As we reported on Monday, France President Emmanuel Macon announced new COVID measures that included mandatory COVID vaccines for health workers, a “health pass” to access the cinema, trains, restaurants as well as in hospitals, retirement homes, medical and social establishments, but also in planes, trains and buses for long trips, curfews, and even “pension reform” where people will “have to work longer and retire later.”
Today was Bastille Day in France, and many people took to the streets to protest, and many clashed with police. Here are some of the videos appearing on Twitter.
EWR comment: Highlighted here recently in a shorter version, ‘they’ are telling us their NWO (that folk told us was ‘conspiracy’) is now here. Even globalist Jacinda Adern referred to it as the world order (as they do and did before they got this far).
They don’t mean well people. Planet lockdown is the endgame… this following article is from civilianintelligencenetwork.ca
As part of the “New World Order” model, the following measures have been imposed upon Australian citizens:
Outdoor gatherings limited to 2 people
Exercise permitted no farther than 10km away from home
Browsing shops forbidden
1 person in household allowed to shop for essentials
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.
One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.
Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.
Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6
Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7
Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.
(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)
Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.
Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.
Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored
If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.
Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.
His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14
But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?
What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’
The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised
The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16
As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.
In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.
The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.
The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22
Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
As noted by the FLCCC:23
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.
This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death
The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”
The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome
The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.
Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.
Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.
While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.
A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
On Wednesday it was revealed that a weekend visitor to Wellington from Sydney, who had presumably taken advantage of the ‘bubble’ that has been created between New Zealand and Australia, ‘tested positive’ when he returned home.
We are told that the Ministry of Health has identified more than a dozen locations of interest, mostly eateries and tourist locations, as being visited by the Covid-positive Australian man and his partner. Apparently up to 2500 people visited Te Papa around the time he attended. Those who used the bathroom at 4 Kings Bar at 8.45pm on Saturday are being asked to quarantine for 14 days and get tested immediately.
Even when we take the uncertainties of testing into account, the results can tell us a few things.
A positive test tells us that a person either has COVID-19 (whether they have symptoms, or not) or has had COVID-19 recently. We may not be able to distinguish whether the person is currently infectious or not so we will take a precautionary approach.
A positive test cannot tell us:
if the person is currently infectious
how ill the person is likely to become.
The inventor of the pcr test, Kary Mullis, always insisted that it should not be used for diagnostic purposes.
In this episode: We host the legendary Australian activist and geo-political commentator MAX IGAN from THE CROWHOUSE. Max and Jimuphy unpack the plight facing Australians and the reality of the NWO vaccine agenda, in addition to the impact of the Rockefeller Foundation STRONG CITIES and RESILIENT CITIES policies on Australia. It’s a tough watch but a gripping insightful episode
TO REACH MAX IGAN: “The illusion of freedom will continue for as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will take down the scenery, move the tables and chairs out of the way, then they will pull back the curtains and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” – Frank Zappa TURN OFF YOUR TELEVISION!”
An important letter from a doctor to her MP (Jesse Norman) concerning the General Medical Council ruling that all doctors should be vaccinated otherwise face disciplinary actions.
Having worked tirelessly for the NHS for 31 years as a hospital doctor, A&E doctor and a GP with probably two sick days in my whole career, is the Government really suggesting that because I exert my choice not to have the Covid vaccine, my wealth of medical experience is going to be lost just because I choose to exercise my free will and conscience ?
Like most other people who decline the vaccine, I’m not an “anti-vaxxer”. My son is fully vaccinated; I have travel vaccines. But I weigh up the pros and cons of vaccines in a more informed way than most other people and have decided for now I don’t want it (likewise the flu vaccine). There is currently a haemorrhaging of experienced GPs due to unprecedented stress levels, including one over the last couple of months from our five partner practice. If I go it will destabilise our already struggling practice.
I have borne the burden of vaccinating (with no extra payment and massive organisational toll) the population who CHOOSE to be vaccinated, the burden of listening to the thousands of patient emotionally damaged by the ill-judged and poorly assessed lockdown (the lack of risk/benefit analysis has been criminal), the burden of carrying work for other colleagues who can’t manage the unprecedented stress in the system, the dumping of more and more work onto primary care – and now this slap in the face. The Government needs to take a break from criticising the Chinese Communist Party for a moment and stop in its own attempts at re-educative, repressive and punitive strategies directed toward minorities such as those who choose not to be vaccinated. It is disrespectful and demeaning to an educated and thoughtful sector of society to impose a medical procedure against our will.
I would also like to be able to continue to move freely in the UK and the world at large, which is a much more effective and healthy way of managing mental strain than the endless mental health online resources we are bombarded with and that we’re much too busy and exhausted to look at. Travelling and exploring freely in the world at home and abroad has proved an effective way to keep me functioning well in a highly stressful job. Happily, I just need to be able to move freely in my God-given environment and breathe God’s free air to keep me happy and functioning as a productive and functional human being. Vaccine passports would deprive me of this healthy outlet.
Believe me, I will make the most of an imposed early retirement if enforced vaccination becomes a reality, by finishing my thesis on “governmental revolving door policies with particular emphasis on pharmaceutical companies”. After all, what do I have to lose? Not my freedom.(Dr) Clare Jones Hereford
A group of New Zealand health practitioners have joined a growing international movement that says COVID-19 is not a sufficient threat to warrant the elimination strategy and lockdowns.
The founding signatories felt obliged by their professional ethics to express support by signing a statement of principles that assert the low risk posed by COVID-19, the availability of treatment, the dangers of Government over-reaction, and primacy of the doctor-patient relationship.
No, no surprises really. And Bill denies any friendship with this predatory subhuman….
“A new report is shedding light on a surprising relationship between the late Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates. New York Times columnist James Stewart joins Stephanie Ruhle with reporting on their meetings and to discuss his new book, “Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law.” “
Click on the link to watch the interview on video:
As yet another “red flag” (and I do mean RED) of this government’s instability and whimsical dealings, in the last few weeks they announced a further wage subsidy for businesses affected by COVID 19. When they first announced it they offered assistance to businesses with a downturn of at least 50% of their revenue from the preceding year (2019) from January to June 9th. They then altered that to only 30% decrease required to qualify. On 5th June they announced it would be 40% and only using the period 40 days prior to the day the application was made compared to the equivalent period for 2019 for the subsidy!
Are you understanding what I just wrote? If not read it carefully and read the following link if you don’t believe me! This is literally “making up the rules as we go along”! Don’t even try to ask them why; the “reasons” or “justifications” will be as valid as those of a cheating lover trying to explain away the lipstick on the collar!
WHY DID THE WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL ACT AS BRIDGING FINANCE FOR THE 51% SHAREHOLDER OF THE ROLLESTON 1080 FACTORY? – Making a loss in the process it seems. What was wrong with using the bank?
By Carol Sawyer
The West Coast Regional Council made its initial investment in the Rolleston 1080 bait factory, Pest Control Research Ltd, in May, 2013, but did not disclose it until it was exposed by the Greymouth Star 17 months later.
This investment was made despite a 2010 – 2011 survey of homes in Ross, Hokitika, Hari Hari and Whataroa finding 92.5% were against their council being involved with 1080 in any manner. (Greymouth Star, 14 November, 2017)
By 2 September, 2016, the West Coast Regional Council had sunk $2,105,000 into the Rolleston factory! It was still only making prefeed baits and Pindone at this stage, and did not get consent to make 1080 baits until May, 2018.
The West Coast Regional Council has had a 49% share in the business since 2013 with, until 6 July, 2018, the 51% share being held by Malcolm Thomas, who had previously worked for the NZ government entity Landcare Research NZ Ltd.
On 29 June, 2018, the West Coast Regional Council bought the 51% share in the factory from Malcolm Thomas, meaning they now owned the factory OUTRIGHT.
As you can see from the above excerpt from the 2018 annual report, the stated intention was to dispose of the newly acquired 51% share at year end ( i.e. a day later, on 30 June, 2018 ?!). However this did not happen and the WCRC sold it on 6 July, 2018, one week later, to Matthew O’Brien of Kiwicare Corporation Ltd.
Why did Council buy it from Malcolm Thomas to sell to Matthew O’Brien, instead of letting the two sort it out themselves? I was told by someone in Council that it was to help out with bridging finance. Surely it isn’t the Regional Council’s job to squander the ratepayers’ money to facilitate some private individual’s business interests? PLUS… the annual report for the year ended 2018 states “Impairment on transfer held for sale – $272,549”. I am not an accountant but it would appear that the ratepayers took a loss of $272,549 over that transaction, for holding the business in its entirety for a week.
Normally if a businessman required bridging finance they would go to the bank. Was this too risky, and if so why were the ratepayers obliged to take the risk and bear the loss?
As regional councils go, $272,549 would generally not be a large amount of money, but one must remember that the West Coast Regional Council has the smallest ratepayer base in the country, with a total West Coast population of 32,000, and only approximately 10,000 ratepayers.
The “pest control” business has been a disaster financially for the West Coast Regional Council. In the 2018 annual report, the Council’s ‘Vector Control Services’ were $766,046 “over budget”. Add in the seeming $272,549 loss on the PCR Ltd transfer and that comes to $1,038,595! (To put that in perspective that is, in effect, a loss of an average $104 per ratepayer.)
In that year the WCRC declared a deficit of $859,635, instead of a budgeted surplus of $561,171.
Pest Control Research Ltd made a loss for the West Coast Regional Council in this last financial year too, and the investment amount would appear to have taken a bit of a dive (?):
“1080 FACTORY LOSS FLAGGED WITH AUDIT NZ”
by Laura Mills – Greymouth Star, Nov 1st, 2019
Audit New Zealand has flagged the West Coast Regional Council’s loss related to its investment in a 1080 factory at Rolleston. The annual independent auditor’s report has just been released. Auditors said the council had included in its financial statements unaudited information relating to an investment in Pest Control Research Limited Partnership — the 1080 plant. The auditor’s report said the council’s financial statements included the share of Pest Control’s loss of $45,574, and its investment of $943,174. “The associate (Pest Control) is not a public entity and, as such, the AuditorGeneral is not its auditor. At the date of our audit report, the audit of the associate was not completed,” Chantelle Gernetzky said. “There were no satisfactory audit procedures that we could adopt to obtain sufficient evidence to confirm the financial information relating to the associate is fairly reflected.”
In relation to this, I was told the following by someone in the poison business:
“Adequately trained, experienced staff working under properly documented processes and wearing the correct PPE don’t poison themselves or others. I thought long ago that there would be serious consequences if a minimalist, solely profit focused company with no experience, training, procedural documentation or proper handling equipment got into the manufacture of 1080 products.”
We still don’t know the full outcome of this accident:
3) Add in the fact that another 1080 factory appears to be in the pipeline, further reducing PCR Ltd’s share of the poison cake – Connovation Ltd received consent to manufacture 1080 baits in March, 2019:
Thanks to Phil Yorke for this well researched information. (For interest, I have added news links & images to some of the info, you can google any others for yourself).
“While this Government won’t do a thing to fix our housing crisis, (other than paying for beneficiaries to live in short term motels at a cost of $22 million in 7 months) we are blowing $53m to build a pavilion in Dubai to try and help the dairy industry whose product is currently polluting our rivers. Here is a refresh on what the National Govt thinks is more important than the citizens of New Zealand.
Ok, so over the last eight years what have John Key and the National Govt with the help of their supporters club (IE Maori Party, Act and Dunne) really done for the people of New Zealand?
Panama Papers, tax havens , blind trusts, out of control immigration, the under funding of hospitals, schools and all other social services of New Zealand under the guise of privatisation.
New Zealanders unable to buy there own homes, 305,000 children and their families in poverty and rising,
Over 42,000 People homeless and on the rise,
New Zealanders living in cars – garages – sheds – caravans.
Tppa costs we know of; Foreign Affairs & Trade Ministry spent over $4M on travel, several ministries were involved. This excludes Grosser’s and McLay’s costs for accommodation, meals, taxis. John Campbell suggests this is only a fraction of the costs as the OIA only gave a few of the costs. $900,000 accommodation, $800,000 meals plus taxis etc. No costs are available for any other Ministry and these are only part costs for Tim Grosser’s Ministry.
I have compiled a small list researched from Newspapers and other media outlets, including Parliament TV, of what John Key and this National Govt believe are priorities over the people of New Zealand.
$260,000 Digital sign inside MBIE (Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment)
$70,000 for a sign outside MBIE.
$380,000 new furniture for MBIE.
$140,000 sundeck for MBIE.
$24,000 fridge for MBIE.
$400 for hair straighteners for MBIE.
$78,000 two doors for parliament.
$363,000 for govt agencies to watch sky tv.
$4000 for a sign for Steven Joyce opening MBIE new building.
MBIE spent $38.9 million on external contractors and consultants
$4000 for a sign Paula Bennett’s office.
$600,000 spent on flowers by National.
$1200 taxi fares.
$4000 a night in hotels.
$80,000 for Grosser’s party in Washington
$17 million paid to a US yacht club.
$11 million paid to a Saudi sheep farmer.
$30 million tax cut for Warner bros.
$30 million tax cut for Rio Tinto.
$6 Billion NOT paid By National in to NZ super fund as part of Govt’s contribution SINCE 2008.
$4 billion tax taken from New Zealand’s super fund.
$200 million invested and lost by our superfund in an overseas bank that was under investigation for fraud before the money was invested.
$2.3 million paid to a banker to give advice to HNZ on how to sell HNZ homes.
Taxpayer paying for beneficiaries to live in short term motels at a cost of $22 million in 7 months.
$700,000 in legal fees fighting a compensation case over abuse that happened in state care.
$45 million bail out media works.
$29 million Social bond program.
$45 million Nova pay.
$27 million paid for a flag referendum that 67% of New Zealanders did not want.
$1.7 Billion bail out SCF.
$200 million lost from buying junk carbon credits.
$6.2 million spent by National for a apartment for one in Hawaii.
$11 million spent by National for an apartment for one in New York.
$86 million to produce new currency that is uncounterfeitable… which has been counterfeited!
$20 Billion NZDF.
$6.4 million spent for new BMWs for ministers.
Ever wondered what happened to asset sale money? That’s despite Finance Minister Bill English promising in 2011 that all revenue from the sales would be put in a Future Investment Fund to pay for “schools, hospitals, roads, rail and public transport”. Money used from asset sales … one big ticket item is our membership to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which was funded as part of this year’s Budget and came in at a cost of $144M.
Another bank membership has also been paid for out of the fund. In 2014, the fund was used to pay $23 million for a subscription to the World Bank.
Computer programme for ministers.
Some of the cash was also splashed on the Prime Minister and Cabinet with investment into a document management project, Cabinet, which received $2.6M in 2012 and a further $1.8M in 2014 — a total of $4.4M.
Doing up Government House
In all, $500,000 was also allocated to the Prime Minister and Cabinet to be spent on a new Visitor Centre at Government House in 2012.
This is just a small part of the total failure of this National Govt in its responsibilities to the citizens of New Zealand and would be called corruption in other countries,
This is right on topic and worth a re-visit in light of recent goings on around the country. We as a nation have adopted such a time worn clean green image, it doesn’t occur to many that the reality of the image died long ago, especially with only 40% of our rivers now clean enough to swim in. The clean and green has spilled over long ago into every area of our lives to the extent most Kiwis wouldn’t dream of believing corporations lie to us. Invited over a year ago to speak to a group of senior cits about Smart Meters (aka here as Advanced Meters) my information was greeted in some corners with snickers and whispers. We are a very trusting nation, particularly that generation. That was great three and four decades ago. It isn’t any more. If you are that trusting now you are fair game and seen as simply a sucker. I watch with angst as I see it played out before me … the elderly treated as cash cows by enterprising and unscrupulous business people, and particularly real estate agents. If you’re snickering now please go and watch The Corporation documentary (halfway down the ‘Corporations’ page). That will make you stop. Not to get off topic here (I could say much more but I won’t) … our District Councils have come under much scrutiny of late with many particularly savvy people holding them to the lip service they tend to pay on their websites. Check out our Local Government Watch pages on the site menu for some of the happenings around your country Kiwis. All is not as good as many believe. Listen to the story of the man in Rodney who exposed the corruption in his District Council. He lost his home and business. Certain ones will deal to those who rock the boat it seems.
The following article is from the Whale Oil blog and raises some important data to ponder on. EnvirowatchRangitikei
by Cameron Slater on August 21, 2015
With three officers from Auckland Council CCO – Auckland Transport – now set to go on trial for bribery it is a convenient opportunity to raise the issue of corruption in local authorities.
Most ordinary citizens have no idea that corruption is rife. But there are varying types of corrupt behaviour and unless one is familiar with the law they can be overlooked.
Two of the most common forms of corruption occur so often you think it’s normal.
These two particular forms of corruption do not result in personal gain – such as back pocketing cash. But they do result in breaking the law, and they happen daily.
The first is ‘malfeasance’ and the second is ‘misfeasance’.
Both are the abuse of authority – or the position of authority.
These generally occur by breaking the rule of law. In NZ the laws that generally govern Local Government are the LGA (Local Government Act) and the RMA (Resource Management Act). Some other laws like the Public Works Act are part and parcel as well.
Breaking the law for ordinary citizens results in penalties. If caught it can do the same for those in local government but nobody is policing them so nothing happens.
A corporation has been defined as “… a business structure whose sole reason for existence is the earning of profits by manufacturing products for as little as possible and selling them for as much as possible. It does not matter whether the product does good or evil; what counts is that it be consumed – in ever-increasing quantities”.
(Note: therein lies the root of our whole recycling problem … think of all the packaging that goes with those products … plastic wrapping, meat trays, polystyrene and plastic bottles just for starters).
Giant multinational corporations have become society’s most dominant institution. As a student of social policy in the early 1980s I well recall being told there would come a day when corporations would control governments … difficult at the time to conceive of … nevertheless this is exactly what has happened. It was difficult to conceive because it was an era when unemployment was low, benefits for the few who required them were at a livable level and education was relatively free. We were a welfare state. That has changed for we were sharply reminded we were a capitalist welfare state.
At the same time as this news item we’ve had the case of the blown$200 mill … lost because the NZ Government (aka corporation) loaned it with the help of Goldman Sachs, to a Portuguese fail-safe Bank that subsequently collapsed. No wonder they’re chasing up $29.3 mill. How many folks I wonder have noticed this news item, as in the $200 mill that’s down the gurgler? And if they consider it prudent to leave their money in KiwiSaver? On the larger scale check out the money borrowed under John Key’s watch. And check out how he made his millions. He’s certainly rubbed shoulders with the Goldman Sachs peeps. Better still, check out the links at the end to a less superficial look at how he made his millions.
Tens of thousands of workers are missing millions of dollars from their KiwiSaver accounts because their employers have failed to either pass on payments docked from their pay, or pay their own employer contributions.
Figures obtained by RNZ News show Inland Revenue is chasing thousands of employers for $29.3 million in outstanding payments and penalties that have accumulated since the retirement savings scheme was launched in 2007.
At the end of June 2015, 1663 employers had failed to pass on $15.3m in KiwiSaver payments deducted from their employees’ own salaries to the IRD.
These deductions were government guaranteed so workers would eventually get the money.
But since 2007, 2210 employers had failed to pay $10.6m in KiwiSaver contributions to 46,154 employees.
Businesses are legally required to pay 3 percent of an employee’s gross salary towards their KiwiSaver.
IRD collections manager David Udy said the vast majority of the businesses that had failed to pay were small and employed between three and five staff.