What Bill of Rights?

What Bill of Rights?

Concern is now very real  that the deeply undemocratic Andrew Little (who voted for the killing of unborn children to become easier – in spite of 91.6% of submissions to parliament opposing this) is now attempting to use nationwide worry about Covid 19 to distract the country from his intention to push through the deeply undemocratic hate speech legislation he is sponsoring. 

Yet we all know that our Bill of Rights (as Lindsay Perigo reminds us )  contains the following:

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Public Act 1990 No 109
Date of assent 28 August 1990

13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

14 Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

There is no such thing as the right not to be offended—Salman Rushdie.

New Zealanders are reasonable people, and only a fringe element would ever use speech that others find hateful.

But in a knee-jerk action to the shocking and shameful attack on the Muslim community in Christchurch  —one for which no New Zealander was responsible.

Perhaps this needs to be remembered, as the media has been centre-staging the fact of its anniversary —which some see an attempt to lay a guilt trip on New Zealanders as a whole.

Undoubtedly, an opportunity is also being taken by the Labour Party government to control New Zealanders even further.

Parliament’s phone  number is 04 817 9999.

Arguably, we all need to pick up that phone far more often,  and ask to be put through to the relevant office—here that of Andrew Little or Jacinda Ardern. Neither of these offices are presently answering the phone.

Grant Robertson’s office is,  and his helpful telephonist was happy to pass on the concern I expressed, with a reminder that majority of New Zealanders undoubtedly feel the same, and that Little has no mandate at all to undertake what he’s doing.

His intent, as he well knows, directly contravenes our Bill of Rights. It’s doubly problematic,  because some of the impetus is coming from a religious group within this country,  when in fact its extremists worldwide have been and are constantly targeting and killing Christians. So essentially it can be viewed as a power move from representatives of this religion, the majority of whom we know are moderate people—but whom we see worldwide are themselves being targeted, used and sheltering — inadvertently or not their own extremists.

To allow any religious or ethnic group to dictate government policy is unacceptable.

Of equal concern is that the police should be involved with this issue. For obvious reasons, the police should never be involved in formulating government policy. They are essentially there to maintain law and order and to protect the public against criminal activity.

Thanks to all of you who don’t forget that the price of a democracy, of freedom, is paid only by eternal vigilance.

Please help to warn others –  and contact parliament yourself.

Why not?

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

The real Western civilisation emergency?

The real Western civilisation emergency? 

The inexcusable, great global warming scam — and what it is going to cost us — is brilliantly illustrated by Melanie Phillips below.* It’s too important to miss!

And why are we finding that we now have to use wood burners even earlier each year in New Zealand? Ours and neighbours’ are now being used already in March — as they were, nearing the end of last year – when we’re supposed to be having global warming!

Remember Greenpeace? Another theory about why we have all been conned — this includes our governments and local bodies —has now been advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace *“Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.” 

And how much of the sheer ignorance of this anti-capitalist agenda has been shown by other mayors and local bodies around the country? Incredibly enough, in Nelson, Mayor Rachel Reese actually enthusiastically hugged members of Extinction Rebellion, the anarchist group gluing themselves to tunnels, roads, etc in Britain.

In a display of extraordinary gullibility Reese has seen to the Nelson City Council establishing an inexcusably  expensive undertaking to tackle Nelson’s non-existent climate change emergency, employing new staff, with all the salaries and equipment involved — and reportedly inappropriately diverting the funding from other council accounts to do so.  But we don’t have any climate change emergency in Nelson!  There’s absolutely no proof of this at all – so what excuse is there for  the Nelson City Council’s sheer gullibility  – and the rise of rates inflicted on an already overtaxed community? 

Don’t miss Melanie Philips below!  

©  Amy Brooke. Check out my book,  ” The 100 Days  – Claiming back New Zealand…What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians“. Available from my website – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz – or from Amazon’s Kindle

CIVILISATION EMERGENCY

FEBRUARY 21, 2020 , by MELANIE Philips.  

*A few commentators have begun to stumble towards the fact that the policy of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2050, as adopted by the UK and the EU, would undo modernity itself.

On Unherd, Peter Franklin observes that, if carried through, the policy will have a far greater effect than Brexit or anything else; it will transform society altogether.

“It will continue to transform the power industry, and much else besides: every mode of transport; how we build, warm and cool our homes; food, agriculture and land use; trade, industry, every part of the economy”.

Franklin is correct. Even so, he seems not to grasp the full implications of the disaster he intuits – because he thinks there’s some kind of middle way through which the imminent eco-apocalypse can be prevented without returning Britain to the Middle Ages.

In similar vein he quotes Rachel Wolf, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, who is prone to the same kind of magical thinking. She wrote:

“Government has committed to ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet. At the same time, we do not want to return to an era where children (and their mothers) regularly died, and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty. This is a staggering challenge”.

This is what we might call an understatement. What is truly staggering is, first, that any sentient person thinks this can be done and, second, that it should be done.

For it’s not just that the carbon-neutral target will destroy the livelihoods and wreck the living standards of millions of people. It’s not even that it would take Britain and the west backwards to a pre-industrial way of life.

More fundamentally, it shows that policymakers and politicians – even those who may not fawn idiotically over Greta Thunberg and who rightly view Extinction Rebellion as a bunch of anarchist vandals – have not the slightest scintilla of a clue that the whole idea of a “climate emergency” is bogus from start to finish.

Those who point this out are vilified by the chillingly offensive term “climate-change deniers” and written off as a small bunch of cranks. This merely shows the terrifying effects of groupthink. The claim that “97 per cent” of scientists support the prediction of planetary disaster through anthropogenic global warming – a figure that is itself said to have misrepresented the evidence – denies the key scientific principle that science is never settled.

It also ignores the hundreds of scientists in related fields, many with stellar reputations and some of whom themselves served as expert reviewers for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change until they decided the IPCC was hijacking science for ideological ends, who have shown repeatedly that the evidence for a “climate emergency” doesn’t hold up for a moment.

What these scientists are telling us is that policy-makers are intending to destroy the west’s economic and social ecology even though:

  • There’s no evidence that current changes in the climate are different from the fluctuations in climate over the centuries;
  • The idea that the non-linear, chaotic and infinitely complex climate can be significantly affected by anything human beings may do is intrinsically absurd;
  • All climate forecasts are based on computer modelling which is unable to process this level of complexity and unpredictability, and which is also susceptible to false assumptions fed into the programmes which produce false results;
  • Much evidence of current environmental trends is ambiguous and contested;
  • Much climate-related research is scientifically illiterate or the product of outright intellectual fraud;
  • Scientists in climate-related fields can often only obtain grant funding if their research corresponds to apocalyptic AGW theory. This innate distorting mechanism will be hugely exacerbated by the $10 billion which Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has announced he is investing to “save Earth” from climate change, “the biggest threat to our planet”.

Nevertheless, scientists with intellectual and moral integrity are continuing to challenge this bogus science with actual facts. I reported several of these in my 2010 book, The World Turned Upside Down. Here are a few more recent examples.

  • Professor Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, has saidthat the World Meteorological Organisation is misleading the public by suggesting that global warming and its impacts are accelerating. He wrote:

Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than a deterioration. After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

“…The temperature variations recorded in the lower troposphere are generally reflected at higher altitudes also, and the overall temperature ‘pause’ since about 2002 is recorded at all altitudes, including the tropopause and into the stratosphere above. In the stratosphere, however, the temperature ‘pause’ had already commenced by around 1995; that is, 5–7 years before a similar temperature ‘pause’ began in the lower troposphere near the planet’s surface.The stratospheric temperature ‘pause’ has now lasted without interruption for about 24 years”.

  • Paul Homewood wrote herethat the Met Office’s Central England Temperature Record shows that temperatures have barely changed in 20 years and that there has been no increase in extremely hot days either:

“The summer of 2018 had just one day over 30 degrees, while 1976 had six. The Met Office’s data show that hot days are just not becoming more common.” And there seems to be little to worry about on bad weather front either. There has been a gentle decline in storminess, and in most of the UK, there has been no change in either average rainfall or rainfall extremes”.

  • A leading climatologist, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has saidthat the computer simulations used to predict global warming are failing on a key measure of the climate today and cannot be trusted.

“They all have rapid warming above 30,000 feet in the tropics – it’s effectively a diagnostic signal of greenhouse warming. But in reality it’s just not happening. It’s warming up there, but at only about one third of the rate predicted by the models.”

  • Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin saysthe IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5), which makes a “costly and highly disruptive recommendation” that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century, lacks the scientific rigour to support such a proposal.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report”.

  • reviewof Met Office weather data found the UK climate was more stable than was being suggested.

The review, which examines official temperature, rainfall, drought and other weather data shows that although temperatures increased slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, there is no evidence that weather has become more extreme. And intriguingly, extreme heat is, if anything, slightly less common than in previous decades.In particular, heatwaves have not become more severe and nor have droughts. Data also suggest that recent warming has had little effect on the severity of flooding in the UK”.

  • Richard Lindzen, formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

In a lecture in 2018, he ridiculed the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, could be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it was primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he said, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

“Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees… At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.

“This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use. Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem”.

So what’s really going on here? How come so many scientists subscribe to this falsification of science itself?

One clue lay in an article published in the Guardian in 2007 by Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a guru of AGW orthodoxy. In seeking to rebut the argument that global warming theory was bunk, he openly acknowledged that the theory could not be supported by the “normal” rules of scientific inquiry. He wrote:

“The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow… Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science.But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity”.

As I wrote in The World Turned Upside Down: “It was a brazen admission that, in the name of science, scientific reason had been junked altogether to promote mere ideological conviction. In other words, science— the hard-wiring that underpins our age of reason — has short-circuited itself. It has mutated into a denial of rationality in order to change the very way in which people think. This is not about submitting theories or hypotheses or evidence for public debate. This is about using ‘science’ to stifle public debate and change the way people think and behave”.

Another theory was advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.

That certainly corresponds with the real agenda of Extinction Rebellion, a leak from whose computer database revealed that its aims include “to build structure, community and test prototypes in preparation for the coming structural collapse of the regimes of western ‘democracies’ — now seen as inevitable due to stored-up crisis. Thus preparing a foundation to transform society and resist fascism/other extremes. This includes creating Rising from the Wreckage – a citizens’ assembly based on sortition [random selection]”.

Another scientist has heard other echoes. Professor Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, was appalled by the IPCC’s false claims about the increased risk from global warming of malaria, a disease on which Reiter is a world expert. And he noted the parallels between the global warming scam and “Lysenkoism” in the Soviet Union.

Trofim Lysenko was an agricultural scientist who claimed falsely that he could eradicate starvation by modifying seeds before cultivation and thus multiply grain production. He argued that conventional genetics was ‘fascist genetics’. Opposition to him was not tolerated. As a result, between 1934 and 1940 numerous geneticists were shot or exiled to Siberia and starved to death, including the Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1943.

Lysenko took his place and in 1948 genetics was labelled ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’. The ban on genetics was lifted in 1965 after tens of millions had starved to death because Lysenko’s agricultural polices had not produced enough food.

Reiter commented: “One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote: ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities’. To me, we have fallen into this trap”.

The “climate emergency”, which we are told threatens the imminent collapse of civilisation and the extinction of humanity, is a dogma being enforced by a culturally totalitarian tyranny. Threatening the living standards of millions, permitting no challenge and wrecking the livelihoods and reputations of any who dares dissent, it has been created by a repudiation of science, humanity and reason: the very markers of modernity and the west. This is the real emergency. ”

 

 

Ardern can talk the leg off an iron pot, but…

Jacinda Ardern is now well-known for ignoring emails – as these women point out,  in spite of the fact that her website simply indicates a delay in answering.

https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2020/02/open-letter-dear-jacinda-when-does-human-life-begin/

Many of us have been waiting for answers on important topics ever since the last election.

No surprises there.

Our Prime Minister can  talk the leg off an iron pot – but her performance is decidedly lacklustre  – and evasive.

Childhood’s End –  propagandising and frightening vulnerable children?

Childhood’s End propagandising and frightening vulnerable children?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/cultural-notes-3/

This disgraceful state of affairs can legitimately be argued to be a form of emotional and mental abuse… An excusable invasion of the world of childhood.

 

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

Why don’t our MPs know this – that we’re being conned…

Why don’t our MPs know this – that we’re being conned…

Subject: Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures. This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Emigrate While You Still Can!Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.

Burn all the oil you want, in other words, and it’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun and other cosmic influences. All the fossil fuel consumption in the world barely contributes anything to actual global temperatures, the researchers confirmed.

As they explain, the IPCC’s climate models are wildly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures:

…the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

The entire “climate change” hoax is a fraud

Carbon dioxide, in other words, isn’t the “pollutant” that climate change alarmists have long claimed it to be. CO2 won’t destroy the planet and barely has any effect on global temperatures (the IPCC’s estimate of its effect is, according to Finnish researchers, about one order of magnitude too large, or ten times the actual amount).

In fact, NASA was forced to recently admit that carbon dioxide is re-greening the Earth on a massive scale by supporting the growth of rainforests, trees and grasslands. See these maps showing the increase in green plant life, thanks to rising CO2:

Importantly, reducing our global consumption of fossil fuels will have virtually no impact on global temperatures. The far bigger governor of climate and temperatures is the strength and configuration of Earth’s magnetosphere, which has always been in flux since the formation of the planet billions of years ago. The weaker the magnetosphere, the more cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere, resulting in the generation of clouds, which shield the planet’s surface from the sun. Thus, a weaker magnetosphere causes global cooling, while a stronger magnetosphere results in global warming, according to this research. This phenomenon is called the “Svensmark Effect.”

As reported by Science Daily:

This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal — evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay — this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

The “war on carbon” is derived from sheer stupidity, arrogance and scientific illiteracy

The extreme alarmism of climate change lunatics — best personified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ insistence that humanity will be destroyed in 12 years if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels — is all based on nothing but fearmongering media propaganda and faked science. (The IPCC and NOAA both routinely fudge temperature data to try to create a warming “trend” where none exists.)

https://www.sgtreport.com/2020/01/climate-change-hoax-collapses-as-new-science-finds-human-activity-has-virtually-zero-impact-on-global-temperatures-2/

 

 

Our disastrous political hierarchies – the shocking takeover of education

Our disastrous political hierarchies – the shocking takeover of education

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/disasters-long-march-through-the-institutions/

For the moment, let’s pass over the fact that increasingly New Zealanders are  fed up with the fact that English, the language of the majority of the country, our most important language nationally and internationally, is now being relegated to a supposedly inferior position. A newly fabricated language, te reo, made up of thousands of  newly-minted words, a demonstrably  reinvented and inauthentic “Maori language”, is being promoted as more important – as with this sign over “ Pike River Mine Recovery Agency” .

None of these words are genuine Maori, and although any language gradually takes up and assimilates new words, for academics to contrive to blatantly make up words which are supposedly genuine Maori, and to then prioritise them over English,  is simply not acceptable. Without consultation with New Zealanders, even our National Anthem is now sung first in Maori – over the objections of many. No prizes for guessing where all these ongoing attempts to advance the agenda of a minor, but highly vocal, ego-driven, basically obsessive group come from…

The Australians were much smarter. Their activists’ attempts to replace their own National Anthem with an Aboriginal version received the response our government should have given to those who foisted off on this country the inauthentic Maori vision of Thomas Bracken’s 1876 poem known as  “ God defend New Zealand.”

The move to replace Australia’s National Anthem, “Advance Australia Fair”  by an invented aboriginal version met the official response which should have also been adopted  here. “It would not be appropriate for alternative versions of “Advance Australia Fair” to be presented as the Australian national anthem, which should be performed as proclaimed. However, there may be occasions when your version of “Advance Australia Fair” could be performed as a patriotic song.

“The Government would need to be convinced of a sufficient groundswell of support in the wider community to warrant changing the anthem.”

Our own government managed to dispense with any ground-swelling of support from the wider community, and simply acted without consulting New Zealanders – as it does with most of the legislation it affects upon the country. And with the wonderfully convenient excuse of “cultural sensitivity”,  those very few, perennially dissatisfied part-Maori activists  – ignored by the majority of New Zealanders,  including most of Maori descent – our  political parties folded up, as usual, to oblige those making the most noise. However, cultural sensitivity works two ways, and New Zealanders have become increasingly sceptical of the now hundreds of millions of dollars continually handed over to the causes of these same activists. In fact, while accumulatively billions of dollars over recent decades have been transferred to those of even a highly attenuated Maori genetic inheritance,  we should remember that these handouts  – including for the demands to keep the Maori language alive  (which it now isn’t …not the authentic  language recorded by the early missionaries )  should far more appropriately be directed to other areas of much greater priority. For example,  the health budgets…the desperately cash-strapped hospitals… the grossly under-funded Pharmac – whose markedly low annual grant  and inability to carry the cost of procedures now commonplace even Australia, and saving lines overseas,  has become almost scandalous.

Such decisions of course, are always made by our politicised hierarchies… similar to those who handled the tragedies of White Island, Cave Creek, and the Pike River mine, But here, as worldwide, we can view the lessons of Brexit, the central message of which is that so-called ordinary, that is normal people…the man whose day revolves around a job in trade or in the professions …the woman homemaker…or the one struggling to hold down a job and at the same time do justice to her children… have had enough of overbearing governments.

The examples of what happened on White Island, at Cave Creek, at Pike River show the extent to which our hierarchies are no longer capable of acting in the interests of all New Zealanders – any more than a shockingly dumbed-down education system churning out so many young New Zealanders who are basically sub-literate , and remarkably ignorant in areas important for an educated population… and deprived of any knowledge of the important lessons of history… world history…let alone our own forefathers’ history and the sacrifices they made  to safeguard our futures – our actual democracy.

Importantly, a new release by the Taxpayer’s Union illustrates, as this organisation rightly claims the newest example of the complete capture of education bureaucracy by the far Left, showing how a climate change addition to the curriculum amounts to taxpayer-funded propaganda. As its spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, “ The new taxpayer funded curriculum promotes the campaigns of Greta Thunberg, School Strike for Climate and even Greenpeace. Students are encouraged to reduce their feelings of climate guilt by participating in this kind of political activism.”

How very scandalous  – and it’s about time  parents need to vigorously object to such blatant brainwashing. A parents’ strike  – removing their children from schools prepared to implement such propaganda would be a good start.  Time to use activists’ own tactics against them?

The has nothing whatever to do with genuine debate, the presentation and analysis of both sides of the current issue. It has nothing whatever to do with the truth of this issue. On the contrary, it has everything to do with sheer indoctrination.

Moreover, the more obvious it becomes that all the “climate change emergency” theories warning of more global warming to come have not only been greatly exaggerated, but are now acknowledged to be quite wrong – the more frantic and noisy the efforts of climate change cultists to have their erroneous conclusions adopted worldwide…in spite of all the scientific-backed evidence to the contrary.

However, the well-validated scepticism of the general public is also increasing. And down here on the South Island, log fires are being lit, not only in Invercargill but up as far as Nelson, to cope with the cooling nights of what should be Summer… So much for global warming.

 

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

 

 

What when it’s largely now simply made-up “Maori”?

What when it’s largely now simply made-up “Maori”?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/made-up-maori/

So why is a demonstrably inauthentic language being foisted off on all New Zealanders? Isn’t it time to stand up to the race-obsessed activism constantly draining off more and more multi millions of taxpayers’ money?

No wonder our hospitals and the health system in general, serving all New Zealanders, are so constantly cash-strapped.

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