In response to comment by one of our readers, Eva and Geoffrey met with Raumati Community Board Chair Bede Laracy to talk about this pro-active discussion piece he and Ward councilor Sophie Handford composed and presented at the last meeting of the Raumati Community Board.

This is an elaboration that Bede has specifically written for us.

Our Vision for Raumati is a project that sets out to create a long-term vision for Raumati. Based on the premise that while we all love Raumati, change is happening that we cannot control. We should therefore create a vision by the people and for the people that expresses who we are and what type of place we want to be, in order to allow change but still keep what we love. We don’t believe that job should be left to the Council to carry out. We believe it should be done by the people.

The Our Vision for Raumati project started out in early 2022 from a simple desire to look at the future of the area and wonder what that might be like.

Since the council election in 2019, Paekakariki-Raumati Ward Councillor Sophie Handford and I had been working on issues in Raumati, and together we secured the establishment of a Raumati Community Board of which I am now Chair. With plenty more work ahead, we sat and had a conversation about our own personal values with a view to establishing the basis for an ongoing working relationship. Fundamental to us both was the wellbeing of our local communities and a need to ensure that local people had a chance to direct their own future. Issues around Raumati Village showed that there was a need for longer term thinking, and the idea of developing a broad and long-term vision for Raumati emerged from that conversation.

A long-term vision can be useful for any number of reasons. For example, it forms a picture of who we are as a community, and what matters to us. A clearer sense of identity can help locals feel more connected, and newcomers to the area have a sense of what it is they are coming into when they arrive. It can be used to direct work programs where work needs to be done, or it can highlight where work is needed that isn’t currently on the radar. And it means that as work is carried out, it is done in a way that allows for future use and growth, rather than us doing something today only to find that in a couple of years it needs to be changed. So it has a role to play in asserting identity and in encouraging aspirations with our community. But is can also have a defensive role to play.

Anyone who has been involved in local government over the last few years will be aware that things are changing – and rapidly. Issues such as housing intensification, RMA reform, population growth, Local Government reform, the ‘Three Waters’ plan, economic development, coastal hazards, and other issues, will lead to considerable change to our neighbourhoods over the coming years. We can’t necessarily stop these changes, but what we can do is make a strong statement about what matters to us as a community that can hopefully inform and influence the shape of the change as it occurs. By developing Our Vision for Raumati we hope to create a tool that helps to ensure that while change may occur, we can defend and protect our beloved way of life.

With these big issues and opportunities in mind, we decided that a vision for Raumati might be useful, and we started with a survey entitled “re-envisaging Raumati” that asked broad open-ended questions. In late March 2022 we sent that out across Facebook, and to lots of local people and groups. We received about 80 responses, and there were lots of good, detailed answers with lots of ideas and suggestions included. We took the results and compiled them, and we decided that what we needed to do was have the ideas detailed in an illustration so that they were easily accessible. We took the survey results, along with the 2007 KCDC Local Outcomes document, and the 2021 First Retail Group strategy plan for Raumati Village, and we commissioned local artist Lisa Richardson to provide us with the imagery. For that part of the process, we applied to the Paraparaumu Raumati Community Board for a grant which provided the cost of the illustration. No other external funds have been used for any part of this project, which is probably a key point for people to be aware of.

The illustration process started in August 2022, and it occurred across several months as the illustrator worked through the complex web of different ideas and the various artistic techniques required to express them. In December we received the image. The illustrator had done an outstanding job creating a beautiful artistic image that expressed the key aspects of the source documents. That image, which is considered our main first draft, is now our primary document and we will spend the year engaging with our community about it. Key to understanding the image is that every idea contained in it has come from someone in the community. They are not our ideas as project leaders, but “our” ideas as a combined community. The concept that the ideas come from people in the community is what gives the project so much relevance and impetus. And we’ve found that people have been excited about the project as a result.

As part of the engagement process, we have partnered with some key local groups. Raumati Village Business Association, Low Carbon Kapiti, Kapiti Coast Chamber of Commerce, Kapiti Cycling Action, Kapiti Economic Development Association (KEDA), and Lisa Draws Ideas, have all shown support by agreeing to be our Engagement Partners. None of these groups provide funds, and we haven’t asked for their databases. We merely want to show that we have their support, and they can keep up to date with the project or come to us if any issues arise. They can then decide for themselves whether they share information about the project to their memberships – there are no obligations. We’re also hoping to develop relationships with iwi to understand how to incorporate their aspirations into the vision.

The route this project takes differs from standard Council processes. We do not view our process as better or superior to that of the KCDC, but it is different. The timeframe for this process is longer than Council would normally provide, and the size of the document is clearly much smaller. Council is directed by statute to carry out particular forms of consultation. What that often looks like is a large document in sometimes small print, and people have 28 days to file their submissions followed by a three-minute slot if they speak to their submission. That isn’t much time to digest large amounts of often complex and technical information and formulate a response. While it serves a purpose, surely it can’t be the only way?

As this is not a Council initiative, we are not constrained by those statutory requirements. Instead, we can take the time our community needs, and direct the process down whatever path the community signals we need to take it down. The vision in its current form is our primary document, there are not endless pages of technical data behind it. That means anyone – young, old, literate or not – can look at the document and form an opinion. By taking our time, we are allowing the community to gradually absorb the detail of it, as well as the long-term implications, and come back to us in whatever way they feel comfortable. That might mean submitting through our website portal, commenting on Facebook/Instagram, emailing us, meeting with us either as an individual or with a group, or coming to a public session where we can have group discussion and workshop ideas into the process. We are open to the various ways people might want to connect with the project.

The process we’re following takes a simple approach. With our draft vision in hand, we simply ask people – what do you think? What do you love? What do you hate? What’s missing? Those sorts of open-ended questions. Discussion can then help to flesh out people’s thoughts, and overtime build a deep base of input to test the ideas in place or develop new ones. The ultimate aim is to repeat the drafting process to re-draw the image with all of that feedback in mind. That final image will then stand as the completed long-term vision.

So far the engagement process has already been a journey. Aside from our key Engagement Partners, we’ve presented to groups such as the Youth Council, Kapiti College Head Student Team, the Disability Reference Group, LGNZ Zone 4 Leader’s Meeting, and KCDC elected Members and senior staff. We have met with a number of individuals, some of whom started with some strong concerns that were allayed through conversation. We have met with a local business owner who is looking to expand their business and we’ve offered our information free of charge. And we have helped to create considerable public discussion about what to do with the old Raumati Pool building – something that the local community clearly feels very passionate about – and in the process we’ve uncovered some amazing ideas people have for the space as well. 

With a potential Raumati development in mind, [housing authority] Kainga Ora have been in touch to get a sense of what matters to our local community. We’ve been asked to present at this year’s Local Government conference as an example of community-led engagement, and coming up is a meeting with Kapiti College’s Raumati Technology Centre. Recently we were invited to Wainuiomata to understand what the community there has achieved through “Love Wainuiomata”. They started a similar project about 10 years ago and that has manifested in a major town centre upgrade that the community there has – mostly – been happy with. We were able to look at what has worked for them, and how we might incorporate some of what they’ve learned into our process. That experience has made us think about how we might structure our project, to think deeper about the wider and longer-term life of the project, and hope that a project like this can lead to successful tangible outcomes for the community. This has all occurred since launching the project in January 2023 – a busy 3 months!

The feedback we have gained so far has been hugely positive and supportive and that has propelled us to keep progressing the process. The love people have for Raumati has been clear. There is passion for Raumati to be the most connected, accessible, safe, sustainable, green, equitable, and thriving, community possible. That love and passion motivates us to keep pushing the project and working towards something great. Our community-driven approach continues to gather momentum, and we are committed to ensuring that Our Vision for Raumati represents the aspirations and priorities of our community.

The other Community Boards of Kapiti are looking at this project and wondering how they can do the same in their areas. While we remain happy to help where we can, those projects will be best served by their own people leading them and if they do proceed they may look very different from what we have done. Showing the differences across the district would be a positive, as each town sees itself as distinct from its neighbours. But there is also something of an essence that exists across the district, and ultimately it would be amazing to discern precisely what that is through an overarching vision process for Kapiti. That process though. would likely be for Council to run, and what we have learnt since commencing our project is that there are plans underway to do exactly that. Whether it was prescience on our part, or simply sympatico, there appears to be a growing agreement in our district that forward vision is a good thing. Business has known this for decades. Let’s see what we as a people can develop for ourselves.

(ACT media release)

“The Climate Change Commission’s latest batch of recommendations will cost the country immensely without reducing emissions one bit. This is what ACT warned about when we were the only party to vote against the Zero Carbon Bill,” says ACT’s Climate Change spokesperson Simon Court.

“The rest of Parliament signed up to reduction targets without a plan to get there. The result? A new bureaucracy proposing policies that are more about social engineering than emissions reduction.

“If the Government wants to take climate change seriously, all it needs to do is announce that emissions under the ETS would be capped at the same level as our trading partners. That would meet our climate commitments and allow consumers to choose how they limit their emissions. If you emit less, you keep more of your own money.

“After all, the climate doesn’t care which country emissions come from, just the overall quantity.

“Instead, the Government has chosen the most expensive and bureaucratic possible route to emissions reduction, spending $970 million a year on climate policies that don’t lower global emissions. They’ve maximised political theatre while actively rejecting the least-cost path to emissions reduction during a cost of living crisis.

“Last year’s Emissions Reduction Plan proposed a series of policies that were outright bad or barely had anything to do with climate change. There was the now cancelled $569 million cash for clunkers scheme, proposed changes to the national curriculum and NCEA system so we “embed an understanding of the collective nature of our wellbeing,” and a directive that Kiwis should reduce the distance travelled by light vehicles by 20 per cent.

“This year’s recommendations are more of the same. The CCC is proposing a ban on new gas installations, more investment in cycleways (at the expense of roads), and co-governance for agriculture and forestry policy.

“ACT would ditch the Zero Carbon Act which created the Climate Change Commission. Instead, ACT would set greenhouse gas targets to match or exceed the cuts achieved by its top five trading partners. New Zealand needs to play its part to reduce emissions, but not at the expense of our economic and social wellbeing.

“Otherwise, it won’t just be a brain drain that New Zealand experiences, there will be an outflow of capital and employment to countries which have no intention of cutting off their industries to achieve climate targets.

“The Government should reject the advice of the Climate Change Commission on emissions reductions, just like they rejected their advice on the Emissions Trading Scheme a few weeks ago.

“New Zealand needs to focus on building infrastructure that can cope with climate change. Roads, bridges ports and stormwater require billions of dollars over the next decade to future proof towns, cities and regions.

“This Government is only concerned about appearance of environmental progress rather than actual progress. ACT stands for real change in our climate policy, ensuring it is practical, effective, and not going to make life harder for New Zealanders.”

by Guy Hatchard

NZ Health Data Leak—In the last quarter of 2021 Ardern, Bloomfield, Hipkins and the medical Czars formulated policy contrary to the evidence that they had on their own computers. WHY?

On December 15th 2021 Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health, sent a letter to District Health Boards (DHBs) belatedly warning them for the first time that there was a chance recipients of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine might develop myocarditis—a deadly heart illness. Apparently Bloomfield decided to downplay the risk saying: “the overall rate of this event in New Zealand is reported to be around 3 per 100,000 vaccinations”.

The leaked health data from the Wellington Region tells a completely different story.

By September 2021 incidence of myocarditis had increased by 13% among 20-29 year olds, 15% among 30-39 year olds, 11% among 40-49, 14% among 50-59, 19% among those 60+. There were a total of 444 additional cases of myocarditis between 1 January and 30 September 2021 compared to the same period in 2020 in Wellington Region alone.

By the end of September, approximately 40% of the Wellington Region population had received at least one dose of Covid vaccine. The population of the Wellington region is 550,000, 40% of that is 220,000. 60% of these people had had two doses, this means the total number of vaccinations was around 350,000 in the Wellington Region by the end of September 2021.

Therefore the increase in the rate of myocarditis was sufficiently serious to warrant medical care for around 127 recipients out of every 100,000 vaccinations. 

42 times higher than the 3 in 100,000 Bloomfield quoted to the DHBs. 

The risk Bloomfield announced was sufficiently low that it hardly caused a ripple among hospital staff, some of whom continued to advise the many people reporting symptoms of myocarditis that there was nothing to worry about—just take an ibuprofen and go home.

Was Bloomfield misformed? Was he simply unaware of what was going on in his own hospital system? Was he mistakenly trying to avoid a panic? Was he hoping it would all go away if he reported lowered data? Or was it something else?

Just remember by September 2021 there had been very few Covid cases in NZ, almost none. So he couldn’t blame the increases in myocarditis incidence on Covid infection as others like Dr. Michael Baker have tried to do since. Bloomfield was in charge of the health service and there would be an expectation that the Director GenerAl of Health would keep the Minister for Covid-19 Response Chris Hipkins and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern fully informed about what was actually going on. Especially as a novel biotech vaccine was being rolled out. At the time, he was conferring with both of them on a daily basis. Where did he get his 3 in 100,000 figure from?

Did the government encourage Bloomfield to minimise risks?
The policy ramifications of Bloomfield’s failure to review or share the Health Board’s own real life data proved to be deadly for every age cohort who as a result were misinformed about the risks and repeatedly told that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was ‘safe and effective’. It wasn’t. And there were more deadly policy failures.By September 2021, Wellington Region hospital data shows there had been 18% more heart attacks among 50-59 year olds and 29% more among the 60+ age range. A total of 359 more heart attacks than in the same period the previous year before the vaccine rollout. In other words, there was an unprecedented, statistically improbable rash of cardiac illness affecting 50+ year olds. Covid hadn’t begun to affect the population of Wellington by that time. Incredibly the government failed to reverse its policy to prioritise the vaccination of this older age group. WHY?

In addition, hospitalisation for kidney injury was up for all 30+ age cohorts. Alarm bells should have been ringing.It should have been apparent that a lot of people in the second half of their lives were going to face serious health episodes, including fatalities. These could have been avoided.

Was Bloomfield erroneously speculating that vaccination was the lesser of two evils? Was he thinking that Covid infection would prove to be more deadly. Possibly, but he should have known by then from overseas data that Covid vaccination was not preventing infection or transmission. He also should have known that Covid was far less deadly than first suspected.

According to the accepted standards of medical safety, Bloomfield should have paused the vaccination rollout pending investigation.

The government’s own 2021 data readily available in the fourth quarter showed incontrovertible evidence of serious vaccine harm unsullied by any degree of Covid infection. There could only have been one cause—mRNA ‘vaccination’. The government should have been warning the rest of the world, since NZ was in the unique position of being free of Covid infection, it had a source of clean data to assess vaccine safety. Instead the government decided to coerce universal ‘vaccination’ of the whole population.

In early October they introduced ‘vaccine’ mandates on pain of loss of employment.

They launched saturation advertising encouraging young and old to ‘vaccinate’, guaranteeing absolute safety and effectiveness.

They allowed private employers to sack ‘unvaccinated’ employees.

They funded the media to support their Covid policies and warned the population not to look further than the government for advice.

Crucially the Prime Minister’s office funded a new unit called The Disinformation Project tasked with discrediting anyone who was asking questions about ‘vaccine’ safety.

They set up agreements with social media companies like YouTube to exclude content originating in New Zealand critical of Covid ‘vaccination’.

On December 17th I received a letter from Astrid Koornneef, Director of the National Immunisation Programme who was replying on Ashley Bloomfield’s behalf to my letter to him of 28 October 2021 raising concerns about ‘vaccine’ safety. Incredibly the reply asserted that “an accurate measurement of all adverse events [following ‘vaccination’] is not required.”

The letter also attempted to overthrow a foundational principle of causality:“the temporal association of adverse events with ‘vaccination’ is not indicative of a causal relationship”.
In other words by mid December 2021, despite the growing epidemic of heart and kidney illness among the ‘vaccinated’, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield in my opinion seemed to be in complete denial of the accepted standards of science and health safety. The government was not going to admit that mRNA Covid ‘vaccination’ was harmful even at the cost of honesty, science, and truth. They were prepared to abandon the foundational principles of civilization in order to avoid censure. They were prepared to misinform citizens about the health risks of Covid ‘vaccination’. To this day their motivations remain obscure, they have never had to face any questions from the public, the media, or opposition parties, who have meekly acquiesced to misleading publicity generated by the government and its paid experts.

At this point in time, the elevated levels of all cause mortality currently running at 17% above long term averages are the legacy of our government’s pandemic policy.Yet the terms of reference of the current Royal Commission investigating the government’s pandemic response specifically exclude any consideration of ‘vaccine’ safety. The government is still trying to cover its tracks and avoid any recriminations.

Yesterday, an old friend visited us after a 2 year gap. He wanted to know why I foolishly got involved with ‘vaccine conspiracists’. He has had four shots. He questioned whether the government could have any possible motivation to lie to the public. He also told me that unfortunately he has been given just four months to live after his cancer flared up. This type of personal story has become common in New Zealand. There is no way of knowing whether his cancer has been affected by vaccination. However, the leaked Wellington Region health data shows why these stories are becoming more common. An epidemic of vaccine harm is in progress. Read previous data leak releases here and here for information.No doubt my friend, in fact the whole nation, deserves a straight answer to simple questions, especially where the health of family members has already been affected or life cut short, and for those who could suffer in future:

What possible motivation is there for the government to lie to the public? Is this gross incompetence or deliberate obfuscation? When is this madness going to be stopped? When will governments stop pouring money into biotechnology research which is subjecting so many people to unnecessary risk. 

mRNA vaccines haven’t worked, in fact they are dangerous.

See also this this analysis on Cranmer’s Substack: Pfizer Vaccine Approval in NZ Under Scrutiny: A Retrospective Analysis

The answers to the last questions are obvious: we had — and still have — a government of strident, willful, cruel and dishonest control freaks who weren’t going to listen to anyone outside their own echo chamber.

by Steve Kirsch

Their total silence on the excess death numbers in the UK tell you everything you need to know. There is no other intervention that could have caused numbers like these. That’s why they are silent.

Executive summary

This video, Excess deaths in young adults, 2022 data by John Campbell, aired 3 months ago.

Here are some of the highlights:

1. 2:46 – 3:11 The mortality of ages 20-44 is 7.8% vs. 2.5% increase for the elderly (75 to 84)… John says “this is just a HUGE difference” because young people aren’t supposed to die and it’s unusual when the increase in their deaths is 3X higher than the increase for the elderly. Then he says, “the government MUST give an explanation for this; it’s just incredible.” That’s right! But they are silent. And that’s the problem.
2. 3:50 – 4:45 There were 31,000 excess deaths in 2022. The distribution was very very odd. The majority of these deaths were not from COVID. The distribution was 4,700 in the first half and 26,300 in the second half. So deaths were 5.7X higher in the second half. That’s huge and MUST be caused by something. What is it? The authorities are SILENT.
3. 6:57 – 7:18: “This led to more excess deaths in the second half of 2022 than in the second half of any year since 2010”
4. 7:15 – 8:05: John compares the 7,000 excess deaths in the most recent 3 week period with a terrorist attack. If 7,000 people in the UK were killed by a terrorist attack, would there be no coverage? Why is this different? “Not a squeak” he says.

Since the video aired, there have been no explanations by the UK authorities or anyone else for that matter. Not even Susan Oliver’s dog Cindy has dared to comment on this.

That tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?

Introduction

The UK is set up to make the COVID vaccine successful no matter how many people have to be killed.

The UK MHRA used to be the drug regulator in the UK.

Today, their role has shifted to being a vaccine enabler, precisely the opposite of their previous role as a regulatory authority.

When they see huge numbers of reports into the UK Yellow Card system (their version of VAERS), they actually think that it means that the reporting system is working (rather than the drug is unsafe).

Think I’m kidding? Watch this 17-minute video segment from UK Professor Norman Fenton:

Next, check out the Ofcom site. They are the government censor organization that regulates media companies in the UK and will give them heavy fines if they go against the narrative. Check out what they did to Mark Steyn. OfCom was instrumental in having Mark Steyn fired. In their memo, they said Steyn was wrong, yet they didn’t show the correct number. In other words, they can declare you are wrong without telling you the CORRECT number. Convenient isn’t it?

This is why Neil Oliver has been effectively silenced. It’s not because Neil Oliver thinks the vaccines are safe all of a sudden.

Ofcom of course will not penalize you for spreading misinformation if it comports with the government narrative. So watch this video which is clearly false and misleading. The video says if you got the AstraZeneca vaccine, you cannot die or be hospitalized for any reason for the next 14 days. It basically makes you immortal. They are thinking of injecting Ukrainian soldiers with AZ since they cannot die for the next 14 days. No Ofcom sanctions on that one.

Also, John Campbell is now at 2 strikes on YouTube. One more strike and YouTube will obliterate everything he’s ever posted and ban him for life for spreading misinformation.

Because that’s the way science works in the UK where there isn’t a constitutional right to free speech like there was in America.

 

By Prof Grant Schofield

What does an academic actually do and do they have any useful function in society today? This is a question I’ve been asking about myself 30 years into my academic career.

It’s not a mid-life crisis, at least so far as I can tell. I haven’t bought a Harley Davidson. Yet.

New Zealand universities are facing serious budget shortfalls, dwindling domestic enrolments, and catastrophic international student declines. My employer, engaged in a cost-cutting restructure which I survived, only to find out they botched it so badly they had to re-employ everyone they sacked. We will start the process again mid-year. The University of Otago announced staff cuts will be in the several hundreds, Massey, Auckland, Victoria and Lincioln have already been and are in these processes. Only Canterbury has somehow shown growth. Overall the sector is in trouble in New Zealand. It’s the same in Australia. 

For most of my career I was in love with the “university” and the role it had in society. I’m gutted now to have lost that love. 

I think I lost my love because we no longer deliver on the most important part of what we promised to do. We are no longer the “critic and conscience of society”. 

It used to be that we were free to pursue the role that I think academics have in society. That is to conduct quality science, engage in robust public and scientific debate in our fields with a broad mandate of making the world a better place, and moving knowledge forward for the betterment of humankind.

Overall, I’d say I’ve done okay. I’ve published hundreds of scientific papers, written some books, bought lots of research funding, graduated students, including many masters and doctoral students, and made myself a public profile which influenced practice.

I’ve had something to say and I’ve said it.

Being an academic seems like a stellar lifestyle, and it is. Who wouldn’t want to have the privilege of all this? Freedom, but with full knowledge that challenge to anything I said was part of the deal. Other academics also knew that I would challenge them. Universities were places where you came for debate, controversy, and differences of opinions . It’s a fight the public are welcome to join as well.

Academics can and often are high in disagreeableness. I am.

Not disagreeable in a personal ad hominem way, but a robust, often fiery discussion about what the facts really are sort of way. This jousting comes with all sorts of thorns, but at the end of the day scientists changing their mind as new ideas come up has been and must be the future if we want to advance the human and planetary condition. You could and would be offended in these discussions, nothing surer. Feelings were hurt, egos battered, pride swallowed.

Our role has never been, nor should it be to have political views left or right. My view has been that we are radical centrists. A radical centrists will judge all views on evidence. We train the next generation to do the same.

I want to let you know if you haven’t set foot in a New Zealand university recently, or as most of us these days attend a Zoom or Teams meeting on a University account, then you might not be aware that we are no longer a place for debate. We are no longer centrists. We have drifted to the political left, way left. And that leftist view which has many merits, and many downfalls cannot be debated with impunity. We are strong on virtue signaling. We are strong on stating opinions rather than facts. We are weak on confrontation, but strong on behind the scene bullying.

Academia’s COVID response is a great example of how we transitioned. The wholesale canceling of fundamental human rights around vaccine mandates without robust arguments, let alone sufficient evidence caused more harm than benefit.

Who knows what writing this will actually mean for me, but it has been written, and it must be. I’m way nearer the end than the start of my career. I could stop tomorrow and I will be immensely proud of what I achieved. But I would be ashamed, embarrassed, and most of all not me if I failed to disagree with the elephants in the lecture halls and labs of our universities right now.

Read the rest

That is at least what the New York Times and Washington Post are reporting, and while anything those two far left cheerleaders for the Democrat National Committee report has to be treated with caution, it seems probable. We commented in an earlier post this year that Tucker has to be the most courageous MSM TV host in America right now, taking on among other things, the Washington DC War Machine, Big Pharma and the WEF; probably too courageous for Murdoch and his subordinates.

From Resist the Mainstream

Megyn Kelly Says Getting Rid of Carlson a ‘Terrible Move’ by Fox

Megyn Kelly, the outspoken former Fox News correspondent, shared her opinion on Fox News Media’s dismissal of popular news host Tucker Carlson during Monday’s episode of her Sirius XM “The Megyn Kelly Show.” 

Mincing no words, Kelly called it a “terrible move.”

“This is a terrible move by Fox, and it’s a great thing for Tucker Carlson,” Kelly said. “I don’t know what drove Fox News to make this decision, and it was clearly Fox News’ decision because they are not letting him say goodbye. That’s my supposition.”

Her views were shared by many on Twitter.

Fox News sold out Americans. Don't forget Fox Fired Lou Dobbs, Bongino and now Tucker Carlson, all who refused to be silenced. Who's Next? Goodbye Fox News pic.twitter.com/sCMLxZK0pt

— Patriotic 🇺🇸Suzanne⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@suzost) April 24, 2023

Kelly expressed dissatisfaction with how Fox News handled the matter — noting that Tucker Carlson’s final show was last Friday and “there would be no goodbye episode.”

Read the rest

Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Jesse Watters have also been critical of the same things, but not to the extent Tucker Carlson has been. He will take a lot of Fox viewers with him.

Robert Laurence Binyon, by artist William Strang. (1)

Poem by Robert Laurence Binyon (1869-1943), published in The Times newspaper on 21 September 1914.

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill: Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres.
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England’s foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain,
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

–John McCrae

Wars overseas and in New Zealand

By Roger Childs

Every year on 25 April, Kiwis are encouraged to remember the New Zealanders killed or wounded in overseas wars and all those who served in these conflicts. However, we are discouraged from thinking about the absolute horror of war, why there are wars and what stops them.

Who on Anzac Day remembers the wars here in New Zealand?

• The Musket Wars c. 1800 – 1840 when at least 40,000 native men, women and children died.
• The New Zealand Wars / Rebellions 1840s and 1860 – 1869 when about 2,500 Maori and colonial soldiers perished.

If we compare these statistics with other major wars New Zealanders have been involved in, from the South African War to the Vietnam War, all of them combined resulted in about 29,000 deaths. This is less than half the impact in terms of deaths per year and only a small dent in the population compared to the almost one third of the country’s population that perished in the Musket Wars.

The horrendous toll of wars

Tragically, the reality of war has been that most casualties have been civilians, caught up in conflicts where they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tragically, tens of millions of innocent people over the centuries have been slaughtered, injured, raped and displaced because of military campaigns often aimed at achieving narrow political goals. 

In New Zealand on Anzac Day, we recall the effects of war on families on the home front who lost husbands, fathers, sons and brothers in campaigns on the other side of the world.  However, it is hard for us to identify with the plight of innocent civilians overseas who, through no fault of their own, found themselves living on, or close to battlefields. 

It is sad that when we remember the fallen, and those who served in wars in foreign fields, we use the name war memorials. If they could tell us, they would probably want the word peace used instead.

Anzac remembrance controversies

For many years it seemed that you could only march in the traditional Anzac Day parades if you had been in a war that had public support and had been won. For many years those who had served in the unpopular and disastrous Vietnam/American War were not welcome at Anzac Day services.

 Eventually in May 2008, Prime Minister Helen Clark publically apologized to Vietnam survivors, and the names of those who had died in the Indochina conflict were subsequently added to war memorials.

The white poppy has also caused controversy. John Murray’s advocacy aroused the ire of some folk in the RSA who misunderstood his message. Speakers at Anzac Day services often talk about servicemen and women giving their lives that we might live in peace. That is what the white poppy is all about. Today this peace symbol is accepted and many wear both colour poppies on 25 April.

John’s wife Shirley, who passed away a few years ago, was also no stranger to controversy herself. Her fearless hymn writing is remembered around the world, but her Anzac hymn upset many. As you will see below, she wanted to give some acknowledgement to those who refused to go to war because of their pacifist beliefs. 

The words of her hymn sum up the range of issues we should reflect on when April 25 comes around each year. 

The costs of war are enormous and encompass, but go far beyond, the sacrifice of those who served.

Honour the dead, our country’s fighting brave,
honour our children left in foreign grave,
where poppies blow and sorrow seeds her flowers,
honour the crosses marked forever ours.

Weep for the places ravaged with our blood,
weep for the young bones buried in the mud,
weep for the powers of violence and greed,
weep for the deals done in the name of need.

Honour the brave whose conscience was their call,
answered no bugle, went against the wall,
suffered in prisons of contempt and shame,
branded as cowards, in our country’s name.

Weep for the waste of all that might have been,
weep for the cost that war has made obscene,
weep for the homes that ache with human pain,
weep that we ever sanction war again.

Honour the dream for which our nation bled,
held now in trust to justify the dead,
honour their vision on this solemn day:
peace known in freedom, peace the only way.

Time to reflect on all the casualties, and peace

So on Anzac Day in 2023, we should reflect on the futility of war and its incredibly destructive effects on people, property, resources and production. 

We should honour and remember all the fallen, injured and displaced, and resolve, above all, to give peace a chance.

Peace Movement Aotearoa … describes the white poppy as “an international symbol of remembrance of all the casualties of war.” –Shirley Murray

So think about wearing poppies red and white on Anzac Day. In that way you will be acknowledging the sacrifices our service people made, and the key reason why many died and were wounded so far from home.

 You will also be remembering the millions of innocent people who were killed, injured and displaced, and the tens of thousands who died in New Zealand conflicts in the 19^th century.

And for readers in Waikanae it’s coming to you free, thanks to a small passionate group who have bought 5,000 copies. These concerned citizens believe in Democracy, the principle of One person, One vote, Truth in History and Equal Rights for all. This government is trying to achieve a constitutional coup to change all that by surreptitious, underhand, dishonest methods.

“It is our desire and hope that the booklet will inspire open and mature discussions about what Co-Governance would mean for all Kiwis (the mainstream media are incapable of this).”

It’s sure to annoy the Labour Party fascists, etc. — they can’t be helped.

You can also read the whole 30 pages free here