I get excited when I read expert opinion challenging not just the events of today but the last 40 – 50 years of leaders who have deviously manipulated the succeeding generations.

Blindly we have followed.

One such site contains research and debated information that affects NZ today. It is also a male friendly site and puts men in the company of former MPs, guest specialists and experts, as well as ordinary, political caring, men and women. Their recent discussion and debate is Global Warming. Below is an extract from a guest expert, Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski. He writes:

A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.

In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.” (Wood,1990) .

The climatic issue became now perhaps the most important agenda of the United Nations and politicians, at least they say so. It became also a moral issue. In 2007 addressing the UN General Assembly Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, pointing at climatic skeptics stated: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate change”. But earlier “scare them to deaths!” morality of “climatists” was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Schneider, 1989) .

The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Gore, 2006) . In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari, the chairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report: “I hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious action” (Crook, 2007) . Thus IPCC does not have ambition to present an objective climatic situation, but rather “to shock” the people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC, 2008) , but rather disastrous global economic and societal consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the global energy system, the primary driving force of our civilization. This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement apparently have in mind.

Read more….

This site allows you to express yourself alongside some of the former MPs including Dr. Don Brash (National), and many, many experts.

Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our website Soapbox Series <http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm> ?

If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating
<http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3> Chamber forum – many of our forum subscribers post up information for the public to view daily.

To join the mailing list for this free newsletter please click here
<http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly.htm> >>>
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly periodical from the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com, established in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.

Here is one from Dr. Muriel Newman.

New Zealand’s Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, recently released figures from a study of youth crime that confirms that the majority of serious youth offenders — a staggering 82 percent – have lost contact with their father: only 12 percent of the offenders who came through the court were living with both parents, 28 percent were living with one parent (usually their mother) and 60 percent were not living with either their mother or their father. [1]

That is clearly not to say that every child being raised without a dad ends up in trouble, or that every child raised by a married couple does well, but on the balance of probability, children raised without their natural father, will face greater difficulties in life, than children brought up with their dad to love, guide and protect them.

Fathers play a vital role in bringing up their children. From the rough and tumble play with toddlers, to the crucial task of setting boundaries, enforcing discipline and challenging children to accept responsibilities and become more independent, a father’s influence is crucial. It is especially the case in the socialisation of teenage children, where a father will provide a role model of what men are supposed to be like on the job, in the home, with women, and with children.

Judge Becroft has described the deep-seated need that boys have for a father figure in this way: “14, 15, and 16 year-old boys seek out role models like ‘heat seeking missiles’. It’s either the leader of the Mongrel Mob or it’s a sports coach or it’s Dad. But an overwhelming majority of boys who I see in the Youth Court have lost contact with their father. …What I’m saying is that I’m dealing in the Youth Court with boys for whom their Dad is simply not there, never has been, gone, vanished and disappeared”.

It is this collapse of fatherhood that is at the heart of New Zealand’s social crisis. There are now hundreds of thousands of New Zealand children growing up in fatherless homes.