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.

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

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media /police activism.

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media and police activism.

 In the gossip circles of a basically close-knit mainstream media, it was reported some time back that unpleasant rumours were swirling about the Prime Minister’s partner. It was called “an unprecedented assault of baseless rumour and false innuendo.” Toxic gossip is not new in these circles. Who can forget the tragic case of the beautiful Charlotte Dawson, a media celebrity in New Zealand which she fled for Australia later, saying that she was “savaged” as a celebrity living in this country? “New Zealand is small and nasty and vindictive. It’s a tiny little village…a tiny country at the end of the year,” she said. Her death by suicide shocked so many – as it should have.

The relevant question is, was she right? Who would deny that the political scene is a toxic one with the jostling for power and ambition underpinning many of the rumours that surface – very often never reaching the public at large, but gaining currency in the media in-groups. The latter have now become equally as little respected – so much so that politicians and the mass media are near the bottom of the least-trusted occupations.  This is tough on those journalists who do try to write with integrity against the tide of the times, including some well worth respect. That they are apparently now in a minority makes it harder for them.

No doubt the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will have a tough road ahead – even disregarding the media rumour mill. New Zealanders will wish her well, with the imminent arrival of her baby. However, paralleling the usual corresponding euphoria which surrounds any “progressive” celebrities, many New Zealanders have been troubled by Arden’s decision to prioritise her own career over what they see as the best interests of a baby…whose primary caregiver, for very good reason, has traditionally been regarded as its mother. By no means isolated comment also maintains she should have let the country know, before the election, that she was pregnant.

However, there is little doubt that Labour’s strategists would have known that if the country knew before the election that its leader was carrying a baby, many would have been concerned – wondering if a vote for her, in such a demanding job, was in the best interests of the child – let alone for the Prime Minister herself.

We cannot but be aware that many solo mothers have a far more demanding life than those with a husband to support them. Where a deliberate decision has been made for someone in Jacinda Arden’s position to not marry the father of her child, questions are asked. The liberal views of so many self-congratulatory but under-informed media are by no means, as so many journalists seem to take for granted, reflected back by the far more conservative country at large. Memories are surfacing of the younger political Ardern, steeped deep in socialist doctrine, choosing to use the word Comrade…as well as of socialists’ contempt for the family unit, regarding marriage contemptuously as a ”bourgeois” practice. But evidence overwhelmingly points to the presence of married parents, a mother and father, as in the best interests of the child.

Labour is very much a minority government, attracting only 37% of the vote.  It cannot claim to have a mandate for some of the ill-thought directions on which it has now embarked, including the foolish clampdown on any further gas and oil exploration – moving into typical ideologically-motivated, deep Green territory.  Disgracefully, vitally important decisions are being made behind the scenes by the coalition’s party hierarchy without even Cabinet involvement!  Buying lock stock and barrel into the now massively discredited global warming theory is costing the country hugely in economic terms. Little wonder there is rising concern about its decision-making.

The media reporting which has so obligingly avoided any of these issues of concern out in the wider community has been interesting.  Long-time journalist Barry Soper describes Clarke Gayford  “as being in the social pages long before he’d ever hooked up with Ardern – “he was a man about town.” It’s a curious, almost Edwardian description, whose meaning is not clear. But it does highlight the fact that Mr Gayford, handed the role of primary caregiver for their child, is being asked to make a considerable sacrifice, very much limiting his career and social activities – as any mother in the same position could tell him. And how demanding a role it will be for Ms Ardern, juggling her initial few weeks away from Parliament while expecting to be in constant touch with what is happening. The question still stands, whether this demanding scenario is likely to be in the best interests of the baby – let alone the mother, in those very early days.

Interesting, too, is Barry Soper’s casual mention of the fact that he texted Ardern, outlining the rumours, suggesting she or her partner should address them, and offering them a media platform to do it. His comment that, “The only reply came from her press secretary, insisting that the rumours were false and she wouldn’t be commenting on them” sounded almost miffed – as if he was expecting the Prime Minister to be personally responding to him.

This is an interesting point, because I recall journalist friends taking for granted the fact that they had Prime Minister Helen Clark’s cellphone number and could reach her for direct comment. Reportedly this worked two ways – Clark could leak to chosen media statements she wished to go further. However, whether the preferential, two-way access of selected media to the leader of the country is appropriate is another issue.

This political journalist did make one very valid point when he said that it was a mistake for Police Superintendent Mike Bush to become involved by approving the statement denying that Gayford had been the subject of a police enquiry, and saying he’d never been charged in relation to any matter.  In Soper’s words, “This simply stokes the rumour mill, and opens up the suggestion that the police have become politicised. It is unprecedented for the cops to become involved in what are unsubstantiated rumours. The question’s already been asked: Who requested the Police Commissioner’s involvement?”

Who indeed?

However, it’s over late in the day to wonder whether or not the police have become politicised and partisan in their activities when we have evidence this is already the case. Equally, we have evidence that mainstream media, with now strong liberal Left leanings, are not only highly selective when publishing what takes their fancy, but now routinely suppress letters to the editor from correspondents when the content challenges their thinking – and their bias.

I’m waiting still for a reply from the Press Council – now many weeks overdue, which this august body has not yet even acknowledged receiving – even though it promises receipt of a formal complaint within two days. A follow-up enquiry has also been ignored.  As I am familiar with two or three of the names on this council, I am not holding my breath in expectation of the response to which it is supposedly publicly committed.  However, if my third enquiry continues to be ignored, then it will be time to check to whom the Press Council itself is answerable.

The are serious issues, questions of accountability, and the suppression by the Nelson Mail of the letters below some weeks back – and a follow-up enquiry made to this newspaper – is an important matter  – because the content of these letters involves what Barry Soper is questioning  –  an arguably inappropriate police involvement in a highly politicised situation. Given the Fairfax media’s now quite blatant practice of featuring editorials and opinion pieces which allow no genuine consideration of those radicalised issues of the day which attack family values – and of refusing to publish letters legitimately expressing genuine concern, it is no wonder its newspapers are closing down all over the country.

“Dear Editor  “For the police to publicly favour the “lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, intersex and questioning” movement now becoming confrontational and aggressive is quite shocking. Those warring with the biological fact of being born male are actively targeting and recruiting vulnerable children in schools, while demanding to share women’s and children’s toilets.

“Using the weasel excuse of “discrimination”, children are being prescribed pernicious “sex education” programmes detailing as perfectly acceptable what many consider abnormal – with the word “normal” now ridiculously regarded as “hate speech”.  “

Under the banner of that other weasel word, “diversity”, police marched in the Auckland Pride campaign with rainbow colours on a police car. Individuals’ free choice must always be respected. But Police Commissioner Mike Bush’s partisan policy stance, offering recruitment support, is inappropriate and unacceptable. When have the police ever marched in a parade supporting Christian values, or any other of those core values underpinning our society?

“Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson’s courageous confrontation of this destructive counterculture war, and of the moral relativism now flooding the West, is attracting capacity crowds. Commissioner Bush should reflect on the fact that among the loudest support from Jordan’s young audiences is for his appeal for the sanctity of marriage, and child-rearing.”

Although this letter makes important points –they are not ones which the majority of today’s journalists wish to hear. The Editor of the Nelson Mail is apparently no exception. Churchill’s very important reminder to “Never, ever, ever quit,” is one that too many, deeply concerned about what is happening to New Zealand, seem to have forgotten.  Yet it is the key to winning back this country.

So I wrote again as below…although I by no means support the National Party – nor any political party for that matter, given the accumulative damage they have all caused to this country. Only by working toward what the clever Swiss have achieved, control of our politicians (www.100days.co.nz) so that New Zealanders themselves can make the decisions about our directions ahead, will we be able to mount an effective challenge to being ruled by today’s politburo. However, after a typically unbalanced editorial quite common now for this newspaper, I felt it was not good enough to walk away.  Hence this follow-up.

“Dear Editor

“The Nelson Mail’s increasingly “liberal” editorials apparently take for granted the majority of the community feels the same. For example, you noted the new leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, voted against same-sex marriage and opposes euthanasia. You reported he goes to church and his father was a Baptist Minister  – (are we meant to recoil with horror?) – stating this puts him not only at odds with “the liberal faction”, but “potentially the momentum of popular opinion in this country and around the world”.

”It’s a leap too far. You offer no sound evidence to substantiate such an extravagant claim. Obviously the unpleasant targeting of those concerned about the worrying directions of the day – (particularly families and parents) – deters much feedback. So does the now common, bullying tactic of calling “homophobic” those who question abandoning the values so long stabilising our society.  Many will not agree with the partisan stance inappropriately shown by the police hierarchy marching in the LGBTQIA parade in Auckland – nor with schools now offering programmes which disturb many children, confusing them about their sexual identity.

“Apparently encouraging “diversity” doesn’t extend to supporting genuine debate?  And only extremist groups’ “cultural sensitivity” counts?”

Needless to say, this letter also did not get published.   However, there are  ways around this, and cancelling your support for any Stuff – Fairfax media publication to access local news and correspondence from other sources available  is a very good strategy.

These are increasingly important issues for us all – and what is equally as important is the fact that the police hierarchy felt it appropriate to take a stand which must have made many individual police deeply uncomfortable. It’s time Commissioner Bush was indeed called upon to explain his inappropriate, apparently personal partisanship in relation to an issue causing so much concern to the wider community.

What are our prospects ahead, if we have a corrupt democracy and corrupt media?  As Toby Young points out in a recent Spectator, “a lack of democratic accountability leads to the corruption of the political class”.

What democratic accountability do we have in this country, when, as West Coast MP Damien O’Connor recently stated, the decisions are made by the party hierarchy. Nick Smith also admitted, during the doggedly charming John Key’s tight-fisted control of his party that when the leader says  jump, he asks how high…

MPs are supposed to represent their electorates – nobody believes this any more. MPs now largely do as they’re told. The corruption of the political class is apparently well under way in New Zealand.

While party politics controls the country, instead of New Zealanders themselves  – the achievable way the Swiss have shown us – we’ll continue to pay a huge price for the basic incompetence and sheer ignorance underpinning so much of the decision-making we’ve been inflicted with is recent years. And look what it’s done to this country…

© 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 Amazons Kindle.

 

 

 

The politics of corruption? Why are we paying the Clintons?

It was Bill and Hillary Clinton whose highly unsavoury carryings-on caused political commentator Christopher Hitchens to call his book Nobody Left to Lie To  – exposing what was happening behind-the-scenes during Bill Clinton’s deservedly controversial presidency.  For a reality check on what the Clintons got up to, this book is a must.   It is possibly the one book by this prolific writer that his brilliant brother, Peter, who wrote the highly readable and prescient book, The Abolition of Britain, and the equally important The Abolition of Liberty, would have endorsed.  Peter’s thinking was very much opposed to his brother’s, and his warnings have been prophetic. The ideologically-opposed Christopher, who started out as a Democrat, was ultimately shocked and repelled by the activities of this constantly media-lauded pair.

So what possible excuse, given that it is obvious by now that we are a well and truly cash-strapped country, does our government have for forcing New Zealanders to support the highly dubious Clinton Foundation?  https://www.investors.com/politics/clinton-foundation-scandal/ 

 Even Australia has put a stop to payments to this controversial, FBI-investigated Foundation. And given the fact that New Zealand is now cash-strapped,  living on borrowed money, why is our Labour coalition continuing such handouts? New Zealanders are waking up to the fact that we have been basically conned about how well National was balancing the books, while culpably under-funding even basic hospital and mental health services to a shocking extent – and failing to prioritise urgent housing needs – while, at the same time, continuing to pour hundreds of millions of our dollars accumulatively into the coffers of self-serving iwi prepared to even falsify their claims with a view to the main chance.  

Why was Hillary Clinton even in New Zealand recently? My local paper, The Nelson Mail, going from bad to worse without much apparent effort, now regularly regurgitates Stuff reports so embarrassingly biased and under-informed that that they are almost incredible. Hence its usual euphoria about the wonderful Hillary, and the baby-talk between her and our pregnant Prime Minister. One should hand it to our mainstream media, constantly increasing their reputation for awful print, TV and broadcasting journalism, and exceeding themselves in relation to this scandal-ridden woman…while losing no opportunity to demonise Trump. 

Lindsay Perigo’s comments highlight the inexcusable difference between the basically fawning treatment Hillary Clinton was given, and what should have been asked…”really tough questions—about Benghazi, Uraniumgate, deleted e-mails, the illegal private server, rigging the campaign against Bernie, paying for the dirty dossier against Trump, accepting squillions of dollars from Muslim countries that are yoooooge on women’s rights, etc. ” Lindsay long warned of the new era of brain-dead media.  We could have also asked Hillary if her record of proven lying (among other porkies, she claimed she was named after Edmund Hillary…) ever causes her any embarrassment.

But, essentially why are our own pockets still being raided to donate to any pet project of the Clintons?

From an informed commentator, we have it that “It was John Key who started sending money to the Clinton Foundation – $7 million, without any approval from anyone. He departed the day it was announced! But Bill English sent another ‘donation’ of $5 million not long afterwards.”
Why? http://alcp.org.nz/node/278  But this was by no means the only time Key acted without the country’s approval, with English, seemingly, his over-loyal yes-man.

It all continues. Recently from Jordan Williams, Executive Director, New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, to another correspondent:

“Earlier today we went public with documents obtained under the Official Information Act showing the new Government is giving more taxpayer money to a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation – the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“We can reveal that the Clinton Initiative will receive $5.5 million in 2018/19, on top of the $8 million taxpayers forked out under the previous Government.

“Remember: the Clinton Foundation is currently under investigation by the FBI over the way it obtained funding from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State. It was during this period that the previous Government started funding it.

“This evening, Secretary Clinton is rubbing shoulders with political and business leaders in Auckland. We have called on the new Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, to politely wait until Ms Clinton leaves the country, then announce an end to funding for the Clinton Health Access Initiative.”

Labour is now going down a well-worn path if it continues with this inexcusable give-away of public money as, at the same time, it ramps up the equally inexcusable prioritising of racist preferences for those claiming to be part-Maori (no actual proof needed – and no valid reason supplied). This, while knee-capping the country by refusing to allow any more oil and gas exploration, and planning to tax New Zealanders even further in relation to the now conclusively disproved, man-made global warning beat-up…so passionately still promoted by scientists whose funding has depended on this.

Stupid is as stupid does – but it is we New Zealanders paying the price for this basic incompetence,  if not political corruption, in the constant kow-towing to wealthy vested-interest groups

The level of possible corruption  within the National Party is now being brought home to New Zealanders, together with the fact that a former  Chinese Communist with a very dubious political record is now a National Party MP  (!)  Granted a high List placing (why?) Jian Yang, was reportedly of interest to the SIS.  Strangely enough, he did not mention in his CV the decade he spent in the People’s liberation Army-Air Force Engineering College, or the Luoyang Language Institute – run by China’s equivalent of the United State’s National Security Agency which conducts spying activities for China. 

The majority of National’s campaign funding before the last election was given by wealthy Communist Chinese backers (no doubt the same who understandably pressured the seemingly only too willing John Key to remove the Union Jack from our flag). And questions still need to be asked about why highly productive farmland was handed over to Communist-Chinese backed companies which are now reportedly finding it convenient for military-related use.  Why in fact were the Crayfar farms not available to be bought in New Zealand except as a job lot – putting them out of the reach of New Zealand buyers – when they were advertised for sale individually overseas?

Some will be shocked – but others will not find it at all surprising that a “Blue Dragon”-called group of Chinese supporters now exists within the National Party to prioritise Chinese interests. Plus ça change?  Not our political parties’ naivety. Jacinda Arden is also sure we have no Russian spies in New Zealand, a claim so embarrassing that a well-respected analyst regards it as turning us into a laughing-stock.

 Our predominately liberal-left New Zealand media have a uncanny ability to unfailingly lionise individuals like the more than the controversial Clintons and Barack Obama, the most un-American President of all, controversially enabling Iran to work towards an eventual nuclear capacity, while not requiring any concessions with regard to its oppressive treatment of women, and those fighting for an end to its ongoing persecutions of dissidents. Iran is perceived as even now engaging in clandestine efforts in clear contradiction to the Iran nuclear deal.  Repugnantly, the pro-abortion Barack Obama even, like the Clintons, favours the horrific, partial birth abortions so shocking more and more Americans. Then we have our own media-loved politicians like the agenda-driven Helen Clark – intent on her One World Government ideology, who so successfully set out to destroy the combat wing of our air force…her excuse reported to be the ridiculous and provedly wrong claim that, “We live in an incredibly benign environment.”

We can count on our own, now historically and thoroughly ill-educated mainstream media commentators to think how wonderful they all are. But away from the heady circles of these gossipy and credulous fellow travellers, it would be a very naive New Zealander who isn’t now well aware some of today’s prominent world leaders are committed activists, with little apparent intention of putting the interests of their country before their own agenda.

However, they attract no much-needed scrutiny from our commentariat.  Canada’s embarrassingly juvenile and bullying Trudeau; France’s controversial Macron, who supports the open-door policy towards migrants from The Middle East and Africa pursued by Angela Merkel  in Germany –  the same  Angela Merkel whose folly has caused the map of Europe to be ominously coloured with the star and crescent moon of a resurgent and militant Islam. Closer to home, Australia’s  beleaguered Turnbull’s costly,  ill-thought policies have taken from Australia any claim to be still called The Lucky Country.

And New Zealand? The stupid country?   However, the growing gap between what really is the silent majority,  increasingly concerned about the sell-out of our country, and the “useful idiots” of the mainstream media is growing. And what is really bad news for politicians, in relation to the all-time low in respect in which they are held by the country, is the  very timely sign of people’s willingness to support claiming this country back from those who have abused the principles of democratic representation.  

See –  www.100days.co.nz and Facebook-100daystoDemocracy.

For a much needed corrective to the our mainstream media’s incompetent analysis of what is happening,  in relation to issues which will, and do, impinge on this small county, it’s well worth spending the time to read the brilliant David Flint’s Aux Bien Pensants...written by the co-author of Give Us back Our Country, who acknowledges our prior initiative The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…– outlined in my book of this title – as his prior inspiration.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/05/aux-bien-pensants-22/ 

© Amy Brooke, Convener, 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 Amazons Kindle.