I’ve had reservations about posting this just from the angle that in my opinion (and many others’ opinion) Alex Jones is controlled opposition. Keep this in mind.
I am not totally familiar, like the man in the second video, with the issues around this man’s arrest. There is much info being broadcast on alternative media, and not being in the UK it is difficult to make comment on those issues. The point of the post was the denial of freedom of speech. Time will tell on the rest of the situation. If you are in the UK please send any info you may have or feel needs airing on this.
28/5/18 The death throes of democracy people. Folk are outraged as they should be, it’s a canary in the mine warning really. As I’ve been repeating for ages now, it is part of the global plan, global governance. It is not a friendly village that’s envisaged people. As they would have you to believe. Were it a friendly village then you would not have this fascist u turn where all justice is denied & dissenting voices are shut down. The end game in reality is total global lockdown. If you’ve hitherto scoffed at this as fairy material, go and read Mike Adams’ exposé if you haven’t already. (And/or read our Agenda 21/30 pages & line up all the other things that are happening as we speak). Or if you’ve already read this info & didn’t believe it, read it again. Little by little, as frogs in the warming pot, they’ve slipped in the lies under the guise of sustainability. But, is there really anything green going on? Better read that ‘alternative’ info fast because it’s not too long before it will all be gone from the internet as well.
Published on May 26, 2018
Freedom of the press is gone.
Published on May 27, 2018
Learn how the American Banking Cartel has you & your respective (once sovereign) nations by the short and curlies. Observations here in these videos by Joe Imbriano from Fullerton California who is warning folk of imminent martial law & police state enforced restriction of your freedoms. There has been a blending world wide of the military & law enforcement & we have seen troops from world wide locations training together including in NZ, some resulting in violence. We’ve seen these exercises regularly now. We’ve also seen thuggery with DoC & their contracted security guards.
Remember the Tuhoe raids people? This is all a show of force as these videos below highlight. Over kill of law enforcement designed to intimidate you. With the Tuhoe raids a children’s school bus was boarded by police dressed in black gear with guns, terrifying little children. They also detained women & children in a garage for many hours without water, toilet or food. Watch that video at the link. A Horowhenua man has also been the subject of alleged assault by Police, with local Council also cutting off his water supply. Don’t think it can’t happen here in NZ because it has & is already.
The police state comes to Cal State Fullerton
Published on Oct 31, 2017
A brief synopsis of the plight of the American people as the second amendment is being eroded and what this means to all of us.
Note, the plans for America are the same everywhere. Agenda 21 now 30 is about total world control, and not the benevolent global village you’ve been led to believe, that some of us have now woken up to.
Ah… this is good for you but we can’t tell you how good because it’s all been negotiated in secret and we aren’t allowed to tell you what it says but trust us Kiwis … it’s good for you … Tui anyone?
Posted by Jenese James
This is a trade deal NZ should NOT SIGN – The TPPA is a corporate passport to exploit the natural wealth of a nation by ‘legally’ robbing its citizens and the environment of that natural wealth
I want to point out the reason why so many politicians promise this and that before they get elected but once in power reneg on that promise – its because of the T&C of various trade deals done through membership of various organisations often in secret – to give an example …”…..Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests….”
here is another example
“…….The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force….”
Its vital to grasp this because this is the key to understanding how policies are now made via these agreements and why voting really doesn’t make much difference once deals are done and always these deals are not done in public view but behind closed doors in secret as this trade deal reveals it – the secrecy behind it is tantamount to a betrayal of the people because it will allow corporations to steal the wealth of the people of the nation for private profit,
example … “…….The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised…..” …. this was the Roger Douglas’ cabinet.
Another example … “…Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force because they can’t do so afterwards…..”…
so when you protest you are protesting against a much bigger force than you realize – politicians’ hands are tied once deals are signed.
Read it all below
This is about the TTPA and Te Tiriti o Waitangi..
Written By Jane Kelsey
The state of play with TPPA
Ø The original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was signed by the 12 negotiating parties in Auckland on 4 February 2016, in the face of a massive protest led by tangata whenua.
Ø Japan and NZ completed their domestic processes to ratify (adopt) the original agreement during 2016.
Ø In January 2017 US President Trump withdrew the US’s participation from the TPPA.
Ø The 11 remaining countries met 7 times in 2017 to rescue the TPPA minus the US.
Each country tabled a list of provisions in the TPPA that it wanted removed or suspended.
Apparently, NZ under the National government did table a list of requests, but that remains secret.
The new Labour-NZ First government, supported by Greens, only had input into these negotiations at the very end.
Labour asked other TPPA countries to suspend the right of foreign investors to sue the NZ government in offshore tribunals over new laws and policies (investor-state dispute settlement/ISDS), but it failed.
Labour did not seek to make other changes or even suspend other provisions of concern to Maori.
Ø In December 2017 in Vietnam, the TPPA-11 agreed to suspend 20 items from the original text, pending the US’s re-entry; 4 matters remained to be finalized.
Ø In January 2018 in Tokyo the TPPA 11 announced a new deal, one year to the day from Trump’s withdrawal.
Ø Canada insisted that it needed changes to protect its culture sector. Reports say it also achieved changes on automobiles, although that was not on the list. These were done through side letters that remain secret.
Ø The TPPA-11 will contain the entire old agreement. 22 of the 1000+ original provisions have been suspended, pending US re-entry, but they have not been removed.
Ø The TPPA has been rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPPA-11) even though the substance is the same as the old TPPA.
Ø They intend to sign the TPPA-11 agreement in Chile on 8 March 2018.
Ø The text of what they agreed remains secret. Japanese officials say the text will not be released until after it has been signed. The National Opposition, which ran the secretive negotiations, wants the text released.
Ø In January 2018 President Trump said he would consider re-entering the TPPA, but the terms would have to be more favourable to the US than the original agreement.
Ø The process for US re-entry will require consensus. Labour says some suspended items may never be re-activated. But the US domestic political processes mean any US re-entry will inevitably require more benefits to the US, not less.
Ø The TPPA-11 will reportedly come into force after 6 of the 11 parties have ratified it by completing their domestic processes. Again, the actual text of this provision has not been released.
The new government and the TPPA
Ø Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens all wrote dissents to the majority select committee report on the TPPA and said they would not support its ratification.
Ø Labour said the economic modelling was flawed and there must be a robust cost-benefit analysis that includes impacts on jobs and on distribution, as well as a health impact assessment. Neither report has been done for the TPPA-11.
Ø Labour now claims the new TPPA-11 meets Labour’s 5 pre-conditions for change, but it does not: it provides market access for exporters (but it has no new economic analysis of net costs and benefits); it protects the Pharmac model for buying medicines (but the provisions are suspended not removed); the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereign right to regulate and restrictions on foreign ownership of property are all protected (which they are not, see below).
Ø Winston Peters says the TPPA-11 is a very different deal from the one NZ First opposed and they will now support it. That is not true. The ISDS provisions and core protections for foreign investors that NZ First so staunchly opposed remain the same and have not even been suspended.
Ø New Zealand’s ratification of the TPPA-11 requires another round of submissions to the parliamentary select committee on which National has 4 of the 8 members, including the chair and deputy chair.
Ø If legislation is needed to implement the agreement, National has said it will vote with Labour and NZ First. The Greens remain opposed.
Ø So the parliamentary process is a foregone conclusion.
The Treaty of Waitangi Exception
The Treaty of Waitangi exception in the TPPA is a copy of one that was drafted in 2000 for the Singapore free trade agreement (FTA).
The same exception has been rolled over in agreements since then, without any consultation with Māori, even though today’s agreements impose much greater restrictions on what governments can do.
Prime Minister Ardern says NZ ‘has an exemption that says it is always able to legislate and act to protect its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and that can’t be challenged by other nations’. That is not true.
Ø The Waitangi Tribunal in the TPPA claim (Wai 2522) said the Treaty exception ‘may not encompass the full extent of the Treaty relationship’ because it only covers Crown actions that give preferences to Māori, not laws or policies that apply generally but are at least partly for Treaty compliance (water, mining, fisheries).
Ø The PM said the Tribunal found the ‘exemption provides protections for the Treaty’. That is also not true. The Tribunal found no breach of Treaty principles because the exception was ‘likely’ to offer a ‘reasonable degree’ of protection for Māori. But it did not accept the Crown’s claim that ‘nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Māori’.
Ø The Tribunal was not convinced that the exception protects Crown actions from a dispute by a foreign investor, for example on water or mining.
Ø The Wai 2522 claimants made proposals for more effective protection. These have been ignored. There has been no consultation on any stronger protection.
Ø The wording of the exception hasn’t changed in other negotiations since the TPPA. Officials say that they can’t change the wording because they tell other countries they must have this wording because it’s in all NZ’s agreements. New wording would open the text for negotiation.
Ø But New Zealand got additional new wording on UPOV 1991 at the last minute in the TPPA (see below), so it’s not true the Crown can’t demand and win different wording.
Ø Labour seems to be accepting the Crown’s advice and accepting an ‘imperfect’ Treaty protection as a trade-off for other commercial benefits it sees in these deals.
The Waitangi Tribunal claim is ongoing
Ø The Waitangi Tribunal granted urgency to the TPPA (Wai-2522) claim, but limited its scope to whether the wording in the Treaty exception provided effective protection for Māori interests. It didn’t address other parts of the claim (eg water, mining, health).
Ø The Tribunal’s time for preparing its report was cut back because the National government pushed through the legislation to implement the TPPA; once the Bill was introduced the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Ø The Tribunal found there was a reasonable level of active protection in the Treaty exception, but suggested there should be consultation on better protection, and it kept oversight of the UPOV 1991 issue (below).
Ø The Crown wants the Tribunal process terminated. The claimants point to a lack of good faith consultation over TPPA-11 negotiations since the Tribunal’s report and issues not addressed in the urgent hearing remain.
Ø On 30 January 2018 the Tribunal asked the parties (basically the Crown) to say by mid-February (a) when the text of the new agreement would be available, (b) what its effect would be on the Crown’s engagement with Maori on the Plant Varieties regime and adopting UPOV 1991, (c) what issues in the TPPA claim remain live, and (d) ‘when would be the appropriate time for the Tribunal to commence inquiry into the remaining substantive claims that have been filed with respect of the TPPA?
WAI 262 and the UPOV 1991 convention
Ø The TPPA required NZ to adopt the UPOV 1991 Convention that creates rights to claim intellectual property rights on plant varieties, which Wai 262 report and the Cabinet have recognized is inconsistent with te Tiriti.
Ø Legal arguments from the Wai-2522 claimants showed the Treaty exception would not protect a Crown decision not to adopt UPOV 1991, because the decision only applies to a ‘preference’ to Maori. Not adopting UPOV 1991 is not a preference to Maori.
Ø The Crown convinced the other TPPA countries to adopt an annex that allows NZ to either adopt UPOV 1991 or pass a domestic law equivalent to UPOV 1991 that complies with te Tiriti. But it has to do one or the other within 3 years of the TPPA coming into force.
Ø That obligation hasn’t changed in the TPPA-11. National and Labour didn’t try to have it suspended.
Ø The Waitangi Tribunal has retained oversight of this matter and is actively monitoring it.
Ø The claimants say MBIE’s consultation process is unacceptable and have set in train their own process for expert advice and consultation.
Foreign investors’ rights
Ø The TPPA (and earlier NZ agreements) allows foreign investors from the countries involved to challenge laws, policies and decisions of a NZ government in controversial ad hoc offshore investment tribunals (known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS). An ISDS tribunal can award massive damages against a government for breaching special protections the agreements give to foreign investors.
PM Ardern has called ISDS a ‘dog’.
Ø The new government tried to protect NZ from ISDS in the TPPA-11, but failed.
Ø Australia signed a side-letter with NZ not to allow their investors to use ISDS against each other. But that side-letter was in the original TPPA and in other agreements. It’s not new to Labour.
Ø The new government says some other countries will sign a similar side letter, but won’t say who. Unless all the other ten countries sign side-letters, they don’t protect NZ from the risk of ISDS disputes.
Ø A provision that allowed investors to use ISDS to enforce infrastructure contracts has been suspended (not removed); but that is marginal and doesn’t change the TPPA’s special protections to foreign investors or the ISDS process through which they can enforce them.
Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception is unlikely to protect NZ from an ISDS case over new laws to promote compliance with te Titiri.
Ø The Waitangi Tribunal noted ‘uncertainty about the extent to which ISDS may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet particular Treaty obligations in the future or to adopt or pursue otherwise Treaty-consistent measures.’(p.50
Ø The government points to other protections for public policy measures, but those protections don’t apply to the main rules that investors rely on in ISDS disputes.
Ø The new government has instructed officials to oppose ISDS in future agreements, which is a positive move. But that doesn’t mean it will walk away if other parties insist on it. Officials are likely to advise that any new market access for agriculture is an acceptable trade-off.
Ø Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests.
Ø NZ has protected the right to adopt discriminatory measures in the TPPA-11 ‘with respect to water, including the allocation, collection, treatment and distribution of drinking water’. But it says: ‘This reservation does not apply to the wholesale trade and retail of bottled mineral, aerated and natural water.’
Ø That reservation of the right to regulate on water does not apply to the main rules that investors rely on when they bring ISDS disputes against governments.
Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception would not stop investors challenging such measures.
Ø There is a serious risk that the government would back away from a proposed solution to Māori rights over water if MFAT or an investor from a TPPA country, says the solution would breach NZ’s obligations.
Land and forestry
Ø The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force.
Ø In January 2018 the government also sought consultation with Maori over proposals to redefine sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act to include forestry cutting rights.
Ø The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised.
Ø Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force, because they can’t do so afterwards.
Ø The TPPA only allows the government to keep the categories that are subject to foreign investment vetting which exists when the TPPA comes into force.
Ø The TPPA text says the vetting applies to ‘sensitive land’. If the government wants to implement its election policy, it has to rush through these changes to the law.
Ø But if the TPPA enters into force the government won’t be able to change the investment law to address other failed treaty settlements, such as fisheries quotas, or policies like carbon credits for forests.
Ø Even if changes are made to allow restrictions on future foreign investors, any existing investors from TPPA countries could still bring an ISDS dispute claiming their rights have been breached by the new laws because they can’t get as much for selling their assets as they had expected.
‘Consultation’ and tino rangatiratanga
Claimants in Te Paparahi o te Raki (Wai 1040) have challenged the Crown’s right to negotiate international treaties without the full and equal participation of nga iwi me nga hapu.
Ø The original TPPA was negotiated in total secrecy, aside from leaks. So were the meetings after the US withdrew. National was not interested in genuine consultation with anyone, let alone recognising te tino rangatiratanga o nga iwi me nga hapu. The same secrecy continues under the new government.
Ø The Waitangi Tribunal advised the Crown to consult with Māori to make the Treaty of Waitangi exception stronger. That hasn’t happened.
Labour has kept the same exception. Labour held meetings in various cities in early December and January. But this is not a good faith dialogue: they say the TPPA-11 is the best deal they can get, no further changes can be made, and they are prepared to sign it. The ‘consultation’ can’t change anything. That’s not a Treaty partnership.
The new government says it wants to develop a ‘new and inclusive trade agenda’ that makes trade and investment work for Māori, small business, women, and address climate change, environment and regional development.
That sounds positive. But the examples it gives are clip-ons to existing agreements that don’t address, let alone override, the problems the agreements create. And they are usually unenforceable.
Labour and NZ First’s positions on TPPA and te Tiriti show that it’s businesses as usual for the Crown.
They will try to shut down the Waitangi Tribunal process, while they run consultations around the motu (eg Wellington, 12 February) to promote an agreement the majority of parliamentary parties say they will support.
Other processes to advance Titiri-based continue over UPOV 1991.
Public meetings will be held in February in
Auckland on 12th,
Wellington on 14th,
Nelson on 20th,
Christchurch on 21st
and Dunedin on 22nd.
The arguments being used to promote the agreement don’t stack up for Maori or for Aotearoa/New Zealand.
The parties that make up new government promised change. If they are going to deliver, their positions on TPPA have to change.
Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 1 February 2018
Prof Jane Kelsey
Faculty of Law
The University of Auckland
Come along and hear experts Professor Jane Kelsey, Dr Burcu Kilic, and Laila Harre speak in Auckland and Wellington, and Professor Jane Kelsey plus other speakers in Nelson, Christchurch and Dunedin about what the TPPA-11 will mean for New Zealand.
I found this initially on a blog called lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.co.nz Unfortunately that blog is no longer online. It cited Kiwis First’s article below.
Not too long ago I posted here an article on the privatization ‘two step’ you could call it because it really is smoke and mirrors. The sale of your assets by your govt/corporation Kiwis (same modus operandi in other countries) has to look like a good thing so as usual these characters pulling the strings, ‘sell’ it to you as such. On power we were told power would be cheaper. “Yeah right” as the Tui saying goes. Throughout our recent history, there have been those who have challenged this new status quo and Simon Kaiwai’s been one of them. That removal of your sovereignty is the real aim, is clearly demonstrated in the response Simon got from the powers that be, leading him finally to be deemed ‘mentally unfit’. Among other things. This is a real eye opener.
You can find other videos and interviews about Simon on Youtube. In the meantime, read on.
From Kiwis First on the sale of state owned assets to private companies, particularly as it panned out for a former CEO of a medical company who decided to challenge those sales. With dire consequences that clearly demonstrate the fascist and totalitarian direction your country appears to be headed in Kiwis.
Kaiwai says, “privatisation of public assets initially involves, placing ownership into two ministers’ personal names.” From there determination of which private company buys it and for how much becomes muddled. This process was something Kaiwai wanted to see ventilated in the public arena. Ultimately, Kaiwai wanted a jury to decide whether the sale of the electricity infrastructure to private corporations was 1) approved by a majority of the public owners and 2) fairly compensated for.
The selling of public assets has been a vexed one in New Zealand for years, with many infrastructure assets such as the railways being sold off at a bargain, only to be repurchased by the government in run down condition and on the verge of collapse years later. There was something in the challenge by Kaiwai that attracted a swift and heavy handed response – the physical demonstration of which attracted 16,000 hits in its first week on YouTube despite no mainstream media coverage in New Zealand.
It began in September 2009 when Mr Kaiwai demanded an “authenticated bill” from his electricity retailer Trustpower instead of their “remittance advice” statement of $146. This was legally significant to Kaiwai. He considered that if he could later prove the retailer was operating under an unlawful charter, the authenticated bill gave him legal recourse that the remittance advice statement did not. Trustpower failed to respond to the request, instead issuing a demand notice for $215.
To demonstrate his challenge was principled and not motivated by a personal desire to evade payment for power, Kaiwai paid $900, a good faith overpayment which would ensure supply to his home, where his expectant wife was due to give birth. Increasing demands for the authenticated bills brought threats by the retailer to turn off power, which escalated in threats by Kaiwai to trespass any Trustpower representatives.
In a matter of weeks from the initial dispute, electricians entered the property under Police escort to disconnect the family’s power.
After Trustpower refused to supply the family, the landlord opened an account with Contact Energy. However in a letter dated 7 January 2010 Contact Energy informed the Kaiwai family “Now that we more fully understand the history of the account, we are not willing to supply electricity…”.
It was 24 November 2009 when two Police constables and two Top Energy electricians broke through a locked gate, ignored the no trespass signs, intent to disconnect the electricity.
On seeing the Police Kaiwai grabbed his video camera and attempted to question the Top Energy workers. Police constables David Reynolds and Hayden Nicol responded to the filming by jumping on Kaiwai, pepper spraying and then beating him repeatedly.
While they were taking Mr Kaiwai away one of them admitted to the assault.
The 37 year old Mr Kaiwai had never before been charged or arrested. Nonetheless, District Court Judge De Ridder denied Simon bail after police opposed bail on the grounds Kaiwai had a “distorted view of society” which the police alleged posed a public threat. Mr Kaiwai’s response that he had received no legal representation was ignored by Judge De Ridder.
Consequently, Mr Kaiwai’s pregnant wife was left at home without electricity while her husband was held the maximum two weeks in prison under the Criminal Procedure Mentally Impaired Persons Act 2003.
Psychiatric evaluation by two specialists was required, in accordance with the Act, for which Kaiwai was transported to Auckland Central Remand Prison. Mr Kaiwai refused evaluation. Nevertheless, one of the psychiatrists was prepared to endorse the State’s position that Mr Kaiwai was mentally unfit, an opinion which, once concurred by another doctor, can legally imprison someone for up to five years in New Zealand without trial.
Mr Kaiwai did not learn his lesson from this narrow escape from the Mason Clinic. His protestations brought further attempts by the police to get a compulsory mental health order to commit him. He subsequently sought an “independent survey” of his “case study” from New Zealand psychiatrists. Unwittingly, Dr Justin Barry-Walsh, a distinguished psychiatrist in “medico-legal assessments” agreed there were significant ethical questions in the accepted approach to Mr Kaiwai’s psychiatric evaluation.
In the survey Dr Barry-Walsh disclosed between 21-40% of his business comes from court engagements.
It took more than a year and 20 court appearances for Mr Kaiwai to have the charges of ‘assault’ and ‘resist’ dismissed and, along the way, disprove the false accusations by the State regarding his mental health.
Kaiwai states “I’ve been utterly shocked that by exposing a breach of the public trust by those in public service, I have become victim to what I believe is collusion between the electricity companies, the police, the courts and even the health system.”
Undeterred, Kaiwai exhorts, “Given the trend toward privatisation of public assets I believe it is essential we address this issue before more families endure such hardship.'” Kaiwai himself seems less likely to personally lead this charge. Judge MacDonald, a former Police Prosecutor, blocked Mr Kaiwai’s private prosecutions against Top Energy, Trustpower and the Police.
This ordeal, and the increasing difficulty of getting a jury trial in New Zealand, has led the once proud Kiwi and his family to flee for the safety of… Chile. Despite the police and court attempts to label them insane and a menace to society, it is ironic that it is their victory against the State – and the retribution this typically engenders in New Zealand – that left them feeling unsafe living in their homeland. Though many in the community were supportive, the family was particularly struck by the widespread apathy to their ordeal and, perhaps more alarming, the vocal few who sought to silence their protestations.
An interview with Simon. You will find more interviews on Youtube.
A RELATED MUST READ:
Public Private Partnerships are an arm of the world’s growing corporatocracy and their bottom line is to take control of the assets of government… Joan Veon
(note should this link not work paste the title into our search box).
And finally summing this up we have the late Barry Smith, a Kiwi evangelist and investigative author who was interviewed in the UK in 2000 by Revelation TV. (The video is on our front page). He in fact introduced this subject of privatisation earlier on in the ’90s, having traveled and shared on the topic of a one world government (aka global governance, new world order) since the early 1970s when I personally heard him myself. Bringing his family with him, they towed & lived in a caravan, and would conduct week long crusades in both small towns and cities, sharing the details of the plan. It is a plan which he said the planners believed only one in a million people would ever find out. He would say cheekily that he was that one. Ever grateful for his revelations on this plan which is foretold in Biblical scripture, it has been easier to digest what is happening now in our world. In effect most of what he said is coming to pass. See also our One World Govt / New World Order page.
Note: for the full interview go to this link for part 1, which will also lead you to Part 2.
We have now from Australia, mainstream talking about the New World Order. I do not as yet have a link to that but FaceBook is abuzz with it, and at any rate, just google ‘Australia, New World Order’ and you’ll see they’ve been talking about it in mainstream as far back (from my quick search) as 2014. Uncensored’s posted on it in the following (first) article with recent laws on accessing citizens’ (that’s you) private info. (Remember too they were talking about ‘getting used to’ the ‘new world order’ during the recent US hurricanes … warming us up again to their plan for global governance, aka global government, aka global CONTROL, Sustainable Development (seen anything remotely sustainable lately?) Agenda 21 and more recently the refined jackboot version, AGENDA 2030 (Search our Agenda 21, 2030 pages and categories, left of page for related articles).
I posted on the ‘order’ in Australia, last year, particularly in relation to late local Kiwi, author/evangelist/investigative journo Barry Smith from Pelorous Sound. (Rest in peace Barry, your 1970s info on end times and one world government are now viral). You can find links to Barry’s lectures in the second (reprinted) article below from last year. He warned of the Fema camps, and during the recent hurricanes we also heard whistleblowers on the ground warning, don’t get on the Fema barges. They do indeed look like prisons inside and one report I saw said you couldn’t leave unless somebody came and collected you. Where would that leave the homeless who have been going missing anyway? Serious times people. If you read our Agenda pages, NZ included, you will see the plan is not to have one big happy global family, the plan is to inventory and control every piece of land and every resource on the planet. (Listen to Rosa Koire on that).
Firstly here is Uncensored’s take on it:
Welcome To The True Blue New World Order: Australia
Prime minister plays down privacy implications of automated face-matching regime under anti-terrorism deal struck with states
“Federal and state police will be given real-time access to passport, visa, citizenship and driver’s licence images for a wide range of criminal investigations – not just identifying terrorism suspects – following agreement between federal, state and territory leaders.
Malcolm Turnbull told reporters the facial biometric matching agreement signed off by the Council of Australian Governments on Thursday was not a Big Brother-style mass surveillance exercise, but a modernisation of existing data-sharing practices between agencies.”
(CNN)Australia will use its citizens’ drivers license photos to compile a nationwide facial recognition database in the name of fighting terrorism, much to the chagrin of privacy advocates.
“Described as a National Facial Biometric Matching Capability by the Australian government, it will allow law enforcement to access “passport, visa, citizenship and driver license images” to identify people of interest.
Here is our article posted last in March featuring Barry Smith’s information:
DURING THE 1980S, THREE MYSTERIOUS ADS IN THE SYDNEY HERALD FORETOLD AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT MICRO CHIPPING OF ITS CITIZENS
From NaturalNews late 2016:
“Your body is no longer yours: Australia has become the first country to microchip its citizens
You may not have noticed, but there are two kinds of countries in the world these days: Dictatorships led by authoritarians and democracies that are slowly being taken over by authoritarians. Put Australia into the latter.
Organic & Healthy reports that the land Down Under has become the first nation to begin microchipping its citizens, though NBC News predicted some years ago that, by 2017, Americans would all be microchipped.”
You can read the rest of that article at this link (note unless you are familiar with this topic you will need to read it for the background information):
The Micro Chip
On reading the above article only recently, it reminded me of the late Kiwi evangelist/investigative author, Barry Smith whose lectures I heard in the Rangitikei during the 1970s. He caught on to this subject through his Biblical research (mark of the beast in Revelations) & although termed conspiracy at the time by many, he warned people that this was coming. Before we ever heard it called the ‘new world order’ he was traveling and speaking both nationally and internationally on this topic (global governance aka one world government) from the 1970s through to 2002 when he passed away. The microchip topic has been popping up on a fairly regular basis courtesy of mainstream media, getting all the world’s citizens used to the idea for quite some time now. Decades in fact.
Sam Girod of Bath County is an Amish farmer who sold homemade treatments for skin problems and sinus infections. When the FDA took issue with a label saying one of the ailments his cream was good for was skin cancer, he removed the term from the packaging. The FDA contacted him again in 2013, and a federal court in Missouri ordered him to stop selling his products until an FDA inspection could be carried out.
At that time, he agreed to stop selling a bloodroot salve they expressed concern about, but the Amish man refused to allow the agents onto his family’s farm after they broke their promise not to take photographs, which go against his religion.
He said that not only did his products not fall under the FDA’s purview because they were not drugs, but requiring their approval was also a violation of his religious freedom as a member of the Amish faith. Judge Danny Reeves handed down the harsh sentence earlier this month.
Following six years in prison, he will undergo three years of supervised release. He must also pay fines of more than $14,000 and cease production and distribution of his products. Girod represented himself during his trial and said that he does not recognize the court’s authority, only the authority of his higher power.
Why target Amish farmers when what Big Pharma sells is far more dangerous?
It’s always a good idea to follow the rules, even if you don’t agree with them, and in this case, it’s understandable that there might be a fine and a ban if people had been harmed by this man’s products. However, it’s hard to wrap your head around such a harsh punishment for the “crime” of being stubborn with the FDA when said organization regularly looks the other way while Big Pharma sells toxic pills to the masses.
Activists are urging President Trump to pardon the man. A former Arizona sheriff and supporter of Girod, Richard Mack, has said that he feels the man was punished for being stubborn and is among the many voices seeking a pardon from the President. Mack said he had personally used his chickweed salve without any side effects.
Folk need to see right through the Agenda 2030 spin they’ve been spinning since they first introduced this idea in the early ’90s. Since that time have we ever seen any so called ‘sustainable’ practices? Pollution’s at an all time high. People are sicker than ever. Poverty abounds. All countries virtually are in deep debt. Our national assets are gone. And the latest on the horizon is the word ‘mandatory’ – we are being denied the option of choosing our own route to health, growing our own food, what we eat or decline to, and what we breathe. All we’ve seen sustained is corporate pockets. This is all just not adding up and if you’re looking below the surface superficial bread & circus drivel that mainstream is feeding us, you’ll see that the corporate fascist state is closing in fast. That is because many of us are waking up. (Be sure to read the second (earlier) article from naturalnews at the end that breaks down the Agenda 2030 plan for you).
(NaturalNews) The United Nations and its mostly autocratic member regimes have big plans for your life, your children, your country, and your world. And those plans are not limited to the coercive “climate” agreement recently concluded in Paris. (Story by Alex Newman, republished from TheNewAmerican.com.)
While the establishment media in the United States was hyping ISIS, football, and of course “global warming,” virtually every national government/dictatorship on the planet met at the 70th annual General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York to adopt a draconian 15-year master plan for the planet. Top globalists such as former NATO chief Javier Solana, a socialist, are celebrating the plan, which the summit unanimously “approved,” as the next “Great Leap Forward” — yes, the old campaign slogan of the Chinese Communist Party. The master plan is comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) with 169 specific “targets” to be foisted on all of humanity — literally all of it, as the plan itself states explicitly. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind,” reads the UN manifesto, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But if you love liberty, self-government, free markets, or the U.S. Constitution, you will almost certainly be wishing that the UN would leave you behind.
Officially dubbed “Agenda 2030,” the UN plot, as its full title suggests, is aimed at “transforming” the world. The program is a follow-up to the last 15-year UN plan, the defunct “Millennium Development Goals,” or MDGs. It also dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But the combined Agenda 2030 goals for achieving what is euphemistically called “sustainable development” represent previous UN plans on steroids — deeper, more radical, more draconian, and more expensive.
“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.” Ironically, the preamble even claims the UN goals will “free the human race from the tyranny of poverty” and “heal” the planet — or, as the planet is also referred to in the document, “Mother Earth.” Not-so-subtly purporting to usurp the role of God, the UN even claimed that the “future of humanity and of our planet lies in our hands.”
The United Nations 2030 Agenda decoded: It’s a blueprint for the global enslavement of humanity under the boot of corporate masters
This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet. The “goals” of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.
In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I’ve decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for. To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in “feel good” language.
Disturbing information here to say the very least. For those who are well awake you’d be aware of un consented and unknown experimenting on populations that has been going on for decades. If you doubt me google Porton Down (it’s in the UK). Then there are all the indigenous people who have been sterilized or vaccinated with vaccines that sterilize without their consent or permission. The list is damning and unforgivable. And it is still going on! This latest news will spell open slather. If all of the above has happened for so long, without knowledge or consent, here we have the waiver of the need for consent.
Educate yourself on the independent research on vaccines (and our histories) … mainstream knowledge is all there & you’ve ascribed to it likely all of your life. Check out the other stories now and see what you think. (Check categories and our Vaccine pages for more articles).
Last December, then President Barack Obama, passed a law that favored pharmaceutical company agendas. The law gives way to pharmaceutical companies who want to use a vaccine or any medication as an experimental endeavor. And they don’t have to tell the patient.
Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.
The exact details of what is intended by “clinical testing” is no clear. Additionally, the “no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects” portion is incredibly, and terrifyingly, clear. This seems to give pharmaceutical companies the ability to perform any testing they want to on anyone who is already receiving one of their medications.