Immigration

Duckspeak and Agenda 2030

I will be blogging about the UN’s Agenda 2030, focusing mainly on it’s detrimental effects on New Zealand and Australia.  In case you don’t think it’s a thing, here’s Jacinda Adern speaking about fulfilling the goals of Agenda 2030.  Note, there is no mandate from the people of New Zealand for this.  When she says “we” or “New Zealand,” she’s speaking for herself.  

UN SDG review – Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

But this is a good example of “Duckspeak.”

“There is a word in Newspeak,’ said Syme, ‘I don’t know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck.” – George Orwell, 1984

duck-quack

Adern’s minority government was elected to reduce immigration because of concern about New Zealand’s homeless problem.  We have the worst level of homelessness in the developed world.  Instead of doing anything about it – Adern increased the number of refugees and on Christmas 2019, our country was sneakily signed up to the UN’s Global Migration compact, without New Zealanders’ permission.

I am left asking why?

Adern broken promises

In case you think that “giving our country away” is a bit emotive, here’s the page showing the 1.1 million migrants for New Zealand.   Look and decide for yourself.  The source is the UN DESA (The UN ‘Department of Economic and Social Affairs.’)  Now we can see whose interests Jacinda is acting in – and it’s not New Zealand’s.


18 March 2020, further to this post: I’ve just read about a young gun owner in Waikanae who was harrassed by the police. He was asked questions about the New Conservative party: “Do you know what New Conservative’s immigration policy is?”
Do you know any representatives of the New Conservative party?”

Source: https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/03/16/police-continue-to-intimidate-licenced-firearms-owners/

Why was the NZ Police asking about this political party???

Here is New Conservative’s reply about their immigration policy:

New Conservative

 

 

Dear NZ Police Management,

New Zealand is a sovereign nation, and it’s also supposed to be a democratic one. So please find our immigration policy attached.

PS – You are supposed to enforce law, not a political agenda…

#LetsFixThis

Immigration policy

Immigration is central to many parts of New Zealand’s culture, economy, and future prospects. New Conservative believes that there is a balance to be struck between the important benefits that immigration brings and the wellbeing of those who already call New Zealand “home.”

We believe that those who choose to immigrate should embrace New Zealand’s culture and not try and change it.​

New Conservative will ensure there is no acceptance or allowance of Sharia Law, in any expression, as well as any non-constitutional jurisdictional authority, in New Zealand.

The key New Conservative immigration policy is “Net Zero Immigration”. This would be for a period determined by the time taken to ease housing demand, which could be as little as 12 months (student visas and returning New Zealanders excluded).

Long term immigration policy must be based on which occupations will be available/necessary in the future.​

Prioritising immigrants who can add to our economy and not depend on it.​

Working with NZ based non-governmental organisations operating in troubled zones to identify genuine refugees who are more closely aligned with our nation’s values, and fill our refugee quota with these people, rather than accepting the United Nations allotment.

NZ New Conservative

Rue Britannia

newbritanniaWe’ve got a new word since Britain’s historic EU vote – BREGRET, which is Brexit + Regret.  Also the saying “Rue Britannia.”  I think Britannia has a lot more to rue about than second thoughts.

Why the regret in Britain over the way they voted?   Why go into a referendum not understanding the issues?  It’s unbelievable for such an important issue.

Despite having more knowledge at our finger tips than any other generation, the second top question in Google after the referendum results were out was “What is the EU?”

Seriously?Brexit questions

4Here’s four things about the EU:

The Treaty of Rome enshrined the ‘four freedoms’, requiring the unrestricted circulation of goods, persons, services, and capital. It placed competition at the centre of the European framework. This capitalist utopia clearly involved more than a free trade area.

Much has changed since the 1970s, including the development of the EEC, with nine member states to today’s economic and political union of 28 countries.

Today’s Eurosceptics made four, interconnected, points;

  1. In 1973, the UK agreed to join a loose free trade area. There was no suggestion that they would otherwise suffer any loss of political and economic sovereignty, or be ‘ruled from Brussels’.
  2. Even this change in their national status demanded, as a matter of constitutional principle, that the British people be given a voice in a referendum.
  3. However, that referendum was fought on a false prospectus. The European project was, in truth, a much more extensive attempt by a metropolitan elite (in London and Brussels) to grab power for itself. So there must be a further referendum.
  4. The UK has a bright future outside the EU. Freed from the shackles of European bureaucracy, it will have the best of both worlds. On the one hand, European countries will be compelled to trade with them, because of their economic strength. On the other hand, they will be able much more easily to do business with Asia and the rest of the world.   Source: The case for Brexit: lessons from the 1960s and 1970s

Enoch PowellIt seems the Brits want their country back.  I hear the accusations of xenophobia – but what’s wrong with safeguarding borders, boundaries, rules and laws that are there for a reason?

In April 1968 British politician Enoch Powell warned of the dangers of “communalism”, and specifically of those caused by mass immigration.  Was he right?

enochpowell