“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
The fact MMP's support has apparently shot up spells out one thing in particular - that the public distrusts both politics and politicians, and wants them to take this message on board. Recent polling is fundamentally not a vote of approval for the present MMP system. It's the result of the public’s disillusionment both with the inherent corruption of the political shenanigans they find themselves immersed in, and the recognition of how what they thought of as a democratic country has become far from this. Telling politicians they doesn't trust them any more, New Zealanders want to make them actually work for re-election.
Surprisingly enough, the quotation above – attributed to Ronald Regan and, very probably, Mark Twain before him - is endorsed by many politicians themselves.
Two other relevant quotations in particular from politicians should give us pause to think in this coming election year, when we are confronting options that are not really choices at all, in the sense of New Zealanders being able to make free and intelligent decisions about what they expect from their so-called representatives, and the directions in which the majority want the country to go.
Both illustrate the fact that it isn't even the political parties which decide on directions: it’s the leader of the prevailing party who has an all-controlling say on issues of enormous importance. To put it plainly, the man or woman who has been determined, ambitious, even ruthless enough to fight or charm his or her way to the top makes the final decisions, often utterly disastrous ones, that shape all our lives.
So it was with the all dominating, self-willed, super-socialist Helen Clark, who in her anti-American antipathy and pro-Communist China comfort zone, made the arrogant decision she inflicted on what must have been a Labour cabinet with at least some knowledgeable and intelligent dissenters. Too bad: they were simply whipped into line when this party leader decided to destroy the combat wing of our air force. The consequences? Not only the loss of some scores of millions of dollars with planes left to deteriorate; the essentially highly destructive attack on one of our most prestigious defence institutions which served us so well in 20th-century wars; the loss of highly trained and well-experienced pilots to overseas; the demoralising of fine men and women; and the cynical withdrawal of ground cover for our ground forces in any engagement -one of the main reasons for needless casualties in any war - all largely because of one pacifist-feminist’s agenda.
Her spurious reason - that “We live in an incredibly benign environment” was never sufficiently challenged by a sycophantic mainstream media. Was this perhaps because of selected journalists’ access to Clark's private cellphone number? That the mainstream media’s response was so largely indifferent is extraordinary, arguably culpable, given that at that time there had long been violence fomenting in various areas of the Pacific, and that China was known to be on the move, heading towards our territory and our waters, with its own agenda. Yet Helen Clark's government continued to host top-ranking Chinese military and government representatives of this aggressively totalitarian regime allowing them to inspect our military and defence bases. The silence of the media was deafening.
So, too, with the equally self-willed “smiling assassin” John Key. Although by far the majority (reportedly 27 to 1) of his own Cabinet were against him, well aware of the power of his personal charm and self-deprecating style - together with his ability to make his media contacts feel special and important to him (no doubt giving press gallery journalists a bottle of wine each at Christmas helps) Key decided everyone else's views didn't count. In his apparently now-too-late regretted folly, he endorsed the red-Green Sue Bradford and Helen Clark's anti-family move to criminalise good conservative parents for smacking a naughty child. The disclaimers came later; but the facts came first and are indisputable. Moreover, nothing changes, and many good parents remain worried, fearful and demoralized.
The point? That we have nothing like a democratic system of government, even with a two-party system, and we have long had growing disquiet about the creeping State – as have other Western so-called democracies. Recognition of this comes in both Lord Home’s recognition that "It is the Prime Minister who decides what the collective view of Cabinet is”, and Aneurin Bevan’s that " There are two ways of getting into the Cabinet - you can crawl in or kick your way in.”
We now have a virtual political autocracy, ruled by the leader of the governing party of the day. Cabinet members depend upon him or her for their position, importance, portfolio, ministerial staff, higher salary and other privileges both when in Parliament and afterwards. No wonder by far the majority turn into yes-men or yes-women. It is a shocking figure: behind-the-scenes, 27 to 1 against John Key on the infamous anti-smacking legislation? So much for their leader’s respect for democracy.
Add to this a large number of National Party MPs who again caved in and voted the way Key expected them to - while knowing very well that the whole man-made global warming theory is a deliberate beat-up, and that any discernible, natural and cyclical warning ended in the late 90s; that we are in fact retreating into the same mini-ice age as previously.
To whose advantage is the denial of this measurable truth? The answer is that of governments - by increased taxation and even more over-all control of the public - to academics claiming research grants; to big business (the idea co-originated with Enron) - while of course, although he has been indicted with presenting false evidence, Al Gore's multibillion carbon credit trading company isn't going broke to date.
The public has long cottoned on to the fact that, in spite of the media and political beat-up, it is the taxpayer whose pockets are going to be raided for this outrageous con. What is even more ominous is that - very much included in the government bureaucracy, advising and propagandizing MPs, are the usual ideologically-motivated apparatchiks who simply change their spots, using whatever issue lies to
 | Hal Colebatch |
| Wednesday, February 02, 2011 |
I don't know if this counts as offensive, but it seems to me the best way for NZ to have an effective defence force is to completely merge it with Australia's. This would involve NZ acceptiung a status as junior partner, and also pulling its full weight proportionate to its population and economy. If both Australia and NZ pulled their weight the two could have quite powerful armed forces. I know of no other way NZ can afford a modern Air Force of any size, and the same goes, to a less urgent degree, for the other services. There would have to be a legally binding treaty to ensure one party did not try to "free ride" on the other, and details of a common rank system, promotion, pay, superannuation etc. would have to be worked out. Something is being done in this direction, and we have the powerful influence of the ANZAC tradition, but much more could be done. Ot would also offer NZ servicemen much better choices of career paths, opportunities for foreign postings etc.
| G. Graham |
| Wednesday, February 02, 2011 |
At the Otaki foreshore meeting held in the Memorial Hall on the 17th of April, 2010, the Hon. Dr. Christopher Finlayson, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, said in his opening speech. "At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria and New Zealand became subject to English law and the Magna Carta."
The first member of public to speak was myself.
Facing the audience I stated, "We don't live in Canada or Australia or any other country identified by the Hon. Christopher Finlayson, we live here, in New Zealand, and we have a Treaty. This is a Treaty matter and first of all our Treaty has to be clarified before this meeting should continue."
There was a positive response from an audience of possibly 150 to 200 attending. Of this, maybe 6 could be identified as European.
"Here it is [as I held it up for all to see] and the Official English Draft from which it was translated. They are not different from each other, but as close as the idiom of translation will allow. Both have been authenticated by a strong, factual, paper trail disclosed by Martin Doutre in his book "The Littlewood Treaty, the true English text of the Treaty of Waitangi found" which has been examined by Governments top historians and a private historian hired by Government, a Dr Donald Loveridge. None could find fault with this paper trail.
Then turning to the minister I said, "Is that correct Minister?
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
Turning back to the audience I confirmed the minister agreed.
Continuing, I said, "After the Treaty was signed Hobson wrote, That signed on the 6th of Feb 1840 is defacto our Treaty and all further signatures are but a testament to this document. Only the Maori Treaty was signed on this day."
Turning to the minister I asked, "Is that correct Minister?"
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement."
I continued, "International law states that when there is more than one Treaty and one is in the native language, that in the native language takes precedence over all others. Is that correct Minister?"
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
I continued. "At the signing of our Treaty Maoris ceded Sovereignty to England and in England there is no such thing as customary rights or title, in fact, no racial laws what-so-ever. Is that correct Minster?"
Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.
Turning back to the Audience I said, "May I point out to everyone here that Hon. Finlayson has agreed with everything I have stated as being true." I would like to now hand over these two documents to the Right Hon. Dr. Christopher Finlayson, Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and ask him to read to you from the Treaty text anything, anything at all, which gives a privilege to Maoris that is not available to any other New Zealander in order that this meeting can continue.
After a lengthy reply to me, Hon. Dr. C. Finlayson failed to quote from te Tiriti text any exclusive privilege to Maoris.
Go to www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz and you will find we have only one Tiriti, it contains no special privilege to Maoris and is also the reason why the Maori Select Committee, headed by Hon. Tau Henare as Chairman, were also unable to quote any Maori exclusive right to me at Parliament on 24-11-2010. Question! Does the above question why the Marine debate continues and raise completed Maori settlement issues?
| Martin Doutré |
| Wednesday, February 02, 2011 |
PART I
We could almost use the opening chapter of H. G. Wells, War Of The Worlds, to describe the pre-planned political and social destruction this country fell victim to after about 1975:
Chapter 1.
The eve of the war.
No one would have believed in the last years of the [twentieth] century that this [country] was being watched keenly and closely by [globalist] intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as [New Zealanders] busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
When I was a young man in the 1950’s & 60’s, New Zealand was predicted to become “The Switzerland of the South Pacific”. We were an immensely rich little country, with plenty of natural resources, a moderate growing climate and vast arable lands. The people of New Zealand were the undisputed “owners” of many “State Owned Enterprises”, including hospitals, all public transport including railways, an international airline, cargo-shipping, telecommunications, electricity, forestry, fisheries, coal & gas, steel, etc, etc.
Our fishing fleets would set out and fish our coastal waters under the secure protection of our navy and air-force, which would ensure that foreign fishing vessels stayed outside of our exclusive economic zone. The health of New Zealanders rated amongst the highest in the world, alongside other “socialised-medical-systems”, such as those of Sweden and Denmark with their equally low statistics of infant-mortality.
In all of this, we were fully protected from international big business schemers, inasmuch as we enjoyed the insulating protections of our nation’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its clauses constituted a virtually impenetrable barrier to outside multinational exploitation strategies and tactics. All the large blocks of lucrative resources of New Zealand were owned by “all the people of New Zealand”. This lock-out condition could only change if Te Tiriti o Waitangi was somehow reinvented and New Zealanders were systematically duped into believing that the treaty meant something diametrically opposed to what its clauses clearly stated.
We saw a campaign of disinformation begin in earnest by about 1974. The Polynesian Panther Party had started up in the early seventies, arguably or mostly as a fashion statement and fad movement. It idolised the black-American Panther Party and modelled itself on that, but lacked any history of “slavery” in common with the American counterparts. The Polynesian Panther wanabees, desperate to clamber onto the black-American bandwagon as co-sufferers, invented an unsubstantiated, undocumented history of regional oppression under British Imperialism.
At first, university educated Maori showed little or no interest in the nonsense and were reluctant to be in any way involved. Later, others like Brown Power (Nga Tamatoa) warmed to the idea of forming a confederation with the Polynesian Panther Party.
Marxist elements in our trade unions, ever-vigilant in looking for political advancement or opportunities, got in on the act and instituted programmes whereby local dissidents could receive overseas training to learn political destabilisation tactics. Some sponsored activists, like Donna Awatere, went to Cuba, whereas others went to communist Russia or China or even to Libya for weapons training. Placid little New Zealand was to be their chosen target for some “helter-skelter” fun and games.
| Martin Doutré |
| Wednesday, February 02, 2011 |
PART II
Within the spate of a few short years many hundreds of our reliable old history books began to be unfairly demonised as “Euro-centric or ethnocentric” and unceremoniously discounted. By the use of a mere, put-down buzzword like “Euro-centric” the content of these deeply-researched treatises didn’t need to be weighed in the balance for accuracy or even debated and the whole sorry exercise of dismissing them out-of-hand was little better than “book-burning”. These many hundreds of very reliable, impartial works, where the testimonies of actual witnesses to 19th & 20th century events were recorded, had fallen from grace. They were later largely replaced by very limited, Marxist pseudo-history and propaganda, with its inevitable goal of socially-engineering the New Zealand population in ways that were useful to Marxist political aims and agendas.
The cancer of reinvented-history quickly spread into our universities and places of higher learning or government departments and became tenaciously ensconced. An era was ushered in whereby lack-lustre historians, quite prepared to spout the newly-manufactured and approved Marxist version of regional history, were catapulted to success over the heads of real historians, to become leading-lights, as well as much lauded-&-applauded spokespeople on all matters of public concern. These politically aligned moral-cowards were simply ideological officers, prepared to sell their fellow New Zealanders down the river.
Dislodging the Treaty.
The Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975, largely pushed by Maori activists, required that an English version of the treaty be introduced to sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the singular and only treaty wording that has ever existed) and be co-equal to Te Tiriti in any law-drafting and legislative incentives. For this ruse, the very wily and deceptive activists forced-in the usage of an early, obsolete English draft of the treaty, written on the 3rd of February 1840. They deliberately avoided introducing the “final English draft” text of the 4th of February 1840, which was the mother document from which Te Tiriti was translated, as that wording was counter-productive to their long-term political aims. They also avoided using the official back-translation text of 1865, issued under a formal request of the NZ Government to the Native Department. These very accurate, fair and benign texts in English said exactly the same thing as Te Tiriti o Waitangi and guaranteed absolute equality to all New Zealanders altogether.
If the activists were to have any success in distorting the meaning of the treaty, they desperately needed the earlier, obsolete, rejected wording from the 2nd & 3rd of February 1840 rough-draft notes to be elevated in status co-equal to Te Tiriti. In these early, developing English draft notes, where the British emissaries worked out exactly what they wished to say to the Maori chiefs, James Busby had initially forgotten to make clear reference to the rights of the British residents in Article II. Busby’s temporary omissions and oversights didn’t matter at all, inasmuch as the essential corrections were made for the final English draft of the 4th of February 1840, written under the careful scrutiny and guidance of Queen Victoria’s duly appointed representative, British Consul, Captain William Hobson.
| Martin Doutré |
| Wednesday, February 02, 2011 |
PART III
The activists of 1975 got their way in getting the defective, rejected 3rd of February rough-English-draft to be recognised as “The Official English Version” and sit alongside Te Tiriti as our legislative text. Over the next few years it utterly eclipsed and nullified Te Tiriti, which is exactly what the activists and social engineers had planned should happen. Now, for the first time, they could cause widespread confusion over what the treaty truly said or meant and introduce convenient legalese arguments to totally distort the treaty’s true content. With the waters sufficiently muddied, the treaty protections were gone and the country was opened up for plunder.
Also in 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was created, which body continues to use twisted, biased and largely undocumented pseudo-history to disenfranchise the majority of New Zealanders and deceitfully turn them into second-class citizens. Using the totally distorted, nouveau interpretations of the treaty, which cannot be sustained or justified by any historical documents, a confederation of Maori activists and government corridor-creepers have systematically defrauded all the people of New Zealand and divested them of their State-Owned wealth, which has been largely siphoned off by overseas interests. The only winners in this nefarious con game are big business, a few selected Maori leaders and traitorous NZ politicians with globalist alliances.
Absolutely nothing in Te Tiriti o Waitangi allows for such things as segmenting off large lumps of New Zealand’s precious resources like fisheries to be given exclusively to selected Maori and, thereby, opening up our waters to hugely-damaging exploitation by foreign vessels and their accompanying factory ships, etc. Nothing in the treaty justifies the theft of our laboriously hand-planted forests and public lands, foreshore & seabed, radio spectrum frequencies, etc., etc.
| Martin Doutré |
| Wednesday, February 02, 2011 |
PART IV (LAST PART)
The other big, big secret is that “ALL” full and final settlements with iwi for any perceived or real outstanding grievances and loose-ends were finished by 1944-1947 under the Fraser Government. A little digging into our true, documented history will show that everything of any known consequence was settled, with the final progress payment made in 1974 (See: Settlements Of Major Maori Claims In The 1940’s: A Preliminary Historical Investigation, by Richard Hill, 1989, Commissioned by the Lange Government).
Most New Zealanders don't realise that we have, languishing in our archives and places like LINZ (Land Information New Zealand), full sale agreements for whole provinces like Taranaki, which was purchased by Hobson from Te Wherowhero of Waikato in 1842 (the pre-treaty conqueror and owner). The fact is that the same lands, throughout most of New Zealand, were sold many times over by Maori and paid for repeatedly by the government, the New Zealand Company or individual settler groups (as in Taranaki). Most present-day land claims are outright fraud that could not be sustained or proven in any fair and impartial court. Moreover, the settlements have already been paid out and finalised several times over in most cases. Dr. Michael Belgrave, former historian working on Waitangi Tribunal claims, states: '...it is necessary to gain an understanding of how the Treaty of Waitangi has been subject to the same sort of reinvention as the particular claims of different groups'.
He goes on to say: 'It would come as a surprise to most New Zealanders to learn that for almost every case examined before the Waitangi Tribunal since 1985, there have been previous court proceedings, or commissions of inquiry (including royal commissions), recommendations, negotiations and even an extensive record of settlement or partial settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal hearings are only the latest in a long line of legal investigations of Maori claims...' (see Historical Friction - Maori Claims & Reinvented Histories, pp 3 & 7, Auckland University Press, 2005).
To see how you, as an ordinary New Zealander, have been subjected to an immense “Treaty Fraud”, resulting in your inalienable rights and protections under the treaty being stripped away from you and replaced by something very disadvantageous, please read my on-line book. Here you will see all of the documents that the “grievance-industry” activists, their in-tow legalese-guile lawyers and in-the-pocket historians hope you’ll never see: http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm
| Elizabeth Du |
| Thursday, February 03, 2011 |
Working for re-election! By politicans! Let us not be confused. There are those who do work the hustings, tread footpaths, knock on doors and haold country hall meetings. But this is not where the real influential work is completed.
The real work is completed by political strategists, advertising and marketing agencies, media managers and an inner circle of political power brokers. All funded by our taxes and contributions which are mostly diced so small that they can not be traced and attributed to any particular corporate or other lobby group.
Lets remove public funding and require political candidates to fund raise exclusively from within their party's registered membership. And lets also keep the register of donations open to public scrutiny, as an online register, published upon receipt of the funds or indeed the mere promise of funds.
Public funding coupled with MMP disconnects politicans and their parties from the voters. It is time to change.
| Tony Weddle |
| Saturday, February 05, 2011 |
Amy Brooke makes many good points but she spoils it with her blinkered global warming denial. The fact is that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been within the last 10 years and 2010 was statistically tied as the warmest on record (in raw data terms, actually the warmest). The warmest 12 month period on record ended last year. Please stop this nonsense about cooling since the late 90s, it simply isn't true - go check the data. I agree that some people are making money from our environmental destruction and that Gore is something of a hypocrite (though his arguments were essentially accurate, despite what Brooke claims). Her "measurable truth" is not measurable; all the science points to global warming with human behaviour being the likely cause. Are all of those climate scientist wrong? Maybe, but what if they're right? The precautionary principle, especially allied to tons of supporting evidence, surely dictates that we must take the risk seriously, given the potential consquences.
| Amy Brooke |
| Thursday, February 17, 2011 |
Tony Weddle's comment is factually wrong.In spite of the inevitable fluctuations in global temperature, very largely, according to the growing consensus, due to recent sunspot activity, the brief period of a decade or so of global warming stopped in 1998.There are some excellent websites and scientists of considerable reputation,including Australian Prof Bob Parker - largely including those who do not receive government grants and whose livelihood does not depend on sustaining the man-made global warming fiction. So-called precautionary measures which cost us all hugely are simply a tool of government control and unnecessary taxation - and, of course, are being accessed as a considerable source of highly lucrative returns to the global companies cashing in on this scaremongering.
| Tony Weddle |
| Wednesday, March 02, 2011 |
Amy Brooke provides no references for her statements and yet wants people to believe that I am lying in my comment. She states that global warming ended in 1998, an old trick of the AGW deniers.
Note this press release from NASA, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/, which talks about the comparisons with other data sets. NASA's GISS data series has 1998 only the fourth warmest year on record, whilst the Hadley Centre's data series has 1998 as the warmest year, still. However, look at the chart which combines four different data series, hhttp://tinyurl.com/6clec69 . The trend is clearly up. There is no trend downwards, or even flat, following 1998 which was a spike year and doesn't affect the trend. The press release explains some of the differences between the data sets.
Note, also, that the press release talks about a "remarkably inactive sun" which didn't cool the planet in 2010 as those like Amy might have expected.
For those interested in getting the full story, read the press release and do some research instead of believing what Amy wants you to believe.
Amy cites an Australian scientist, Professor Bob Parker as someone of considerable reputation but not in the pay of governments. However, it looks like she got his name wrong. I could find no Australian professor by that name, who talks about climate change but did find a Professor Bob Carter, who is a contrarian. It is quite easy to find criticisms of Professor Carter, such as here: http://hot-topic.co.nz/bob-carter-untroubled-by-hobgoblins/ and here: http://www.csiro.au/news/Climate-forecasts-article-response.html (there are many others).
I'm not sure what benefit Amy thinks there is for governments, which fund climate research, to pretend that humans are impacting the climate adversely. Surely, they would want to determine that it simply wasn't true? No-one wants it to be true but scientists are scientists because they want to understand the world, not because they want to make things up. It will always be possible to find contrarian scientists, and some may even turn out to fundamentally change our understandings, but that doesn't mean all contrarian scientists are correct, just because they voice opinions that are counter to the mainstream understanding. Often, the mainstream understanding is mainstream because it's correct. However, I'm hard pressed to find published research that supports her views. Perhaps Amy Brooke could point to such research, so that we can all make our own minds up. Again, I would invoke the precautionary principle. If the few scientists that Amy can quote are wrong and the vast majority of climate scientists are correct, what would be the impact of doing nothing about our behaviour?
Also, for each company that might benefit from actions to do something about our impact, there is a company that will suffer due to those actions. Would oil companies, big agriculture and mining companies, for example, just sit by whilst their livelihood is threatened? No they wouldn't, and they don't.
Amy made many good points in her article but has tainted it with this unsupported view of climate change. I hope that she, as I did (I was a fervent climate change denier), looks at the research with an open mind, instead of finding what she wants to find by reading only opinions that support her own.