🚨 BREAKING: Florida just SUED Pfizer for deceptively marketing their COVID vaccines as safe while women suffered miscarriages and teens had heart attacks

THE PEOPLE DESERVE JUSTICE.

“Weeks ago we learned Fauci and the biomedical state knew the COVID jabs were dangerous but…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 1, 2026

by Larry Johnson, Sonar21.com

Once again I am indebted to Karl W. Miller, whose analysis of the energy crisis unleashed by the war with Iran has become essential reading for me. Karl has a habit of seeing around corners. He anticipated the Houthi push in southern Yemen back in July, well before it made headlines, and his recent work on the global diesel shortage and the Gulf’s “double hit” has shaped much of what I have written here. His latest forward outlook, “The Gulf Restart Trap,” dated September 28, may be his most important yet. What follows is my summary of his findings.

The world is waiting for the moment the Strait of Hormuz reopens and the Gulf’s oil begins to flow again. Karl argues that this moment will be widely misread. The first tanker to load, or the first refinery unit to restart, will not mark the end of the crisis. The Gulf states are trying to rebuild their energy systems in an active conflict zone. Major reconstruction will take years, and any new attack can destroy completed work, close export routes and force contractors to leave before permanent repairs are finished. Miller’s conclusion is blunt: the world must plan for a prolonged energy supply crisis. For the most severely damaged facilities, he estimates the repair cycle could run as long as five years, and longer still if renewed attacks interrupt the work.

The problem, he stresses, is not money. The Gulf states have capital. What they cannot buy on demand are replacement machinery, specialist crews, secure transport and stable operating conditions.

The missing flow

Miller measures the exposure against a rounded reference of about 20 million barrels a day that normally passes through Hormuz: roughly 15 million b/d of crude and condensate and 5 million b/d of refined products, including Iraq’s exports. His provisional planning case has 8.5 million b/d flowing, leaving 11.5 million b/d, or 57.5%, interrupted. A stress case with 6.5 million b/d flowing leaves 13.5 million b/d, or 67.5%, interrupted. He is careful to say these are planning scenarios, not measured current totals, and that neither gap is automatically the net global deficit once rerouting, inventories and reduced demand are counted. But neither case resembles a marginal disruption.

In his allocation of the 8.5 million b/d case, Saudi Arabia accounts for about 4.4 million b/d, Iraq 1.7 million, Kuwait and the UAE about 1 million each, and Qatar only 0.2 million. Oman sits outside the strait, and Saudi Red Sea exports and the UAE’s Fujairah bypass are not counted.

Crude is recovering faster than fuel

The most important distinction in the report is between crude and finished products. A rebound in crude exports does not mean usable fuel is returning. Hormuz product exports excluding LPG were reported at about 1 million b/d on September 11, against about 4 million before the war, a gap of roughly 75%. Across the wider Gulf, product exports including LPG fell by nearly 60% in August. Net exports of diesel and gasoil in August were just 390,000 b/d, a little more than a quarter of their prewar level. Whether a crude cargo becomes diesel or jet fuel where it is needed depends on refinery condition, crude compatibility, product specifications and delivery routes.

There is one notable exception to the picture of shut-down refineries. Oman’s Duqm refinery reported running around 255,000 b/d during 2026, producing about 215,000 b/d of diesel, jet fuel and naphtha in the first half, most of which is likely exported.

How the oil actually gets out

Miller describes the shuttle system now moving Gulf crude. Tankers load inside the Gulf, make the exposed passage through Hormuz, and transfer their cargo to ocean-going ships in the Gulf of Oman. Large ships are doing much of this work: in one week in late September, 17 of 19 outbound crude tankers were supertankers carrying roughly 2 million barrels each.

His warning is about counting. A 2-million-barrel cargo recorded at loading, again at the strait and again at the offshore transfer is still 2 million barrels, not 6 million. And the system is slow. A 2-million-barrel shuttle completing a full cycle in 20 days supplies just 100,000 b/d, so moving 1 million b/d takes ten such ships working perfectly, plus the onward fleet. A 30-day cycle requires fifteen.

Saudi Arabia must recover two coastlines

Saudi Arabia is central to the recovery, and it faces threats on both sides of the peninsula. The report opens with a satellite image, dated September 13, of damage to the East-West Pipeline’s pumping station at Al-Mesabaah. Yanbu loadings on the Red Sea reportedly resumed on September 27, with pipeline flow around 3.5 million b/d, part of which feeds domestic refineries. In the southwest, Ansar Allah’s campaign against energy infrastructure and threats to Red Sea shipping mean Saudi operators must budget for repeated interruption at Jazan and along the maritime route. Miller cautions against blaming every Saudi incident on the Houthis. The real test is whether attacks from different directions could cut the same export chain at the same time.

Why repairs take years

The report lays out planning ranges for repair after authorization:

• Local piping and instruments: weeks to three months
• Tanks and fire systems: 3-18 months
• Power and control systems: 6-24 months
• Major process machinery: 12-36 months
• Severe integrated reconstruction: 24-60 months

In other words, restoring the most heavily damaged systems could take up to five years. These ranges don’t add up; the slowest indispensable system sets the date. An intact refinery can’t run without reliable power, hydrogen, water, controls, tankage and export access. One custom-built machine can keep an entire facility offline while everything else is ready.

Miller distinguishes three dates that are routinely confused: first output, when a restricted configuration can produce safely; dependable throughput, when it sustains its promised rate; and full restoration, when permanent repairs, backup capacity and spare parts are in place. These can be years apart.

Qatar provides hard evidence. Its latest outlook puts repairs to two damaged LNG trains at about three years, with the damaged gas-to-liquids train targeted for the first quarter of 2027. Undamaged LNG trains could resume within weeks of secure reopening.

Delay consumes capital

The longer repairs are exposed to inflation, remobilization and conflict, the more they cost. In Miller’s illustrative model, $1 billion of direct repair work stretched over five years costs $1.65 billion with stable access, $2.39 billion under constrained conditions and $3.65 billion under persistent conflict. Money committed late may buy the same physical repair at a much higher price without recovering the lost operating time.

A region competing with itself

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman are all drawing on the same global repair market: turbine and compressor factory slots, fabrication yards, specialist contractors, heavy-lift equipment and commissioning teams. A plan that assumes the same factory slot for several countries isn’t executable. Recovery will be staggered. Oman and the UAE can offer alternative ports, but sending every reconstruction cargo to the same few hubs just moves the bottleneck.

How the crisis spreads

The effects reach the rest of the world through delivered fuel, not headline production. Replacing a crude cargo does not replace a damaged diesel unit. Jet fuel must meet aviation specifications and pass through qualified airport supply systems. Longer voyages shrink effective shipping capacity: a fleet that takes twice as long per round trip delivers about half as much. Damaged LNG trains will keep gas and power markets tight after oil routes improve. And equipment diverted to repairs delays the new projects the market was counting on for relief.

The timeline

Miller treats five years as the planning horizon for severe damage. A 36-60-month program authorized in late 2026 points to completion between late 2029 and late 2031, and any attack that damages critical equipment moves the date again. Miller urges starting now: engineering, specifications, factory reservations and logistics planning can proceed before security is ideal, and waiting for a political settlement means losing the earliest manufacturing slots.

Miller’s message is that recovery must be demonstrated, not declared. It arrives when supply is dependable, temporary workarounds are gone and the system can survive another failure, not when the first tanker loads. With a repair cycle that could stretch to five years, that day is a long way off. Until then, the world is relying on a partially repaired energy system with less spare capacity and a more expensive route for every barrel of fuel it delivers.

Original article

by Nigel Gray

PLEASE SHARE

The following video is of this young lady being beaten by NZ Police under no provocation in a police cell and the result

I have had to remove this [full] image as it exposed the face of the victim of police violence.

AND THIS IS WHY:

Click on the image below for the video:

SOURCE

RELATED:

Official Information Act Request: NZ Police Use‑of‑Force Training – “Compliance Punches” and Cell‑Control Techniques

“Compliance Punches” and Cell‑Control Techniques

To: NZ Police
From: Nigel Gray

Subject: Official Information Act Request – Definitions, Training, and Policy Regarding “Compliance Punches” and Physical Control Techniques in Custody Cells

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to NZ Police use‑of‑force training, terminology, and operational guidance:

[ in relation to the NZ Herald report: “The sergeant said his punches hadn’t been hard – describing them as “compliance punches” – and his lawyer, David Pawson, suggested Bevins could have been injured by knocking her face against the edge of the stainless steel bed as she was taken to the ground.”]

1. Definitions and terminology

Please provide:

• The official NZ Police definition of a compliance punch, including any internal terminology, training notes, manuals, or doctrine where this term appears.
• Any other terms used by NZ Police relating to punches, strikes, jabs, or blows delivered with a closed fist as part of compliance or restraint techniques.
• Any scale, classification, or severity framework used to distinguish between types of punches or levels of force.

2. Training and instruction

Please provide:

• All training materials, lesson plans, modules, or instructional documents that describe how officers are trained to deliver punches to a person in custody or under arrest.
• Any guidance on target areas, force levels, risk mitigation, and injury‑prevention when delivering punches.
• Any training that covers the use of punches in confined spaces, cells, or when multiple officers are present.
• Any training that covers the use of punches on restrained, seated, or non‑standing individuals.

3. Policy and operational guidance

Please provide:

• All NZ Police policy documents that govern the use of closed‑fist strikes as a compliance technique.
• Any policy or guidance that addresses the use of force on individuals who are already contained within a locked cell.
• Any policy or guidance that addresses the use of force when police property has already been secured and no weapon is present.

4. Cell‑control techniques

Please provide:

• All training materials or policy documents describing approved methods for removing a person from a cell bed.
• Whether NZ Police train officers to pull a person off a cell bed, pull them to the floor, or swing them around the cell as part of standard control techniques.
• Any alternative techniques taught for controlling a non‑compliant person in a cell, including ground‑control, limb‑control, team‑control, or non‑impact compliance methods.

5. Internal reviews and doctrine

Please provide:

• Any internal reviews, audits, or evaluations of the use of punches as a compliance technique.
• Any changes to training or doctrine since 2018 relating to closed‑fist strikes.
• Any IPCA findings or internal Police findings that have resulted in changes to punch‑related training.

6. Use‑of‑Force reporting

Please provide:

• The criteria for when a punch must be recorded in a Use‑of‑Force report.
• Any internal guidance on how officers should describe punches in reporting (e.g., “compliance jab”, “straight punch”, “uppercut”, etc.).
• Any internal definitions of “light”, “moderate”, or “significant” force when describing punches.

7. Custody‑specific force

Please provide:

• Any training or policy that governs the use of force on detainees who are seated, lying down, or partially restrained.
• Any training or policy that governs the use of force when multiple officers are present, including thresholds for escalation and de‑escalation.

Timeframe

I request this information within the statutory timeframe. If any part of this request is refused, please provide the grounds for refusal and identify the relevant sections of the Act.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Gray

---

Comments:

I can confirm this brutality is not new. I personally knew young Māori who described being picked up off the streets in Napier during the late ’60s, early ’70s. They were walking home, not drunk or doing anything wrong, and taken to the cells and given a hiding. This was also later confirmed for me during my University studies in social work and social policy during the 1980s. A lecturer we had spoke of off duty policemen boasting at their parties about beating up people in the cells. Most Māori will also confirm that they get pulled over by traffic officers for no particular reason. I have first hand knowledge of this also. –EWNZ

We commented extensively on such events that occurred during the period of the fascist Jacinda regime (2017–2023), particularly the extensively documented violence by police stationed outside parliament against the people opposed to the mandates for the so-called covid ‘vaccine’ on the orders of Jacinda Ardern, Speaker Mallard and Police Chief Coster. As we said then, never let the police get away with doing anything illegal — always challenge it. —Eds

By Kerry Butler

There has been a movement in recent times to push a name change for our country to “Aotearoa” by way of creeping normalcy.  This subversive agenda is brazenly orchestrated by ideologically biased Media … especially via Mainstream News Presenters. 

Before this Woke crusade is allowed to go too far, people need to be enlightened as to all aspects of a name change … especially considering what is at stake, i.e. the financial cost as regards our hard-earned Internationally recognised “NZ” marketing brand.

There should also be consideration for our soldiers who died fighting in two World Wars … 30,000 of whom are interred in overseas countries, where their gravestones are proudly inscribed with the name of their homeland as being “New Zealand”.

Of course, to counter these aspects, it will be argued that the New Zealand name will always remain combined with Aotearoa.  Rubbish.  We already see and hear numerous examples of where it is not.

Of real significance concerning this whole matter is that despite what has been our country’s name under various spellings since 1643 (which is quite a stretch of history) the desire to now change it to ‘Aotearoa’ is based solely on the belief that it’s the original Māori name.  But the truth is, Māori had no name for the country as a whole.  The North Island was Te Ika ā Māui and the South Island Te Waka ā Māui.

It is said that the word Aotearoa described white cloud.  And “Aotea” was used by some to name the North Island.  Although, the area now known as the King Country was referred to as Aotearoa during the 1870’s. 

In 1890 the author, William Reeves popularized the usage of “Aotearoa” to describe the entirety of New Zealand through romanticized literary narratives rather than traditional precedent.

The first Māori dictionary, published in 1844, had no entry for Aotearoa.  And the Te Reo Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 makes no mention of it.

In 1835 when chiefs were establishing the Declaration of Independence (which failed due to intertribal fighting), they didn’t know what name to give their country, so called it Nu Tireni [or Niu Tirani] which expressed their transliterated pronunciation of the English “New Zealand”.

This not only proves that ‘Aotearoa’ was never the traditionally accepted name, but also that Maori were happy with the name New Zealand.  So much so, they created Te Reo words to match it.

“Colossal Money” – Whistleblower Reveals $35 Per Shot Payments Driving NZ’s Vaccine Rollout

Whistleblower Barry Young @BarryYoungNZ describes the enormous financial scale of the vaccination system he helped build.

Providers were paid $30-35 for every shot administered – money… pic.twitter.com/OPKcXZJhMe

— Liz Gunn (@LizGunnNZ) July 25, 2026

I am writing directly because otherwise we cannot trust that New Zealanders will ever hear the full substance of what we are proposing.

Our policies get condensed into headlines and announcements become stories about how whingers react to them. Sensible common sense policies that most New Zealanders agree with are treated as controversies, or reframed into what somebody else says we really meant. Sometimes the detail barely gets a look in at all.

So rather than rely on someone else to interpret New Zealand First’s position for you, I want to explain it directly.

The idea connecting much of what we are proposing at this election is clear. It is that New Zealand should control its own future.

These are complex and challenging times. We cannot afford to give the reins to student politicians and those who have already shown their willingness to vandalise our future. New Zealand needs experience, and through experience, good judgement that protects New Zealand’s vital interests first and foremost.

New Zealand First takes the world as it is, not as some cloistered postmodern lecturer or dancing green TikToker wants it to be. With experience comes prudence, common sense, and the understanding that sometimes we have to make hard decisions. And with enough New Zealand First MPs comes the power to decide our own future, instead of having it decided for us.

The economy is not where it should be. Kiwis know that without being told. We said at the last election that the damage done by the previous Labour Government could not be undone in three years. We were right. There is growth happening, but not nearly as much as we need.

We inherited a disaster of massive over-borrowing, and spending not on production, not on wealth creation, not on employment, and not on exports, but purely on consumption. We are all paying the price for Labour’s decisions now.

The sad truth about New Zealand over the past fifty years is that we went from the top tier in the world to a non-competing economy. In 1984 came the neoliberal experiment of Labour’s Roger Douglas followed by the austerity of National’s Ruth Richardson. The left and the right went on to sell our assets, privatise our country, and open our borders to mass immigration. Forty years down the track we can see it has been an abject failure.

Only one party never subscribed to that ideology. New Zealand First was formed because we opposed it. We have always believed in economic nationalism. The radical notion that we own our country’s assets and we should use them to our benefit.

We believe in targeted government intervention and giving a hand up in times of need. We support capitalism with a human face and a spirit of solidarity.

New Zealand is a sovereign nation and we resist anyone who seeks to undermine that by increasing our dependence on external powers. It is time to tear up globalist agreements that exist to extract billions from New Zealanders for emissions that are a wisp of smoke compared to the industrial scale deluge from the likes of China, India, and the United States.

We are too dependent on volatile markets and supply chains that we have seen severely tested in recent years. New Zealand First’s vision is one of economic independence. But that kind of future requires keeping the maniacal activists away from the levers of power. We cannot afford to have our future in the hands of ideological fools who would snitch on their own country to impress Greta Thunberg.

We need adults in the room with enough of a backbone to say “actually we are going to use our own resources” just like other countries do. This term of government Shane Jones has relentlessly resisted the pearl clutching of other parties. He has had to battle the activists on the other side of Parliament who would shut down industries and projects with the potential to provide Kiwi workers with high wages because virtue signalling is more important. 

New Zealand First says we can take control of our own future. We can make the most of our resources, build sovereign wealth, and ensure that ours is a country that works for its people.

This brings me to the main reason I am writing to you directly. It turns out our national media outlets have decided to ignore New Zealand First’s immigration policies.They are the first to jump on the slightest negativity, but when we lay out a comprehensive policy they suddenly go dumb, deaf, and blind.

I do not intend to leave it to editors, commentators, or our political opponents to tell you what New Zealand First believes. I would rather tell you directly, set out the policy plainly, and let you judge it for yourself.

The commentators have microphones, newspapers and television studios. We have to pay to communicate directly with voters.

First and foremost, we must have the discipline and sense to control our borders and ensure that those we let into this country are here to fill gaps in our workforces and are willing to respect our values and way of life. 

Immigration is where the principle of sovereignty is truly tested.

How many times has New Zealand First been attacked as “xenophobic” and “racist” for asserting that New Zealand has a culture worth protecting? 

Look around the world. There are plenty of examples of what we do not want our country to become. But instead of appreciating what we have and being patriots for New Zealand, those in green and red seem to hate everything we stand for.

They are oikophobes, fetishising everyone else’s cultures, wearing their flags, shouting their chants, while loathing the free and just democracy they were lucky enough to inherit.

Around 30% of current New Zealand residents were not even born here. Thirty years ago it was 17%. If we carry on this trajectory, by our grandchildren’s generation that could well be more than half.

This is a system that is out of control and worst of all, many of the political class have no desire to wrangle it back.

The fact is, in the past four years we have seen a net increase of 165,000 new migrants. Under Labour’s final year of government alone they let in 131,000 net. When we were in government in 2017, we ensured immigration was cut back, but when we were out, and Labour was left to their own devices the foot came off the brake. 

National and ACT said absolutely nothing either. One is too scared of being called “racist” in the newspapers and the other only sees demands from some businesses for cheap labour to undercut our own workforce.

As it says in the good book: by their deeds you will know them.

We need immigration. Don’t let any biased columnist tell you that New Zealand First is anti-immigration because we are not. It has been an essential part of our history and we are all descendent from people who decided to venture here for opportunity.

But immigration must be smart and controlled. Allowing in immigrants we need, not people who need us. The Kiwi dream belongs to Kiwis who have worked hard for this country, invested time, sweat and pride, and share in our history. It is not for just anybody who arrives for five minutes and claims what we have built for their convenience.

For decades you have heard other politicians here and abroad parroting that “diversity is our greatest strength.” That is false. Unity is our strength. Diversity, without a common purpose, is weakness and division. We do not have to all be the same and have the same story, but we do need to be pulling in the same direction.

That is why we have announced the most serious immigration reform in a generation.

Whatever your view of these proposals ultimately is, you should at least know what New Zealand First is actually proposing before somebody else tells you what to think about it.

So here it is, plainly and without the filter.

This is what New Zealand First is proposing on immigration:

• Only the children of citizens will automatically receive citizenship at birth.
• Citizenship can only be applied for after ten years, not five.
• Permanent residence after five years, not two.
• There will be higher fees that reflect the value of what is being granted.
• A ten year welfare stand-down for non-citizens.
• Social housing for citizens first.
• Wider deportation powers.
• Automatic deportation for violent and sexual crimes, fraud, organised crime, money laundering and migrant exploitation.
• A referendum on a 20,000 resident-visa cap.
• A 30 year population plan.
• Student visa holders who want another visa must leave and apply from abroad.
• No automatic work rights that take jobs off Kiwis.
• Establish protected person status that is temporary by design.
• No asylum claims will be able to be applied for from a work visa. 
• No using temporary work rights as a stepping stone.
• A 24-month window for all overstayers to leave, if they are found after that period they will be deported and banned from reentry. 
• For Pacific overstayers only, there will be a 24-month clemency to legally apply for a valid visa to remain, if they are found after that period they will be deported and banned from reentry.
• And a New Zealand First Minister holding the Immigration portfolio. 

Without a New Zealand First Immigration Minister, this vision for taking control of our future is just fantasy. National and ACT need New Zealand First to save them from their own instincts. 

Because we actually do have the right to determine the future size and character of our country. New Zealand citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

So there you have it. The policy that taxpayer-owned TVNZ has refused to report. Not one story. Not one article.

We are the only socially conservative party and they do not like it. The only nationalist party and they do not like it. The only patriotic party, a word now so often criticised. We stand proud to be patriots of New Zealand. Most important, we are the only party that can counter-balance the present spectrum of extremists in Parliament.

We have won many battles. The war is not yet over.

Believe me when I tell you that we in New Zealand First do not think we are just running in another election. We understand that we are running to save our country economically and socially from extremists.

To do that we need many more New Zealand First MPs. Many, many more.

So do not give us a microlight and then ask us to fly to the moon. If you give us the tools, we will finish the job. Donate Now.

That means organisation, halls, printing, travel, and the means to put our case when the official channels will not. 

We rely on New Zealanders like you who still believe this country is worth defending.

True democracy is a rare flower in the history of humanity. We inherited a free country that our forebears fought and died for. It is our job to preserve it. We must never stop believing in New Zealand.

Protect. Save. Restore. Put New Zealand and New Zealanders first.

We are asking you to join us, and Party Vote New Zealand First.

Winston Peters
Leader, New Zealand First

P.S. They have the state broadcaster. We have you. If you can send something today, send it. Cool heads and rational judgement still need the numbers, and the means, to be heard.