A new poll by the Leftist ABC (owned by arch-Wokeists Disney) says that Trump edges out Biden 51-42 in head-to-head matchup and his job approval rating is 19 points underwater; his ratings for handling the economy and immigration are at career lows.
“A record number of Americans say they’ve become worse off under his presidency, three-quarters say he’s too old for another term and Donald Trump is looking better in retrospect — all severe challenges for Biden in his reelection campaign ahead.
“Forty-four percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’ve gotten worse off financially under Biden’s presidency, the most for any president in ABC/Post polls since 1986. Just 37% approve of his job performance, while 56% disapprove. Still fewer approve of Biden’s performance on the economy, 30%.
“On handling immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, Biden’s rating is even lower, with 23% approval. In terms of intensity of sentiment, 20% strongly approve of his work overall, while 45% strongly disapprove. And the 74% who say he’s too old for a second term is up 6 percentage points since May. Views that Trump is too old also are up, but to 50% in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.”
The local Kapiti organiser of Stop Co-Goverance says, “We’re also supporting Brian Tamaki’s march because he’s against co governance, although we are apolitical.”
You may wonder like we do, why not have a single march?
Just because he fought against the Russians in Ukraine during WW2. Who else in the Nazi paramilitary are Leftists now going to honor? The whole Waffen-SS on the Ostfront? Leftists are sickening.
We even had a few show up on our site paid by the Jacinda government’s DPMC — all except one hiding behind pseudonyms. With all the evidence about that substance that has emerged (some still being kept hidden) they have been unsurprisingly silent.
The arbitrary speed limit reductions that this government has tried to impose on councils are being pushed in turn by nefarious Globalists, who must be resisted.
from Simeon Brown MP
Christopher Luxon and I have announced National’s plan to accelerate New Zealand.
Under the guise of safety, Labour has exposed its anti-car ideology by cutting speeds on many highways from 100 km/h to 80km/h and cutting local roads from 50km/h to 30/kmh.
National will repeal and replace these rules.
National will:
Return many state highways to 100 km/h from 80, and many local roads to 50 km/h from 30 — where it is safe to do so
Ensure new highways are 110 km/h — especially Transmission Gully and the Kapiti Expressway
Require contractors to minimise the use of temporary speed limit reductions at road maintenance sites at times when workers are off-site and risks to motorists are mitigated
Require reduced variable speed limits around schools during pick up and drop off times.
All around the country, Labour has cut speeds on many highways from 100 km/h to 80 by ignoring economic impacts including travel times, and by giving insufficient weight to road users’ and local communities’ views.
We will make changes that ensure economic impacts – including travel times – and the views of road users and local communities count, alongside ensuring safety.
We will also encourage Police to increase the use of breath testing and we will fix roadside drug testing legislation so Police can effectively test drivers for drugs.
We’ve just become aware of a case where we think immediate and overwhelming attention could help turn the tide. It involves someone I’ve long followed on Twitter with the handle @MomoStJohn.
I followed Momo because of tweets that seemed reassuringly well-informed on issues raised by anti-vaxxers and others suspicious of conventional medicine. There were also many sensible comments and corrections in debates about the collapse of morale and service capacity in our health system. I’ve just learned that she is a senior practitioner and is employed by Te Whatu Ora.
Momo needs your help.
But helping to protect her from media and employer oppression could also help turn the tide in favour of other health sector people who want to be able to tell the truth without fear of cancellation.
For years, Momo has had an anonymous Twitter account where she could express thoughts on issues without causing what employers could claim was embarrassment, and to avoid trouble for colleagues. She needed to keep her identity confidential.
Over years of seeing her tweets, I remember nothing offensive. Her opinions seemed informed and interesting. Sometimes they were blunt (i.e expressed crisply) but Twitter is not a medium for pompous euphemisms.
From what we explain below, there may have been support for gender-critical feminism (perhaps the view that “what is a woman” has had a simple answer since forever) and probably some expression of the widespread medical professional revulsion at rationing medical care on the basis of race, instead of clinical need and usefulness. I recall nothing that any rational professional should be ashamed of.
But last week, someone complained to Te Whatu Ora that Momo was saying things they disagreed with. I saw Momo’s announcement that she was closing her twitter account and then scores of followers tweeting best wishes and regret at the loss.
A journalist at Stuff, Jody O’Callahan ‘with a focus on Maori affairs and diversity’ found out who Momo was and sent this message:
‘Issues with your social media activity’ should read: ‘We’ve found ‘wrongthink’ on your anonymous account.’ Then, two fake questions which are essentially dodgy allegations around statements assuming guilt.
The message is nothing more than ‘We are going to publicly denounce you.’
The fake questions are framed to allow the branding of any careful and accurate answer as denialism, or equivocation, in the classic ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ genre.
In response, Momo released a statement which read:
What’s the story here?
If there is any story to follow O’Callaghan’s fake questions, they must depend on one or more of the following:
(1) The idea that it is “unsafe” to allow doctors to practice if they still believe in the science they learned and rely on, which denies that men can become women if they want; or
(2) It may be safe to allow doctors to practice while not believing in the new ruling dogma on gender as long as they never express their doubts about the new faith publicly; or
(3) That someone who believes that racism in rationing healthcare is wrong will be dangerous to patients who would ‘benefit’ from getting a race pass to the front of the queue; or
(4) There is nevertheless some technique or way for a doctor who believes that racism in health care is wrong to “ensure” that their opposition to racism won’t “sway how” [they] treat [their] patients.”
All the likely interpretations of the fake questions make them disgracefully silly for the journalist ‘asking’ them.
In reality, the story is a story only for those believe it is OK for employers to use their power to stop doctors working if they don’t believe, or at least pretend to believe, in the recently imposed Wellington official faiths in race preferences and non-binary gender.
This is a very dangerous takeover of state powers. It treats the idea of the tolerant secular state, which drove the NZ Bill of Rights Act protections of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, as quaint anachronisms – to be ignored. .
Ms Callaghan and her enablers in Stuff need to answer some questions themselves – genuine ones this time.
“Are doctors not allowed to have opinions themselves? What opinions are forbidden? What if until recently discrimination was considered wrong? At what stage should people with newly-‘sinful’ views be considered to have become dangerous? Who will decide? Have you asked the patients – what if they still want doctors who have the courage to resist ideolo]gical bullies? Have you asked if the trans and Maori you pretend to care about should get a choice? As a journalist are you worried if it becomes routine for people to hide their views – because your questions seem to rely on an assumption that things could be fine if the ‘sinful’ thoughts had been harbored unsaid.”
There are scores more pertinent questions to put to Ms. Callaghan and Stuff.
“Have you another line of views and jobs that can’t be mixed? Where is your evidence that the views you are trying to smoke out, are associated with risks? How will you ensure that your views wont sway and bias the “news” you supply to the people who rely on Stuff to be informed? Are you perpetuating mistrust among those of us who seek objective and factual reporting?”
We just want to give you your opportunity to have a say.”
You will be able to think of many more.
Now is the time to smoke out the journalists who want to doxx doctors who don’t share their totalitarian ideological faith. Please send Ms Callaghan and Stuff your questions. We have written directly with some.
Stuff should not be allowed to get away with doxxing medical staff for ‘wrongthink’? Our professionally conducted annual survey of academic freedom shows the pervasive fear now in our Universities; that a career-ending mistake could come from incautious expression of doubt in the current Wellington orthodoxy.
Let’s fight this spread into medicine. Actions like this are why Kiwis self-censor and feel unfree to speak (or think) for themselves. We need to stand up for the right of this medical practitioner to hold opinions others don’t like, and push back.
Kamala Hayman is also the editor of The Press, which is the Stuff outlet O’Callaghan works for. You can copy her in too: Kamala.hayman@stuff.co.nz. Her Twitter handle is: @kamala_hayman
Remind them that in a free country, people like Momo in the caring professions have every right to hold opinions others disagree with, and to express them publicly. Hit jobs like this are the reason many feel like they need to hide behind anonymous accounts on Twitter to say anything at all. Do we wonder why only 42% of Kiwis trust mainstream media?
The Free Speech Union entirely endorses the crucial role of the 4th Estate and the freedom of the press. Media are supposed to perform a vital function to enable free speech and democracy. Yet, actions like those being attempted by O’Callaghan and Stuff are the opposite of this. They now use this freedom to seek out people with diverse thoughts and target them for not holding the approved line.
I hope you will join us today in pushing back against this nonsense.
Stephen Franks Council Member Free Speech Union www.fsu.nz
Oncologists are working overtime administering to a variety of anomalous cancers.
From Efthymis Oraiopoulos and Jan Jekielek at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:
Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, in New York on July 7, 2022. (Bao Qiu/The Epoch Times)
Dr. Risch is professor emeritus of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His research has focused extensively on the causes of cancer as well as prevention and early diagnosis.
In an interview for EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” Dr. Risch said patients must now wait months, not weeks, to get an appointment at an oncology clinic in New York.
here is difficulty in observing whether a vaccine can cause cancer, because cancer usually takes time to develop, Dr. Risch said. It can take anywhere from two years to 30 years, depending on the different types of cancer, from leukemia to colon cancer.
“What clinicians have been seeing,” said Dr. Risch, “is very strange things: For example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer, who don’t have family histories of the disease—that’s basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works—and other long-latency cancers that they’re seeing in very young people.”
In an interesting speech about the way US imperial aggression provokes violence around the world, antiwar commentator Scott Horton made reference to an April 2022 article from Yahoo News that had previously escaped my attention.
The article is titled “In closer ties to Ukraine, U.S. officials long saw promise and peril,” and it features named and unnamed veterans of the US intelligence cartel saying that long before the February 2022 invasion they were fully aware that the US had “provoked” Russia in Ukraine and created a powderkeg situation that would likely lead to war.
“By last summer [meaning the summer of 2021], the baseline view of most U.S. intelligence community analysts was that Russia felt sufficiently provoked over Ukraine that some unknown trigger could set off an attack by Moscow,” a former CIA official told Yahoo News’ Zach Dorfman, who adds, “(The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.)”
Dorfman writes that initial support provided to Ukraine during the Obama administration had been “calibrated to avoid aggravating Moscow,” but that “partially spurred by Congress, as well as the Trump administration, which was more willing to be aggressive on weapon transfers to Kyiv, overt U.S. military support for Ukraine grew over time — and with it the risk of a deadly Russian response, some CIA officials believed at the time.”
Policymakers “would always say, ‘If we do X thing, if we give the Ukrainians X system, how are the Russians going to react?’ And our answer would always be, ‘You can’t look at any one thing in isolation,’” the unnamed former CIA official told Yahoo News. “And we might look and say, ‘Well, it’s just a few hundred MANPADs [man-portable air-defense systems] or a few hundred Humvees,’ but it’s missing the point that the Russians are taking all of this stuff in the aggregate, and they’re drawing this picture of this ever-increasing relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine.”
“I understand the moral argument,” says former CIA official Jeffrey Edmonds regarding the weapons transfers into Ukraine, “but I also understand the argument that, well, why would you want to give these things if it’s just going to increase the chances that Russia does something?”
So while we members of the public were blindly speculating about whether or not Russia would attack Ukraine, the US intelligence cartel was fully aware that the US was taking actions ensuring that that would happen. That’s the environment the US security state knew it was operating under when it continued to taunt the idea of adding Ukraine and Georgia to NATO right up until the final moments before the invasion.
This war wasn’t just provoked, it was knowingly provoked. Off ramp after off ramp was sped past by the US war machine at a hundred miles an hour on its beeline toward a horrific proxy war, because empire managers had calculated that such a war would serve US interests. And now we routinely see US officials like Mitch McConnell openly saying that this war serves US interests.
They really couldn’t be more obvious about it if they tried.
It’s been funny to watch the response of empire apologists to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s surprising refutation of a year and a half of empire propaganda by openly admitting that NATO expansion provoked the invasion of Ukraine and acknowledging that NATO powers rejected Moscow’s proposed compromises which could have averted the war. Basically the only argument they now have after this admission is to say that Russia should not have viewed NATO expansion as an existential threat.
Their only remaining trick is to argue with reality; to basically say that yes it’s reality that NATO expansion provoked this war because Moscow saw it as a threat, but reality shouldn’t have been what reality was. They argue that Russia should have felt completely different feelings about a military threat on its border than nations like the United States would feel, since as we’ve discussed previously the last time there was a credible military threat near the US border the US responded so aggressively that the world almost ended.
That’s really all they’ve got: “Yes it’s true that all the people who’ve died and lost their homes in this war did so because we were amassing a hostile military alliance near Russia’s border, but in our defense the Russians should’ve thought different thoughts in their heads than the ones that we ourselves would think about a hostile military threat on our border.”
If all westerners deeply understood all the suffering and danger that has been unleashed upon our world by this war, and deeply understood the fact that their own governments played a role in starting it, the political status quo of the western world would be impossible to maintain. Which is why such unprecedented levels of propaganda and internet censorship have gone into preventing westerners from coming to such an understanding.
Westerners were deceived into supporting yet another evil war, which once again is showing every sign of dragging on for the foreseeable future with no exit strategy in sight. The only difference between this war and all those other wars is that this one is laden with the risk of nuclear annihilation, a risk which the US empire has been treading less and less carefully around as the bloodshed continues.
The more you think about it, the more horrifying it gets.
