About you-know-what. Video and information on this webpage

Not only is this happening in Jacindaland, the Biden administration looks to have taken notes.

“Eternal appetite”

from Bassett, Brash and Hide

When the public grasps just how much power is being handed to iwi, opposition will skyrocket.

Car company magnate Henry Ford once said: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

The same might be said of Nanaia Mahuta’s plans to confiscate the nation’s water infrastructure assets — paid for by generations of ratepayers and taxpayers — and to hand disproportionate control of them to iwi.

Although there is already widespread opposition to Three Waters — with the provisions for co-governance a significant objection — the vast majority of the voting public has no idea of just how much control Three Waters will hand to unelected Māori elites.

When more New Zealanders come to understand clearly that the real purpose of Three Waters is to broker a radical “Treaty settlement disguised as an infrastructure project” — as David Seymour put it — all political hell will break loose.

What stands between the public and such an explosive realisation is a lazy and myopic mainstream media, more than happy to take $55 million of government funds on condition they support a widely contested view of the Treaty as a 50:50 power-sharing arrangement between the Crown and iwi.

In fact, Three Waters goes much further than that. While it prescribes 50:50 co-governance at the overarching strategic level of the four Regional Representative Groups, iwi will have a dominating influence all the way down through the subordinate levels of management.

While the mainstream media snoozes, independent blogs and news sites are pointing out that the principal mechanism for such comprehensive control are the Te Mana o Te Wai statements, buried deep within the Water Services Entities Bill.

And it is clear these statements — edicts that can be issued at will by iwi and hapū and are effectively binding on the water services entity in their region — have no limits or restrictions on what may be included in them.

Read the rest

by Rod Lampard from The Spectator, Australia

New Zealand Labour, supported by the Greens, and Māori Party, have passed ‘plain language’ legislation, which will require all branches of government to employ language compliance officers.

The ‘plain language’ bill was approved by the New Zealand Parliament on Wednesday and comes into effect once the legislation receives Royal assent.

Advocates of the new law defended the bill arguing, in sum, that a bigger bureaucracy was better for democracy.

The language compliance legislation’s author and Labour member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, told Parliament:

‘New Zealand is at its best when we can all understand and easily participate in our democracy.

‘When government agencies are explaining services, benefits, or how to comply with requirements, they should use plain language and avoid jargon. Plain language that the intended reader can easily understand after one reading is the aim of this bill.’

Jurist explained the ‘plain language’ law demands ‘all reporting agencies appoint plain language officers’.

These are compliance officers employed by respective departments to essentially police the use of language.

Apologising for local councils being exempt from the law, the member for Nelson asserted that ‘plain language officers’ were allegedly there to benefit ‘people who have English as their second language’.

The Guardian, Gollum-giddy over the one-ring-to-rule-them all law, gushed over the Ardern government’s assertions, and declared that the ‘plain language law’ would ‘make for a more inclusive democracy’.

Inspiration for the language compliance law came from an Obama-era legislation in the United States known as the Plain Writing Act of 2010.

Insinuating that her law was more about helping the government than helping the people, Boyack said, ‘When that legislation was introduced [by Obama in America], the compliance for people to pay things like taxes and fines actually went up because information was presented in a clearer way for people to understand.’

While the overall legislation looks harmless, the New Zealand National, and ACT Parties pointed out that the law was a ‘solution looking for a problem’.

As was summed up by Radio New Zealand, they rightly opposed the bill, calling the language compliance law ‘costly, pointless, unnecessary’ warning that ‘plain language police’ were a ‘step towards a future where ‘Woke’ language-police from the liberal clerics control everything we say’.

Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reported that Boyack laughed off the opposing viewpoints, with The Guardian, and, the RNZ, taking the opportunity to mock both the NZ National and ACT parties, as well as the English language.

The difference between the US and NZ ‘plain language’ laws couldn’t be plainer.

First, for all of his (mostly second term) faults, Obama, unlike Ardern, never declared his government to be the public’s, quote – ‘single source of truth’ – unquote.

Secondly, while the US legislation requires mandatory compliance reporting, the US law does not specify, or command the creation of a ‘plain language police force’.

Read the rest

from NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science

With NZ politicians all [at least the ones in the present Parliament —Eds] apparently under some sort of spell cast by the Wicked Witch of the WEF, we have to look enviously at other countries to see politicians who are responding to, and working for, the people with regards to unpicking and unravelling the sham that has been the Covid Pandemic.  Not one NZ politician is prepared to ask even the most basic and simple of questions.  Not one NZ politician is prepared to talk to ordinary Kiwis who appear to know far more than they do about all things Covid.  What goes on inside those cells of the beehive?

Emphatic and Eloquent International Politicians

As we contemplate the dearth of representation from NZ politicians, members of the European Parliament have pronounced fearlessly their demands for answers from Pfizer. CEO Albert Bourla did not appear, sending Ms Janine Small in his place. Her peculiar collection of words is now reverberating around the world for all to hear (perhaps at the speed of social media).

A Dutch MEP, Mr Roos asked “Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market.  If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it.”

Ms Small’s curious reply: “Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation [sic] before it entered the market? No, heh.  Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr Bourla, even though he’s not here, would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”

Although anyone actually looking at the science would have realised in Dec 2020 on reading the Pfizer NEJM preliminary results that prevention of transmission was not one of the endpoints, this seems finally to have penetrated the consciousness of those not immersed in the scientific literature.  There was never intended to be any science showing the vaccine prevented transmission.  We have been sold a lie, an expensive and deadly lie.  And NZ politicians care not one whit.

Following the nearly 2 hour question session, 6 MEPs held a 30 minute press conference a day later and expressed their frustration and disgust at the non-appearance of Albert Bourla.

The European Parliament has also recently been addressed with a powerful speech by Mislav Kolakusic, Croatian Lawyer, who stated that the EU must immediately terminate the contracts for the purchase of fake vaccines, request a refund of 2.5 billion Euros paid so far, and prosecute Pfizer and others.  He said failure to do so would see them participating in the crime of obtaining and promoting fake medicines.  That is presumably what our politicians are currently doing.

In Canada Alberta’s new Premier Danielle Smith spoke of the unvaccinated: “They have been the most discriminated against group that I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime.”

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/3e3e4456-49ab-11ed-9658-0242ac110005/?jwsource=cl

“I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a situation in my lifetime where a person was fired from their job or not allowed to watch their kids play hockey or not allowed to go visit a loved one in long-term care or hospital, not allowed to get on a plane to either go across the country to see family or even travel across the border. We are not going to create a segregated society on the basis of a medical choice.” Where were the NZ politicians when our own PM confirmed her approval of a two-tiered society divided by vaccination status?

In Australia Senator Malcolm Roberts of Queensland has been a tower of strength and integrity, an honourable man, asking questions and listening to the answers for many months.

Also in Australia, Senators Gerard Rennick of Queensland and Alex Antic of South Australia have been demanding answers on behalf of the Australian people.

In France, politician and ex presidential canidate Jean Lassalle has spoken of nearly dying after his covid vaccination and then coming to the realisation that many members of the French parliament, and Macron himself, did not receive vaccinations.  He is now president of the movement Resistons!

In Florida, Senator Ron de Santis and his Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo have recently issued guidance recommending that young men age 18-39 not receive any covid-19 vaccinations because the risk of heart damage outweighs any potential benefit. Ladapo commissioned research which showed vaccinated men this age increased their chance of sudden death by 84%.

Florida have also vowed not to adhere to the CDC’s recent decision to add covid-19 vaccination to the Childhood Vaccine schedule.  Previously Ron de Santis also met with epidemiology professors, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff to learn about the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) at the end of 2020.  He also consulted with Dr Scott Atlas and altered Florida’s public health response in keeping with the GBD recommendation of opening society and focusing on protection of the vulnerable.

Senator Ron Johnson in the United States is also asking questions and listening to the qualified experts. 

In Denmark, politicians have realised there are potential harms from vaccination and have ceased recommending covid injections for those under 50.

In the United Kingdom the politicians appear just as useless as here.  Only 5 turned up to hear from medical experts and vaccine injured at a recent parliamentary session. Dr Tess Lawrie of the World Council for Health (WCH) despaired at the effort that injured and bereaved victims went to attend the ‘enquiry’, where reformed vaccine champion Dr Aseem Malhotra, cardiologist, presented the evidence disproving Safe and Effective.

NZ Politicians Missing in Action — where are they?

Do we not have anyone representing us in the halls of power? A few party leaders outside parliament, including Leighton Baker, Sue Grey from the New Zealand Outdoors and Freedom Party, and at least one ex-MP (Matt King) are not afraid to speak out. Another former MP has dared to speak about the unspeakable (Rodney Hide) along with his colleagues at Bassett Brash and Hide, who also have commentary to make, unlike a few sitting MPs that we KNOW have concerns but remain silent.

Seems like our Beehive needs a thorough cleansing and repopulation with honest MPs who possess courage, integrity and open minds.