we will reach a tipping point – not only because this is an idea whose time has well and truly come – but because more and more New Zealanders are fed up with being overruled by politicians, and seeing our country being sold out under our feet.

No only is this the most promising, in fact it is the only really practicable way we have to claim back our country. And you are very much needed to help.

 Visit us to see how – www.100days.co.nz and SHARE on Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

“The greatest works are done by the ones. The hundreds do not often do much, the companies never. It is the units, the single individuals, that are the power and the might. Individual effort, is, after all, the grand thing.”  Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

© Amy Brooke, Convener. www.100days.co. NZ

 

What when it’s now governments versus their people? The TPPA?

And what when we’re sold out by “leadership” propaganda? Lessons from what happened at Christmas?

While Christmas was joyfully celebrated in so many homes throughout this country, our mainstream media have been curiously – some would argue, culpably – restrained about the implications of the savage attack on other people, worldwide, attempting to celebrate the birth of the Christ child. Our journalists shame us, in comparison with the reporting from sites such as that of the Gatestone Institute, telling us what our own commentators are failing to do: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7250/christmas-islam

If one of our media’s prime responsibilities is to help produce a well-informed public, to accurately report important news from here and abroad, this is demonstrably not happening. The dumbing down of television alone has reached arguably scandalous levels, given that we have a government-owned, national broadcaster with an obvious responsibility to the public. And although the attacks are mounting on the celebration of Christmas in New Zealand as an important Christian festival in a supposedly free and democratic country – where Christian values have long underpinned its former stability – this very stability and cohesion is now under threat by determined, fringe minority groups and antipathetic individuals. The number of Christians in this country may be declining, given the ferocity of the attacks on the Church, both from without and within. But they still comprise around half of the population.

However, where is there any worthwhile scrutiny from our media commentators on what is actually happening to New Zealand? And should we be concerned that the divide between the politicians of this country and New Zealanders themselves is persistently growing?

Indeed we should. For one of the crucial lessons from the catastrophic events of 2015 is that the damage done by politicians to people of their own country is never-ending. And this is even in democracies. In countries under despotic rule, the catastrophic damage, the social destruction, is even greater.

Arguably, it is high time to remember that those who crave power are, by and large, least qualified to wield it – a lesson history should have taught us. But then it is no accident that our schools have for some time no longer taught young New Zealanders history – one of the highly damaging attacks on the schools curricula which has so successfully, these recent decades, helped to dumb down our once far better education system.

And now? Angela Merkel’s folly, her basically pig-headed determination to have her own way with regard to immigration decision-making has caused enormous damage not only to the German people, but to those of other European countries. A very bleak future, which many regard as now basically uncontrollable, and which is essentially an attack on the same Christian foundations of the West by radicalised Muslim fundamentalism, has led to some well-informed commentators predicting the end of Europe as we have known it – a direct attack on the nations which, imperfect as they have been, have very much helped prevent its fragmentation, and even its destruction.

What is going to happen to those European countries such as Germany, and Sweden, now facing not only a dramatic increase in violent crime, but also in massively escalating welfare costs, as a result of arguably naïve, recent immigration decision-making? At the same time, the important revenue from tourism alone looks to dramatically drop, given the threat of mounting terrorist attacks as a result of the planting of Muslim extremists among genuine refugees.

The possibility of the European Union breaking up, with governments kneecapped by the sheer numbers of immigrants, and with terrorist organisations boasting of widespread infiltration, is a direct result of Western leaders, including those of the UK, too long ignoring the damaging results of a highly flawed multicultural ideology. This same feel-good, think-bad policy-making has been also operating in our small, vulnerable country.

Its propaganda includes the powerful iwis’s and government’s push to prioritize supposedly Maori interests above those of the country at large (with no definition of who is now actually Maori.) In spite of protests from well-informed New Zealanders – (including those also of Maori descent) what is operating here is similar to what is happening in other countries. The aim? Not only the obvious financial gain to well-placed iwi, but also to undermine the cohesion of countries which once rightly valued assimilated – not separatist, communities. We in this country have been undergoing a more insidious, softer, but very real version of government creep, that is, the power of the State stretching its tentacles further and further over aspects of our national and personal lives.

So what about the much-vaunted role of “leadership? North Korea is in the hands of a murdering, very probably crazed tyrant impoverishing his people to the point of starvation. Pol Pot’s slaughter of his own people…? Saudi Arabia’s brutal torturing and execution of its own dissidents, and its oppression of women; Iran’s Muslim-cleric-dominated hatred of the West, with its hate-filled determination to annihilate Israel? All leader-dominated – as is China’s increasing imprisonment and torture of its own citizens, those bravely trying to work towards democratic rights for all – and its increasing attack on Christian churches.

What about the blatant corruption of African tribal leaders whose self-enriching rule over Africa and inter-tribal hostility has impoverished most of this potentially rich continent? The internecine and barbaric tribalism of the Middle East? The political oppression of Palestinians themselves by Hamas, its military wing designated as a terrorist organisation by the European Union, Canada, Israel, Japan, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, its charter aim the destruction of Israel? ? And what has happened to France alone is an object lesson of the dangers of sentimental liberal thinking http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7256/france-islamization underpinning the danger of leaving decisions about the important directions of a country to its leaders, and its politicians.

A survey of today’s world presents an overview of the oppression of people of every race and colour by their own leaders. And in this country, we now have a prime example of government versus the people with the imminent signing of the TPPA, managed by a determined leader and his tight inner circle. Yet those politicians who have seemingly no compunction about the virtual sell-out of New Zealand to those rich enough to buy up our land, our farms, our housing stock, our enterprises – inevitably gradually dispossessing New Zealanders in our own country – are ignoring the fact that ethical decisions are no less important than economic ones.

Even those who seek political power with the best of intentions, to try to make a genuine contribution to the welfare of their country, almost inevitably end up being rigidly controlled by their party hierarchy – as we see in this country by John Key’s basically total control of the National Party caucus – (its ordinary MPs don’t count) – preceded by Helen Clark’s determined domination of Labour, in order to pursue her own damaging “liberal” socialist agenda. What John Key and Helen Clark share is an appetite for power. No wonder these two highly ambitious politicians get on so well – although in theory they should hold quite different views on what is good for the country.

In essence, the whole concept of leadership is where people have been basically conned into being persuaded that decisions concerning the future of this country –and others – should be left to leaders. But what when these are not only personally ambitious, but often ignorant, often narrowly, if not highly under-educated and historically under-informed individuals with, above all, an appetite for power? Their prominence in this country alone has caused considerable damage in many areas of our national life – not only to individuals, but also to our institutions – which we can examine in a future Post.

The government does not want New Zealanders to wake up to this, and those who have long warned of what has been happening here and abroad are often quite deliberately targeted and ridiculed – as we see with Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson. A mere list MP, who never stood for election, and who therefore passed no electoral scrutiny, this now powerful individual has actually appointed himself a QC (!) and bad-mouths as “clowns” and “nutters” well-qualified researchers concerned at the treaty claims gravy train now by-passing the courts, at Finlayson’s suggestion…although substantial evidence challenging these cases is simply ignored. His marked lack of respect for those asking well-needed questions, and his apparent inability to properly consult with other than self-serving, if not down-right opportunistic iwi crowding onto the treaty gravy train, is a prime example of a politician whom the intelligent Swiss would arguably not tolerate – given their government’s respect for the wishes of the people at large. Is it this minister’s very tart tongue which has allowed him to virtually have his own way – unchallenged by his party colleagues or the media – in spite of the widespread unease at what is happening here?

It doesn’t do, apparently, to any longer insist on transparency and accountability from our government, which incredibly enough, reserves the right to sign international treaties which impinge on the freedom of New Zealanders – without actually consulting them! The TTPA, reportedly reducing New Zealanders’ sovereignty by removing our ability to restrict sales of land and housing to foreign interests, is an egregious and shocking example. Our Key-dominated government’s initial undertaking to consult New Zealanders before signing such an important international agreement has been simply ignored by this government…scandalous enough in itself.

Once more, we should be learning from the fact that the most successfully democratic country in the world, Switzerland, would simply not put up with this over-dominating behaviour by its own politicians. The Swiss so little subscribe to the concept of leadership that their president is required to step down at the end of his or her year’s tenure of office – having previously very probably already held the role of Finance Minister. The actual office of president is rotated among a cabinet of only seven. No John Key, Helen Clark, or other dominating politician is allowed to become entrenched in office. The yearly rotation insures this. And at the same time, with their part-time politicians also engaged in careers in the professions, in trades, or as housewives, they get together in parliament only one day a week – while Parliament itself meets only four times a year. After all, they regard the people as being in charge of the country – and refer to them, collectively, as being sovereign.

The Swiss ensured this, by compelling their politicians to vote into law the 100 Days provision which prevents their government from passing any legislation at all – without providing a 100 day scrutiny period – after it has been proposed – for the people themselves to reject what they do not see as being an advantage to their own country. It’s time we New Zealanders insisted on this same provision. And we should be in no doubt that this would be most strenuously opposed by our major political parties…particularly by their leadership.

So what can we do? Relevant thinking can come from the most unexpected sources. And among these is Malcolm X‘s “Power has never taken a back step – except in the face of more power. If we remind ourselves of this, and equally appreciate that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time is right, it becomes obvious that it is individual themselves, banding together in a common cause – which creates a tipping point that can unseat governments.

It is not leadership, but individual action – multiplied by that of many others – which offers the strongest hope for the people of countries in the grip of the control of politicians whose ability to use positions of leadership wisely has been shown as lamentably lacking, not only in these recent decades.

It’s not as if the writing on the wall hasn’t been highly visible in so-called democratic countries these recent decades. A well-informed Dutchman whose letter I have on file from some years back described what was happening in the Netherlands since the 1980s. Leadership? “Our politicians have promoted multiculturalism, while its citizens were against it, or at least not given the opportunity to vote against it in a referendum or otherwise. The price we paid was, and is, enormous. First came the Turks, followed by the Moroccans, and after that in the 90s, displaced Yugoslavs. Many didn’t read but were encouraged to stay and assisted in many ways to retain their cultural habits, at the expense of Dutch taxpayers.

“This integration proved to be successful, as Osama bin Laden in 2001 praised the Muslims in the south of Holland in the city of Eindhoven for their participation as martyrs in the holy jihad in northern Pakistan. A number of young Arabic men were raised in Holland and were trained in Afghanistan, fought against Pakistani troops and died in combat in October/ November 2001…Our open democratic society was and is heavily abused by foreigners that have no interest in integration, or participating or contributing to the new country…. In 2004, ten new member states entered the EU, and Bulgarians, Romanians and Poles flooded the Netherlands, taking up and organising crime… We left the Netherlands for these reasons in 2004, to a new life here in New Zealand, but we see exactly the same abuse by politicians of the word “tolerance.’

“Islam means, translated, submission…submission to a very unhealthy yoke, politically and spiritually and psychologically. It leaves no room whatsoever for your own thoughts, ideas or opinion and doesn’t understand democracy. It is totalitarian….

“We as a family have settled well but wish to enjoy a healthy democracy, in the future, for our children as well. I am not the kind of man to stand on the sideline and complain, but want to do something about it.”

We need more New Zealanders to want to do something about what has happened, and is happening, to this country. In particular, the insidious call for a misplaced “tolerance” of the attack on well-grounded values and sensible conservatism. The propagandised, deliberate charges of “racism”- designed to bully others, and to intimidate opposition – need to be challenged. They are used to silence much-needed protests that should be mounted against the undermining of our own society by bullying minority groups who themselves extend no tolerance!

As has been well pointed out, although individuals must have freedom of conscience with regard to what they may believe, or not believe, it is obviously sheer folly to claim all religions are the same, and of equal value to a civilisation – and we cannot afford to be ignorant about what is at stake. Islam has no intent to peacefully coexist with Christianity. Submission to Allah and Sharia law is its intent. For this reason, irrespective of the fact that there are obviously good Muslims, we would be very foolish to prioritise Muslim immigrants, over much-persecuted Christians, when considering our refuge policy.

The West, including this country, has been sold a pup – and not only with the prioritising of “leadership” ahead of stressing the importance of individual action. We have also been being basically attacked by this word, “ tolerance” into silencing much-needed protests that should have been mounted against the undermining of our own society – not only by the domination of the political class, but also by these same aggressive minority groups extending no tolerance whatever to those defending valuable traditional values.

Perhaps above all New Zealanders need to wake up to the fact, as has been pointed out, “that every age has its own crisis and challenge which must be met, otherwise society collapses.”

We have a choice, as individuals – as to whether from laziness, or indifference, we wrongly regard what is happening to our own country – and to individuals fighting worldwide against oppression – as somebody else’s problem. But we are ultimately answerable both to ourselves, and to others, for our choice.

To help? Join our 100 Days movement – www.100days.co.nz – to limit in this country the control of politicians acting against the interests of New Zealanders.

Please pass this Post on to others – and remember that every donation, no matter how small, helps to pay for the advertising we need to let others know. Thank you!

 

© Amy Brooke, convenor, author of The 100 Days – What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. See BOOKs – www.amybrooke.co.nz

It’s all happening in Paris. But global warming?

Global warming? Really? If this is still a fact, why do the global warming believers keep refusing to debate it?

Well over a decade ago, when producing my magazine The Best Underground Press – Critical Review in some concern that in this country there was (and is) so very little in the way of investigative analysis into important issues of the day, my attention was drawn to the debate beginning to centre around the possible issue of AGW. The latter, as we know, is the
anthropogenic global warming theory that human beings are responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age.

One fact that interested me, when reviewing both sides of the debate, was that even then, a consensus of about 25,000 scientists, in what was written up at the time as the Seattle Agreement, disassociated themselves from the AGW theorising, arguing that the temporary temperature rise was entirely natural, and could well be assigned to other causes – as, for example, noted increases in solar activity (now declining) and apparently paralleling the rise. They argued that computer analysis, relying on input from researchers, was simply not capable of factoring in enough varied complex data; and that CO2 is not only a very minor atmospheric gas, but that it is actually beneficial to life on earth, vital to plant growth.

At the subsequent annual Summersounds Symposium, which I ran for a decade and half to provide for genuine debate on similar important issues, keynote speakers included highly reputable scientists with impeccable backgrounds in this area, such as New Zealand geologist and paleoclimatologist, Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, with a Ph.D. in Geology from Utrecht University.

Dr van der Lingen’s brilliant letter to MP Nick Smith, then Minister for the Environment, went unanswered. http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/node/158  This sort of response now from our government ministers is only too common. Shouldn’t we wonder why? And is it acceptable?

Other very interesting contributions from highly regarded scientists raised a number of questions. See: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=lingen

What was puzzling is that Gerrit and other scientists equally well qualified, and held in considerable respect overseas, were given little or no opportunity to engage in the debate in the mainstream media in this country. Among those we were fortunate enough to have presenting highly relevant material – and apparently virtually blacklisted by the media (let alone quite disgracefully sidelined from what should have been vigorous debate in our universities) has been Auckland’s Dr Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland.   See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

Possibly the most important question of all is why, rather than indulging in genuine debate – the only realistic way of getting to the truth of any issue – the facts presented by those concerned at what was happening were met from the very beginning with astonishing degrees of intolerance, and even venom. Why the childish name-calling as “deniers” those scientists who simply want a genuine debate? And what has happened to our universities?

Wellington’s Victoria University’s refusal to tolerate anyone on campus to debate the issues is fundamentally shocking – the antithesis of what a university should be. Moreover if one is sure of one’s facts, shouldn’t one be willing to have these tested in debate? An eminent IPCC reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray – has for some years now called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it is fundamentally corrupt – due to his conclusion that significant parts of its work and scientific methods are unsound and that “ it resists all efforts to try to discuss all rectify these problems. ”

The reaction to a recent thoughtful editorial in the National Business Review shows to what extent an otherwise lively debate is obfuscated by some of those commenting. Check out the Editor’s Insight: Sceptics’ Guide to the Paris climate summit

What then of the actual debate? We have the evidence that some of the so-called proofs of global warming have been falsified – as, for exampl,e with the now infamous hockey stick graph which managed to do away with the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age!

So what has been behind the unprecedented propaganda drive which has resulted in so many – especially (but by no means only) of the less experienced and more potentially gullible younger generation convinced by what has become a quasi-religious creed – that the planet is threatened by a relatively minor and now past temperature rise? Thousands have converged on Paris convinced that we are faced with a potential doomsday scenario.

What is actually true? And should we be more worried that we are being faced with a global hoax on an unprecedented scale? If so, who benefits? Check out these “facts” with which the mainstream media continue to obligingly deluge us.

    . Thanks to the rise in CO2 emissions, we are faced with a rise in global temperatures never before seen in history·

    . The overall temperature rise of the past 200 years has been wholly unprecedented, and the C02 emitted since the start of the industrial revolution must still be a major factor

    . Two recent studies have shown that “97 per cent of all climate scientists” still believe in man-made global warming. How can this evidence be denied?

    . Melting polar ice is threatening a disastrous rise in sea-levels (not to mention those vanishing polar bears)

    . Global sea levels are still rising – so worryingly, that little island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Maldives may soon have vanished beneath the waves

    . Terrible hurricanes and cyclones like Katrina and Erica give clear proof of how global warming is bringing us more deadly storms.

    . It’s still better to rely on “renewable energy” than fossil fuels

 Are these “facts” correct? And if not, who benefits by persistently pushing them?

On the Daily Telegraph website, Christopher Booker presents and examines these constant claims. His analysis puts that of our mainstream media editorial writers to shame – or it should. There is little excuse for the once- over-lightly, lazy material with which the New Zealand public is being inundated. His analysis shouldn’t be missed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12025836/Paris-climate-conference-10-reasons-why-we-shouldnt-worry-about-man-made-global-warming.html

The AGW theorising is described on pretty accurately on http://www.conservapedia.com/Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory, pointing out that it was and is “highly favoured by liberals, as it provides justification for carbon taxes and the Kyoto Protocol. It targets human beings for being responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age. This theory began to be highly attractive to those seeing its possibilities as a multi-million-(billion) dollar earner for those dreaming up the concept of trading carbon credits, and for governments to take advantage of a promising source of increased taxation, in the form of carbon taxes, other emissions trading controls and for an an opportunity for the creeping State to intrude even further into our lives.

The AGW theory in fact has been seized upon as the only acceptable explanation for the 1.5 degrees F of warming of the air near the earth’s surface recorded since 1850. The idea that human activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, can significantly warm the earth’s atmosphere is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. “However, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore also said global warming is most likely a “natural phenomenon,” because there is no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that alarmism is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies. It has also now created what has become a kind mass hysteria, propagated with the near religious fervour that brooks no contradiction… as well as very much enriching prominent individuals and institutions trumpeting it.

But what if it is wrong? And what of the hypocrisy involved in turning a blind eye to the very real pollution poisoning the air in developing countries, and accommodating their continuing to do so – while damaging the economies of the West by imposing punitive taxation, attacking productive industries and best farming practices? The ultimate futility of all must be in raising taxes across a country such as ours, with a struggling economy, to buy carbon credits, which do nothing whatever to reduce any real pollution – regardless of its origins.

Bryan Leyland is a power industry consultant and New Zealand Climate Science Coalition energy adviser. In a 2012 Dominion Post article http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/6220264/Global-warming-a-modern-day-myth he challenged the computer modelling, and the disinformation, whether accidental or deliberately misleading – saying he leaned towards the latter.

Today he argues, “Any scientist worth his salt* would realise that the objective is to stop dangerous man-made global warming that, it is claimed, is caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But if he read the latest IPCC technical reports he would note that the IPCC admit that the world has not warmed for the last 12 years or so, that there is huge uncertainty about the “climate forcing factor” that drives the climate models to predict dangerous warming and he would realise that all the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming. This proves that they are worthless for predicting future temperatures.

If he* did a little bit more research, he would note that many competent scientists are predicting the return of a Little Ice Age. They would also note that, unlike the global warmers, their research is based on past climate cycles – rather than speculations fed into computer programs. They would therefore assign that much more credibility.

They would then be driven to the inevitable conclusion that a dangerous man-made global warming is most definitely not happening, and that more than $2 trillion has been squandered on wind and solar power and suchlike for no reason at all.”

If so, our government has a great deal to answer for. But then, we are increasingly finding that our government has indeed a great deal to answer for…in this and other important areas.  And all this costs us a great deal – in more ways than one…

                                                             *******

©Amy Brooke, Convenor – www.100days.co.nz – and author of The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians…

A brave and funny man – and Abbott says no to the TPP

A brave and funny man issues his own flag challenge – and Australia says NO to the TPP. But will John Key still be “comfortable”?  As usual?

Having the courage of one’s convictions has become a luxury for many these days. It’s virtually political suicide if you’re a member of a political party. These days you do as you’re told…especially if you’re in the National Party, now virtually ruled by an authoritarian leader – with a few close henchmen. This is what’s known not as a democracy, but as a political oligarchy.

However, nobody seems to have told the funny and clever National Party MP for Tamaki, Simon O’Connor that he’s supposed to do as he’s told – that even exercising a conscience vote can make you a marked man. The result was his heartening and very amusing YouTube declaration of independence in answer to the PM’s usual guff. Rather than fronting up to a debate in the house in relation to his squandering scores of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to get his own way – in relation to repudiating the New Zealand flag – John Key issued a YouTube recording expounding on all the wonderful advantages a new flag will have. Yawn.

Simon O’Connor’s own YouTube reply is classic, and unmissable. — http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/no-no-no-mp-tamaki-nails-colours-flag-debate-jw-177164

The trouble is so many New Zealanders don’t believe the PM. Not any more – although it should be remembered that when media talk about John Key’s landslide victory in the last election, they’re absolutely wrong. Accessing the web will give you the number of seats National got in Parliament – one fewer than previously. But the actual vote for the National Party was down in the mid-thirty percent. They are very definitely a minority government.

It was the dog’s breakfast combination of opposing political parties which split the Opposition vote – although the public is turning towards Winston Peters and his repudiation of policies which divide this country – (including special rights only for those of Maori descent) – which show which way the wind is blowing. New Zealanders in effect are tired of being taken to the cleaners to fund highly dubious, in some cases now downright fraudulent treaty claims.

The public is also angered by Key’s appropriating of public money for a new flag, to get his own way – when there are desperately needy areas in which it could have been productively used. Hospitals are losing much-needed specialists because of unreasonable workloads, and the prospect of far better pay overseas. The police are constantly being exhorted to cut costs – although they are already more then stretched to provide the services the country should be able to expect. And apparently, although a lot of unease has been expressed by politicians behind the scenes, including by National Party members, who among these has stood up to be counted?

All the more reason why we should be applauding Simon O’Connor’s brave and very funny scrutiny of the 40 pedestrian, predictably repetitive suggestions for a replacement flag for this country – which the Prime Minister thinks are great. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? But should the mere opinion of one, arguably egotistical individual be costing the country what it is?

We have lost a great deal, when the time has long gone that individuals of conviction routinely stood up for what they believed in and crossed the floor of the House. They were respected for doing so. Moreover, their courage often inspired others. The saying, “One man with courage makes a majority,” attributed to Andrew Jackson, has served as an inspiration for so many making a brave stand against the zeitgeist of their age.

However, what when making a stand against the increasing number of politically correct compliance issues from the bully boys and girls costs people their jobs, their promotions? What when people are becoming intimidated by more and more repressive legislation, policed by government investigators eager to pounce on any speaking out of turn? There is increasing disquiet at what many regard as the ill-thought pronouncements of our over-enthusiastic Race Relations Conciliator, apparently poised to pounce at the slightest supposed transgression.

Whatever has happened to freedom of speech? What when individuals of courage can be hauled before the courts for speaking to the truth of an issue as they see it – especially when they see the directions of the day are on target to produce Huxley’s “brave new world” – the one their children and grandchildren are going to be forced to endure, as the creeping State exercises more and more damaging control over their lives? Whatever is happening to freedom of speech – and fair debate?

Be prepared to be shocked. Canada, now only a little ahead of New Zealand in being regarded as one of the most politically correct, over-liberal countries in the world, has now embarked on unacceptable contradictions against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is almost incredible that this country has now taken to prosecuting its citizens for supposedly “hate crimes”. For example, for anyone in Canada to argue, with impeccable logic, that “marriage is between a man and a woman” is now treated as a hate crime.

This isn’t just a horrible possibility – as it is yet, in this country, with politicians increasingly under pressure from radicalised pressure groups pushing agenda which would have rightly horrified those who fought for our freedom, and for those values which traditionally underpinned and stabilised our Western society.

In Canada now, the situation has become Orwellian, as recounted in an Australian News Weekly article by Peter Kelleher, highlighting the message of Dawn Stefanowicz whose book – Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, tells her own story of an entire childhood spent in the house with a homosexual father and his string of partners, most of whom have died of AIDS, including her father.

“From her Canadian home today, Dawn has been in communication with over 50 adult children who were raised by GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) parents and who now share her concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. She says that many of these now adults struggle with their own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influence in their household environments growing up.”

Her warning to Australian not to go down the same path of same-sex marriage highlights the deterioration in Canadians’ freedoms over the past 10 years, and calls us with urgency to wake up to what the endgame of the GLBT rights movement involves: centralised State power and the end of the freedoms of religion, of expression, of association, and of assembly.”

In many respect, it is also too late for New Zealand. We are proceeding down the same path. In Canada, even to have a debate about same-sex marriage is a breach of discrimination laws! “If you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including anything questioning same-sex marriage) you could face discipline at work, or even termination of employment and perhaps prosecution under the law.

“Dawn asks why police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are already legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats and assault, that equally apply to all.

“It is because hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protection under law… Protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups: this is the Orwellian flower in full bloom.”

Moreover, “Canadians were told over and over that permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights”. This has been shown to be a lie. The definition of parenting, too, was immediately redefined with the phrase “natural parent” now changed to legal “parent”. Who a child’s parents are is now defined by the State, in legislation designed to erase biological parenthood.’

Dawn Stefanowicz’s book deserves a wider audience in this country, as, given the political climate of the day, and two overbearing Prime Ministers of both Labour and National, quite different in style, but both far from conservative – in the best sense of the word – and equally exercising a determined control over their own party – we have progressed a long way from the expectation that members of Parliament should represent their constituents, in what we called a representative democracy.

This is far from what we now have, where MPs are expected to pledge their loyal first and foremost to the Party – which is today, in effect, the PM and his hierarchy. Nowadays, our MPs may grumble, but in the National Party in particular they are reduced to being a pushover. When the Prime Minister says Jump – they jump. As Minister Nick Smith admitted in an unguarded moment – he himself asks, How high?

In so many areas of our national life, we have already down the same path as Canada – given Amy Adams’ Harmful Digital Communications Bill – another of the step-by-step restrictions on our right to free speech – under a feel-good guise of reasonable intent. But how very easy it is to claim “emotional distress” – and how inexorably such legislation has unexpected consequences as a first-only wedge in the door. Our abortion laws, for example, so swiftly became stretched in intent, with the elastication of the word “reasonable” to the stage where thousands of New Zealand’s pre-birth babies are now put to death each year – before they have a chance to be born.

How long will it be until we reach the situation in Canada where “just one claim laid before the Human Rights Commission’s tribunal can cause a person to be bought before the tribunal with the cost to the defendant in the tens of thousands of legal fees, plus a fine of $5000 for a first offence; plus a gag order? The taxpayer picks up the tab for the person making the complaint, yet the defendant, even when found innocent, cannot recover his legal costs.”

Moreover, “when same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender neutral language became legally mandated…. to be inclusive, non-gender-specific language is being imposed in media, government, workplaces, and schools. A special curriculum is being used to teach students how to use gender neutral language to describe a husband and wife, father and mother. Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and even pronouns – (he and she) are being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.”

As Dawn points out: “Gay identity is a social construct, in that it demands public recognition from others. Yet the Supreme Court of the US , in its deliberations on whether to alter the age-old human institution of family by allowing same-sex marriage did not even consider what the effect might be on children who, after all, are seldom found outside families, and often make up the greater part of the members. These, the vulnerable and the voiceless were rendered invisible and silenced. “ As she relates, she was one of these children. Yet, as she details, children will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, even when they experience a painful void. Her experience is that for the children of homosexual parents, their partner (s) can never replace the missing biological parent.

“And then of course, anyone who owns a business, wedding planners rental halls, bed-and-breakfast owners, florists, photographers and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, their conscience ignored and religious freedoms trampled in Canada… “Small businesses are particularly in the sights of the gender neutral as they are easier to isolate and to take down one at a time… while big business has seen the writing on the wall, and has come down on the side of the same sex activists.”

There is much more of which this author warns us, where already one well-known media commentator has already been silenced for merely “offending “certain persons. And instances where anyone can make a frivolous or aggressive claim of being “offended” carry just as many warnings for New Zealanders.

Who can doubt that New Zealand is heading down this same path, with a far-ranging attack on all our institutions, our traditional values, our cultural cohesion – with its former aim of equal rights for all regardless of colour, race, and gender? No wonder the political enthusiasm for doing away with the New Zealand flag with its reminder of our priceless heritage, incorporated in the crosses of St George and St Andrew reminding us, under a southern sky, of our historical origins.

Ah, but apparently our Prime Minister has other priorities than to be reminded of than our historical origins – at least with respect to our forefathers from Great Britain and Europe who built this country up to what it is today. While part-Maori are urged by our apparatchiks to stay immersed in a highly sanitised version of their past, Key essentially disparages our colonial forebears – many of whom underwent severe privation and fought in major wars to keep this country safe for New Zealanders. Key, on the other hand, invokes the failed cliché of multiculturalism, which has already caused so much damage to formerly cohesive societies overseas, promoting social unrest, and even violence. The next step will be the rubbishing of our national anthem, which, sang at the tempo in which it was written, is a rousing and fine call for protection for this land – now more than ever needed.

The arrogance of this three times National Government is now showing, John Key’s populist hero halo becoming tarnished. The PM himself has joined the condescending, sharp-tongued Chris Finlayson, whose dismissal as “clowns “ or “nutters” of those asking reasonable questions is echoed in Tim Groser’s lofty remark about leaving TPP negotiations “to the grown-ups”. John Key’s annoyed reaction to a large protest march in Auckland was dismissive and unpleasant, calling a third of the demonstrators “rent- a-crowd”.

And yet, in spite of the too often puerile commenting on Australia’s Prime Minister from of our media columnists (such as with Jane Clifton’s cheap reference to “Tony Abbott, who (sic) I can’t look at without thinking of the head of an old hot water bottle, the ears like rubber handles at each side”… New Zealanders might well be better off with Tony Abbott as our Prime Minister.

How many know – our mainstream media certainly aren’t telling us – that, as News Weekly points out, the Australian Prime Minister has resisted immense pressure from the United government to sign an unsatisfactory TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement “which would have prevented higher exports of farm products to the US, while giving higher levels of protections to the US pharmaceutical industry, pushing up prices for prescription drugs in Australia.” While our PM is happy to obligingly roll over on this issue (loading even more costs onto the taxpayer) Australia has held out against US pressure to sign on the dotted line.

This – as The Australian newspaper has reported – even though “President Barack Obama called Tony Abbott to strong-arm him into agreeing with US proposals to increase the patient protection of pharmaceuticals from five years to 12. There were no US concessions on exports of Australian sugar and primary products.”

The Australian Prime Minister has done a lot better than ours – Tony Abbott flatly rejected the Osama proposal.

There are many New Zealanders now raising questions about what exactly is John Key’s agenda, and why he is allowing a virtually unrestricted buy-up of New Zealand land, farms and houses, when one of the three main responsibilities of government is “the defence of the realm”.

Already our country has greatly changed, and from a friend leaving to go back to England, and, like do many former immigrants, noting how much this country has deteriorated from the New Zealand they first encountered, has come this troubled email.

“I kind of feel we all have let the world down. Where’s our pride, our support to those who sacrificed their lives for the good of mankind?

“When you think about it, it’s sad. I feel my wonderful world is slipping away and we are entering a dark age, an age where decency and morality is just disappearing into   a spiralling vortex. What we have taken for granted for so long is now starting to fall apart and we will be forced in to a new age – and it will happen right under our noses.”

Who can seriously disagree?

There is no doubt that our political system is moving to control more and more of our lives. We no longer have a genuine democracy. But there *is* time to reclaim it, if enough individuals – for it always depends upon individuals’ and individual conscience – are willing to support our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand initiative, to fight for what the Swiss people long ago fought for – and which enabled them, not their political class, to take control of the directions of their country. See www.100days.co nz . The result? Switzerland has become the most successful and stable democracy in the world.

All it takes is each man or woman with the courage of their convictions, caring enough to insist on a new political configuration – the 100 Days.

If you do care, support us!                                                            *

© Amy Brooke, Convener. The 100 Days– author of The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand –what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians – available through any good bookshop, or from Kindle.