Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

She is asked again and again “how will this work?” but does not give any coherent answer. Govt MP Catherine Wedd was selected by National after leader Luxon cringingly succumbed to legacy media criticism that his party had too many “old white men”. She is now pushing a govt...

TheRedbaiter's profile picture

The Redbaiter

11,083 subscribers

16,846 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

At this afternoon’s presser Mr Luxon was asked directly how he intended to enforce his new social media bill. The clumsily named Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill will require all users to verify their age before signing in to social media platforms. The question was in reference to claims by students today that they could easily find a way to bypass any such regulation. In response, Mr Luxon totally ignored the substance of the question and entered into a senseless diatribe of unproven claims and mindless slogans. Internet users have a right to know what is being planned and Mr Luxon needs to come clean and cease the hapless waffling. He does this far too often and it is just patronising and rude.
0:37

At this afternoon’s presser Mr Luxon was asked directly how he intended to enforce his new social media bill. The clumsily named Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill will require all users to verify their age before signing in to social media platforms. The question was in reference to claims by students today that they could easily find a way to bypass any such regulation. In response, Mr Luxon totally ignored the substance of the question and entered into a senseless diatribe of unproven claims and mindless slogans. Internet users have a right to know what is being planned and Mr Luxon needs to come clean and cease the hapless waffling. He does this far too often and it is just patronising and rude.

The Redbaiter

10,144 просмотров • 1 год назад

NZ PM Chris Luxon is coming after the internet. In this morning's Radio NZ interview he let slip that there will be more work needed after he has introduced the oppressive and authoritarian "age verification bill". This is most likely a reference to other issues of censorship tied to the Broadcasting Standards Authority and "hate speech" concerns. Luxon is clearly ready to join in the ideological war against free speech being waged by his lefty friends Kier Starmer (UK) and Anthony Albanese (Australia). The PM had said previously that the age verification legislation would be in place before Christmas this year. Now he's saying it will be in place before the election. Those who value free speech on the internet will therefore be able to make this a prime election issue. Tell your local MPs how you feel. Make Mr Luxon and his band of National party imposters know that throwing in with a bunch of liberal women (some of whom will profit from the legislation) to attack internet free speech is not necessarily the good idea he thinks it is.
0:55

NZ PM Chris Luxon is coming after the internet. In this morning's Radio NZ interview he let slip that there will be more work needed after he has introduced the oppressive and authoritarian "age verification bill". This is most likely a reference to other issues of censorship tied to the Broadcasting Standards Authority and "hate speech" concerns. Luxon is clearly ready to join in the ideological war against free speech being waged by his lefty friends Kier Starmer (UK) and Anthony Albanese (Australia). The PM had said previously that the age verification legislation would be in place before Christmas this year. Now he's saying it will be in place before the election. Those who value free speech on the internet will therefore be able to make this a prime election issue. Tell your local MPs how you feel. Make Mr Luxon and his band of National party imposters know that throwing in with a bunch of liberal women (some of whom will profit from the legislation) to attack internet free speech is not necessarily the good idea he thinks it is.

The Redbaiter

11,013 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

One day, I watched on the radio a Somaliland mother who claimed that a woman called Adna took 100 children from Somaliland to Israel. This mother was interviewed on the radio and said that six of the children she gave birth to were among those 100 children. She was asked how her children were taken to Israel, and whether she visited them. She said that she was allowed to visit once and then was sent back. She claimed she was promised that she would be allowed to visit every six months. Then the journalist asked her another question and said: the 100 children who were taken were said to be suffering from heart disease. When the journalist asked whether all of her children had heart disease, she avoided answering the question.” Then the journalist asked her another question and said: ‘Did all six of your children go abroad for medical treatment?’ At that point, she said yes. The journalist then asked: ‘So all six children needed medical treatment?’ and she remained silent. The journalist asked again whether all six of her children had heart disease, but she avoided answering the question. Here is the video of that TV interview.”
2:21

One day, I watched on the radio a Somaliland mother who claimed that a woman called Adna took 100 children from Somaliland to Israel. This mother was interviewed on the radio and said that six of the children she gave birth to were among those 100 children. She was asked how her children were taken to Israel, and whether she visited them. She said that she was allowed to visit once and then was sent back. She claimed she was promised that she would be allowed to visit every six months. Then the journalist asked her another question and said: the 100 children who were taken were said to be suffering from heart disease. When the journalist asked whether all of her children had heart disease, she avoided answering the question.” Then the journalist asked her another question and said: ‘Did all six of your children go abroad for medical treatment?’ At that point, she said yes. The journalist then asked: ‘So all six children needed medical treatment?’ and she remained silent. The journalist asked again whether all six of her children had heart disease, but she avoided answering the question. Here is the video of that TV interview.”

Qurux Wanaag

86,691 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

At yesterday's presser PM Luxon sent a clear message to his coalition partners ACT and NZ First that he will go to Labour/Greens for support if they do not vote for his new internet laws. He is drafting two bills to cover the same issue. One is a govt bill that will take over if Catherine Wedd's members bill is defeated. This is Mr Luxon showing who he really is. A full fledged left wing globalist shill in the manner of Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese. Really- who else would seek out the support of the radical leftists that currently inhabit Greens/Labour? We need ACT and NZ First to be completely unequivocal about their rejection of the govt overreach needed to implement Luxon's internet laws. Mr Luxon's professed care for children is just another left wing scam. There are hundreds of means available for parents to control internet use without the need for laws that will negatively impact everyone. The far left imposter Luxon and his backers must be expelled from the National party and his Stasi style attack on the internet must be defeated.
1:54

At yesterday's presser PM Luxon sent a clear message to his coalition partners ACT and NZ First that he will go to Labour/Greens for support if they do not vote for his new internet laws. He is drafting two bills to cover the same issue. One is a govt bill that will take over if Catherine Wedd's members bill is defeated. This is Mr Luxon showing who he really is. A full fledged left wing globalist shill in the manner of Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese. Really- who else would seek out the support of the radical leftists that currently inhabit Greens/Labour? We need ACT and NZ First to be completely unequivocal about their rejection of the govt overreach needed to implement Luxon's internet laws. Mr Luxon's professed care for children is just another left wing scam. There are hundreds of means available for parents to control internet use without the need for laws that will negatively impact everyone. The far left imposter Luxon and his backers must be expelled from the National party and his Stasi style attack on the internet must be defeated.

The Redbaiter

25,266 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Last week, I once again raised the issue of Australian children being abducted by a parent and held in Japan, contrary to international law. I was informed that the Department is currently providing support to 17 parents of 24 abducted children. Since 2004, there have been 90 cases of children abducted to Japan. I was advised that Japanese legislation is planned for 2026, which may allow for joint custody — but only if both parents agree. Senator Penny Wong could not answer why an Australian parent would be required to pay child support to the abducting parent in Japan. She did say, however, that she had raised the issue of the abducted children with the Japanese government again on September 25 this year. — Senate Estimates | October 2025
10:51

Last week, I once again raised the issue of Australian children being abducted by a parent and held in Japan, contrary to international law. I was informed that the Department is currently providing support to 17 parents of 24 abducted children. Since 2004, there have been 90 cases of children abducted to Japan. I was advised that Japanese legislation is planned for 2026, which may allow for joint custody — but only if both parents agree. Senator Penny Wong could not answer why an Australian parent would be required to pay child support to the abducting parent in Japan. She did say, however, that she had raised the issue of the abducted children with the Japanese government again on September 25 this year. — Senate Estimates | October 2025

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

18,197 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

WE BEAT THE MAD BILL : NOW LET‘S TAKE ON DIGITAL ID AGE VERIFICATION TO LOG ON TO SOCIAL MEDIA Email and phone all the members of the Liberal & National Parties to ask them to speak out against this in the party room meeting tomorrow in Canberra. TOMORROW morning, (Tuesday) the Liberal & National Party MPs and Senators hold their party room meeting in Canberra. This is where individual MPs and Senators get to raise issues of concern of the parties policies. Hopefully there will be at least a few with a backbone to speak up against the Trojan Horse of "age verification" which is nothing other than a way to implement government-controlled facial-recognition Digital ID to log on to the internet. The email & telephone campaign worked to defeat the MAD bill - it can work again. Here’s the links to obtain their emails and phone contacts. Liberal MP and Senators LNP (Queensland) MPs and Senators National Party MPs "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" -Margaret Mead
1:46

WE BEAT THE MAD BILL : NOW LET‘S TAKE ON DIGITAL ID AGE VERIFICATION TO LOG ON TO SOCIAL MEDIA Email and phone all the members of the Liberal & National Parties to ask them to speak out against this in the party room meeting tomorrow in Canberra. TOMORROW morning, (Tuesday) the Liberal & National Party MPs and Senators hold their party room meeting in Canberra. This is where individual MPs and Senators get to raise issues of concern of the parties policies. Hopefully there will be at least a few with a backbone to speak up against the Trojan Horse of "age verification" which is nothing other than a way to implement government-controlled facial-recognition Digital ID to log on to the internet. The email & telephone campaign worked to defeat the MAD bill - it can work again. Here’s the links to obtain their emails and phone contacts. Liberal MP and Senators LNP (Queensland) MPs and Senators National Party MPs "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" -Margaret Mead

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

60,500 просмотров • 1 год назад

It is now becoming abundantly clear that Dr. Mike Varshavski will not answer the simple question as to whether or not he watched the Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr. In law, there is the rule that a lawyer should never never ask a question to which they do not know the answer. The exception to that rule is when the answer is damning either way. The reason why Dr. Mike will not answer the question is because he is dammed either way. He either *did not* watch the podcast, in which case he repeats out-of-context propaganda because he didn’t take the time to do the required work. Or he *did* watch the podcast, and deliberately repeated out-of-context propaganda because he knows he can mislead his audience. Attached is what Dr. Mike put in his video, versus what RFK Jr. actually said on Lex podcast. Everyone understood what RFK was saying before Lex interrupted him (and what he said after): That there is always a risk-benefit analysis to be done on every vaccine. Mike is always welcome to come on my channel to discuss this viva voce. Pun intended.
1:08

It is now becoming abundantly clear that Dr. Mike Varshavski will not answer the simple question as to whether or not he watched the Lex Friedman podcast with RFK Jr. In law, there is the rule that a lawyer should never never ask a question to which they do not know the answer. The exception to that rule is when the answer is damning either way. The reason why Dr. Mike will not answer the question is because he is dammed either way. He either *did not* watch the podcast, in which case he repeats out-of-context propaganda because he didn’t take the time to do the required work. Or he *did* watch the podcast, and deliberately repeated out-of-context propaganda because he knows he can mislead his audience. Attached is what Dr. Mike put in his video, versus what RFK Jr. actually said on Lex podcast. Everyone understood what RFK was saying before Lex interrupted him (and what he said after): That there is always a risk-benefit analysis to be done on every vaccine. Mike is always welcome to come on my channel to discuss this viva voce. Pun intended.

Viva Frei

66,147 просмотров • 1 год назад

Referendums are foreign interference? It’s the same situation as Quebec?? In Canada there is the freedom of speech, expression and protest. Also the freedom to hold a referendum. Ladies and gentlemen, this is India’s high commissioner who yet again does not understand how democracy works. 🤦🏽‍♂️ India is shaking, why not let Punjab hold a referendum? A question that should be asked.
2:50

Referendums are foreign interference? It’s the same situation as Quebec?? In Canada there is the freedom of speech, expression and protest. Also the freedom to hold a referendum. Ladies and gentlemen, this is India’s high commissioner who yet again does not understand how democracy works. 🤦🏽‍♂️ India is shaking, why not let Punjab hold a referendum? A question that should be asked.

Inderjeet Singh

19,015 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Keir Starmer demonstrates Boris Johnson levels of ego, "I didn't want to be in this position" "But the way I look at it is this: the question being asked now is not who is the best person to save the Labour party and turn it around" "It's not whose the best person to lead us to a landslide victory" "Am I the right person to take us into the next election, and they've answered that question, I've accepted their answer in good grace"
1:40

Keir Starmer demonstrates Boris Johnson levels of ego, "I didn't want to be in this position" "But the way I look at it is this: the question being asked now is not who is the best person to save the Labour party and turn it around" "It's not whose the best person to lead us to a landslide victory" "Am I the right person to take us into the next election, and they've answered that question, I've accepted their answer in good grace"

Farrukh

32,487 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Labour have no mandate for the biggest reorganisation of local government in more than half a century. Labour councillors redrawing their own boundaries before any independent review. That is not devolution. That is gerrymandering. Is this really the legacy the outgoing Secretary of State wants to leave? And he couldn’t even be bothered to turn up to answer my Urgent Question, again.
2:32

Labour have no mandate for the biggest reorganisation of local government in more than half a century. Labour councillors redrawing their own boundaries before any independent review. That is not devolution. That is gerrymandering. Is this really the legacy the outgoing Secretary of State wants to leave? And he couldn’t even be bothered to turn up to answer my Urgent Question, again.

James Cleverly🇬🇧

48,080 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Social media ban or big brother control? The government, with support of the Liberals, is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, justifying the measure by claiming it’s "popular." Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties that accuse One Nation of populism are now pushing a measure not because it’s practical, but simply because it’s supposedly popular. A true conservative party Peter Dutton would support parents to supervise their own children in their own homes. A true conservative, Mr Dutton, would not be promoting big government replacing parents. The eGovernment is also trialling age-assurance technology, which uses facial scans of every social media user to confirm they are over 16. If there’s any doubt, the system will cross-check the person’s Digital ID to ensure it matches. In addition to facial scans, the "Assurance AI" will monitor keystrokes, audio patterns and "other measures" to determine the user’s age. By now you may conclude, as I did, that enforcing a social media age limit of 16 would require verifying everyone’s age using the device camera and their Digital ID—which everyone would be forced to have. So much for Digital ID being voluntary. Even adults will need one to continue using social media. Even more alarming is the fact that conversations would be monitored for signs of age, yet what happens to the voice prints and keystroke logs this system collects? To make this work, cameras on devices would need to run constantly to ensure a new user hasn’t hopped on to an existing computer session. This means cameras would always be on, capturing everything - video and audio – that is happening in the room. This creates a perfect scenario for hackers to access the feed. In the unlikely event they can actually make this work, children would move to other platforms that are less regulated, less safe and more prone to child exploitation. One Nation opposes this legislation. The best people to monitor and regulate children’s internet use are parents—not a Big Brother government.
4:55

Social media ban or big brother control? The government, with support of the Liberals, is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, justifying the measure by claiming it’s "popular." Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties that accuse One Nation of populism are now pushing a measure not because it’s practical, but simply because it’s supposedly popular. A true conservative party Peter Dutton would support parents to supervise their own children in their own homes. A true conservative, Mr Dutton, would not be promoting big government replacing parents. The eGovernment is also trialling age-assurance technology, which uses facial scans of every social media user to confirm they are over 16. If there’s any doubt, the system will cross-check the person’s Digital ID to ensure it matches. In addition to facial scans, the "Assurance AI" will monitor keystrokes, audio patterns and "other measures" to determine the user’s age. By now you may conclude, as I did, that enforcing a social media age limit of 16 would require verifying everyone’s age using the device camera and their Digital ID—which everyone would be forced to have. So much for Digital ID being voluntary. Even adults will need one to continue using social media. Even more alarming is the fact that conversations would be monitored for signs of age, yet what happens to the voice prints and keystroke logs this system collects? To make this work, cameras on devices would need to run constantly to ensure a new user hasn’t hopped on to an existing computer session. This means cameras would always be on, capturing everything - video and audio – that is happening in the room. This creates a perfect scenario for hackers to access the feed. In the unlikely event they can actually make this work, children would move to other platforms that are less regulated, less safe and more prone to child exploitation. One Nation opposes this legislation. The best people to monitor and regulate children’s internet use are parents—not a Big Brother government.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

65,540 просмотров • 1 год назад

Minister for the Public Services Judith Collins was surprised that the Education Unions had made Palestine the number one issue in wage negotiations with govt. Council of Trade Unions President Sandra Grey says unions should be able to talk about anything they want when meeting govt Ministers. The point is, why should Palestine be a priority issue? I guess Ms Grey didn’t have an answer for that. She choose instead to divert with references to “tax breaks for landlords”. An expression that pretty much identifies the person using it as an economic and financial illiterate. Ms Grey peppered the discussion with many other Labour party talking points. Which raises the question- When will unions get serious and elect representatives who really care about them, rather than choosing proxy Labour party MPs? I guess many public servants vote Labour, but surely not every one of them.
1:20

Minister for the Public Services Judith Collins was surprised that the Education Unions had made Palestine the number one issue in wage negotiations with govt. Council of Trade Unions President Sandra Grey says unions should be able to talk about anything they want when meeting govt Ministers. The point is, why should Palestine be a priority issue? I guess Ms Grey didn’t have an answer for that. She choose instead to divert with references to “tax breaks for landlords”. An expression that pretty much identifies the person using it as an economic and financial illiterate. Ms Grey peppered the discussion with many other Labour party talking points. Which raises the question- When will unions get serious and elect representatives who really care about them, rather than choosing proxy Labour party MPs? I guess many public servants vote Labour, but surely not every one of them.

The Redbaiter

16,553 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

“How Ms. Rachel Proved Ms. Rachel Is an Antisemite” Ms. Rachel finally answered the question that StopAntisemitism forced the public to confront: “Is Ms. Rachel an antisemite?” Yes. Ms. Rachel is an antisemite. If you “like” a comment that says “Free America from the Jews,” you are an antisemite. Full stop. Just as you are an antisemite if you invite onto your children’s show someone who has glorified the murder of nearly 40 Israeli and Jewish children and refer to that person as “my friend.” Just as you are an antisemite if you unashamedly propagate fabricated images and absurd Hamas propaganda to demonize Israel. The story here is no longer whether Ms. Rachel is an antisemite. The real story is why so many people refused to acknowledge it, even as she made it obvious. This was not a “Free Palestine” comment. Not “Free Gaza.” Not “End the war.” It was “Free America from the Jews.” Not Israel. Not Zionists. Jews. Ms. Rachel’s claim that she “doesn’t know how to use social media” is belied by one simple fact: she is only famous because of her mastery of social media and her ability to manipulate digital platforms for reach and engagement. And for those unfamiliar with Instagram: the delete and hide options are nowhere near the like button. But even if we indulge the fantasy that this was a “mistake,” she has effectively admitted that she actively moderates her comment sections—which raises an obvious question: Why does her comment section resemble a Der Stürmer forum? Any rational observer already knew this. Ms. Rachel didn’t hide it well. That’s why even Piers Morgan admitted that, at best, she was guilty of doing things she should not have been doing with her platform and her show. But now there is no ambiguity left. If it walks like an ox, if it smells like an ox, and if it’s loudly mooing, “Remooooove the Jews from America,” then that ox hates Jews. So thank you, Ms. Rachel, for the tearless apology and for settling the question once and for all: Is Ms. Rachel an antisemite? Yes… Ms. Rachel is a Jew Hater. Ms. Rachel was ALWAYS a Jew hater.
4:17

“How Ms. Rachel Proved Ms. Rachel Is an Antisemite” Ms. Rachel finally answered the question that StopAntisemitism forced the public to confront: “Is Ms. Rachel an antisemite?” Yes. Ms. Rachel is an antisemite. If you “like” a comment that says “Free America from the Jews,” you are an antisemite. Full stop. Just as you are an antisemite if you invite onto your children’s show someone who has glorified the murder of nearly 40 Israeli and Jewish children and refer to that person as “my friend.” Just as you are an antisemite if you unashamedly propagate fabricated images and absurd Hamas propaganda to demonize Israel. The story here is no longer whether Ms. Rachel is an antisemite. The real story is why so many people refused to acknowledge it, even as she made it obvious. This was not a “Free Palestine” comment. Not “Free Gaza.” Not “End the war.” It was “Free America from the Jews.” Not Israel. Not Zionists. Jews. Ms. Rachel’s claim that she “doesn’t know how to use social media” is belied by one simple fact: she is only famous because of her mastery of social media and her ability to manipulate digital platforms for reach and engagement. And for those unfamiliar with Instagram: the delete and hide options are nowhere near the like button. But even if we indulge the fantasy that this was a “mistake,” she has effectively admitted that she actively moderates her comment sections—which raises an obvious question: Why does her comment section resemble a Der Stürmer forum? Any rational observer already knew this. Ms. Rachel didn’t hide it well. That’s why even Piers Morgan admitted that, at best, she was guilty of doing things she should not have been doing with her platform and her show. But now there is no ambiguity left. If it walks like an ox, if it smells like an ox, and if it’s loudly mooing, “Remooooove the Jews from America,” then that ox hates Jews. So thank you, Ms. Rachel, for the tearless apology and for settling the question once and for all: Is Ms. Rachel an antisemite? Yes… Ms. Rachel is a Jew Hater. Ms. Rachel was ALWAYS a Jew hater.

Jake Donnelly

34,304 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Well said Senator Antic, but the only problem is that you are member of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party supports Albanese’s plan to force all Australia have some form of government issued or biometric digital ID to log on to the internet. Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (16:46): I think we all want to see our children protected from harm online, but what's the real cost of a social media ban for children? Firstly, it's not clear to me how an age-specific ban could actually be in force short of requiring all Australians to prove their identity, and therefore their age, before actually using their social media accounts. How would it be done? The only reliable methods that are likely to work are those which require social media accounts to be linked to either a government certified ID, digital ID or biometric data. Immediately, we've gone from talking about a law protecting children under 16 from online harm to proposals potentially requiring all Australians to submit personal identification as a condition of using social media. This is how concerns over safety—in this case, children's safety—convince people to hand over their freedom, to hand over their personal information. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that a generation of young people are starting to unpick the lies of the corporate media online, does it? Well, of course it does! What a great way to ensure that young people only get a left-wing government message approved to them via their devices. Frankly, the words 'ban' and 'media' should never exist in a sentence together, and parents should always be in charge of what their children watch and what their children watch online.
1:28

Well said Senator Antic, but the only problem is that you are member of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party supports Albanese’s plan to force all Australia have some form of government issued or biometric digital ID to log on to the internet. Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (16:46): I think we all want to see our children protected from harm online, but what's the real cost of a social media ban for children? Firstly, it's not clear to me how an age-specific ban could actually be in force short of requiring all Australians to prove their identity, and therefore their age, before actually using their social media accounts. How would it be done? The only reliable methods that are likely to work are those which require social media accounts to be linked to either a government certified ID, digital ID or biometric data. Immediately, we've gone from talking about a law protecting children under 16 from online harm to proposals potentially requiring all Australians to submit personal identification as a condition of using social media. This is how concerns over safety—in this case, children's safety—convince people to hand over their freedom, to hand over their personal information. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that a generation of young people are starting to unpick the lies of the corporate media online, does it? Well, of course it does! What a great way to ensure that young people only get a left-wing government message approved to them via their devices. Frankly, the words 'ban' and 'media' should never exist in a sentence together, and parents should always be in charge of what their children watch and what their children watch online.

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

28,750 просмотров • 1 год назад

Should ex Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley be charged with incitement? It has been sad to see the governing National party sidle up to the Marxist radicals of the Maori party this week in opposing ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. Ms Shipley took this to new levels yesterday. In a discussion on Radio NZ, she opined that Maori would be justified in launching a civil war if the coalition govt proceeded with the bill. Even saying she would join it if they did. Jenny Shipley is an ex National party leader who was PM for two short years 1997-1999. Incongruously she says she does not wish to inflame the situation around the Treaty Principles Bill, but then goes on to mischaracterise it in a way that will do exactly that. The Treaty Principles Bill does not seek to re-write or change in any way the wording of the original 1840 Treaty document. Its purpose is to clarify the so called “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” as first mentioned in legislation in 1975. IMHO Shipley was a disaster as Nats leader and as PM. Thankfully, her time has passed. Like her successor as PM Helen Clark, she needs to keep her unwanted opinions to herself and let our currently elected representatives get on with the job. NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand First
2:03

Should ex Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley be charged with incitement? It has been sad to see the governing National party sidle up to the Marxist radicals of the Maori party this week in opposing ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. Ms Shipley took this to new levels yesterday. In a discussion on Radio NZ, she opined that Maori would be justified in launching a civil war if the coalition govt proceeded with the bill. Even saying she would join it if they did. Jenny Shipley is an ex National party leader who was PM for two short years 1997-1999. Incongruously she says she does not wish to inflame the situation around the Treaty Principles Bill, but then goes on to mischaracterise it in a way that will do exactly that. The Treaty Principles Bill does not seek to re-write or change in any way the wording of the original 1840 Treaty document. Its purpose is to clarify the so called “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” as first mentioned in legislation in 1975. IMHO Shipley was a disaster as Nats leader and as PM. Thankfully, her time has passed. Like her successor as PM Helen Clark, she needs to keep her unwanted opinions to herself and let our currently elected representatives get on with the job. NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand First

The Redbaiter

23,169 просмотров • 1 год назад

The UK’s welfare bill is lower than it was 15 years ago as a proportion of national income. But mainstream media keep pushing the idea that it needs to be slashed so we can spend more on “defence”. When economist Jonathan Portes was asked on Sky News where the welfare bill could be cut – he called out the broadcaster for asking a "nonsense" question. The idea that welfare spending is out of control “is just wrong," he said.
0:37

The UK’s welfare bill is lower than it was 15 years ago as a proportion of national income. But mainstream media keep pushing the idea that it needs to be slashed so we can spend more on “defence”. When economist Jonathan Portes was asked on Sky News where the welfare bill could be cut – he called out the broadcaster for asking a "nonsense" question. The idea that welfare spending is out of control “is just wrong," he said.

Novara Media

77,442 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

There is nothing more disgusting than a government using a parent's grief as cover to ram through bad law. Emma Mason is being used. You can see just how cruel the government is, on this interview with Deb Knight on A Current Affair last night. Her grief is being abused by governments and the media in Australia to justify removing access to social media from all children under the age of 16. Worse than that, they are using her to justify the most draconian internet access rules in the world, and it’s not just for kids. Every adult in Australia will have to age verify to get online to use sites like YouTube, facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Emma’s story, and that of her daughter is tragic, but the truth is: banning selective social media access will not stop bullying. It will not save the lives of children, and it does not absolve parental responsibility. Outsourcing parenting to government is both cowardly and foolish. Anyone who caught the ABC Lateline piece from 1975 released on this platform by John Adams earlier this week, would know, the Australian Government does not care about our children. We’ve seen real harm perpetrated on kids at government and government regulated childcare facilities. We see a rise in juvenile crime and weak bail laws, encouraging kids to perpetrate more and more extreme crime, and we know there still exists a culture of coverup when it comes to child harm among the establishment elite. The people who have drafted and passed the social media age ban laws are either not au fait with technology, or worse, they are authoritarian bullies who do not want any criticism from the only outlet available to the public – social media. Most disturbing to me though, is this misconceived belief that parents need the government to ban social media so they can parent their children. That is most certainly not the case. Mason further calls on even more government to provide the resources to help parents copilot the law. Because even she can see that it is an absolute mess that will cause harm. The government is an uncaring and incompetent machine, and most Australians seem completely unaware of those facts. The law only impacts the law abiding, and silly laws make for more lawlessness. The social media age ban and the subsequent requirement for adult identification is a silly law. It is possible to circumvent, and it will be circumvented. It will also breed a culture of lawlessness among our youth, and when they start to get away with these smaller ‘crimes’, they will indeed feel emboldened to test other laws. I am tired of Australian governments using tragedy to take more of our rights and freedoms away. We don’t need the government’s help to parent our children or lull us into the false sense of security that they keep us and our children safe. Go shopping in Melbourne and see how safe you feel. Watching the heartless machine use a mother’s grief is painful. It is disgusting. Albanese, Ley and the rest of the Australian political establishment should be ashamed of themselves, because they know exactly what they are doing. We must not stand for this. We must resist, push back and not comply. It is nothing more than a government sponsored attack on our privacy and free speech. It has nothing to do with child safety. We must parent our own children and educate them on how much we have already lost in the name of security and safety. We must show them that we don’t support the government, and maybe by the time they have grown up and are voting, we can start to elect people who deserve to be in leadership positions. Because the people we have right now are a danger to our future prosperity. This is not Australia. I just want Australia back.
6:13

There is nothing more disgusting than a government using a parent's grief as cover to ram through bad law. Emma Mason is being used. You can see just how cruel the government is, on this interview with Deb Knight on A Current Affair last night. Her grief is being abused by governments and the media in Australia to justify removing access to social media from all children under the age of 16. Worse than that, they are using her to justify the most draconian internet access rules in the world, and it’s not just for kids. Every adult in Australia will have to age verify to get online to use sites like YouTube, facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Emma’s story, and that of her daughter is tragic, but the truth is: banning selective social media access will not stop bullying. It will not save the lives of children, and it does not absolve parental responsibility. Outsourcing parenting to government is both cowardly and foolish. Anyone who caught the ABC Lateline piece from 1975 released on this platform by John Adams earlier this week, would know, the Australian Government does not care about our children. We’ve seen real harm perpetrated on kids at government and government regulated childcare facilities. We see a rise in juvenile crime and weak bail laws, encouraging kids to perpetrate more and more extreme crime, and we know there still exists a culture of coverup when it comes to child harm among the establishment elite. The people who have drafted and passed the social media age ban laws are either not au fait with technology, or worse, they are authoritarian bullies who do not want any criticism from the only outlet available to the public – social media. Most disturbing to me though, is this misconceived belief that parents need the government to ban social media so they can parent their children. That is most certainly not the case. Mason further calls on even more government to provide the resources to help parents copilot the law. Because even she can see that it is an absolute mess that will cause harm. The government is an uncaring and incompetent machine, and most Australians seem completely unaware of those facts. The law only impacts the law abiding, and silly laws make for more lawlessness. The social media age ban and the subsequent requirement for adult identification is a silly law. It is possible to circumvent, and it will be circumvented. It will also breed a culture of lawlessness among our youth, and when they start to get away with these smaller ‘crimes’, they will indeed feel emboldened to test other laws. I am tired of Australian governments using tragedy to take more of our rights and freedoms away. We don’t need the government’s help to parent our children or lull us into the false sense of security that they keep us and our children safe. Go shopping in Melbourne and see how safe you feel. Watching the heartless machine use a mother’s grief is painful. It is disgusting. Albanese, Ley and the rest of the Australian political establishment should be ashamed of themselves, because they know exactly what they are doing. We must not stand for this. We must resist, push back and not comply. It is nothing more than a government sponsored attack on our privacy and free speech. It has nothing to do with child safety. We must parent our own children and educate them on how much we have already lost in the name of security and safety. We must show them that we don’t support the government, and maybe by the time they have grown up and are voting, we can start to elect people who deserve to be in leadership positions. Because the people we have right now are a danger to our future prosperity. This is not Australia. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

29,745 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

“Wesley, how could you… be a Black Republican?” That’s not a question, it’s a condemnation. It’s not curiosity, it’s control. It’s the echo of a system that has conditioned far too many to believe that skin color dictates ideology. The real question, the right question: “Wesley, why are you a Black Republican?” Because that invites a conversation. That opens the door to independent thought, to history, to values, and to truth. The Democrat Party has spent decades building cultural and political systems designed to punish Black Americans who dare to step off their ideological plantation. They don’t want us to think for ourselves—they want us to comply. And in the absence of nuance, in a world where disagreement is treated as betrayal, we’ve turned every conversation into a circular firing squad. But I won’t be silent. I won’t be shamed. And I will never apologize for thinking freely. Because freedom of thought is the essence of liberty, and no party, no movement, and no mob will take that away from me.
0:59

“Wesley, how could you… be a Black Republican?” That’s not a question, it’s a condemnation. It’s not curiosity, it’s control. It’s the echo of a system that has conditioned far too many to believe that skin color dictates ideology. The real question, the right question: “Wesley, why are you a Black Republican?” Because that invites a conversation. That opens the door to independent thought, to history, to values, and to truth. The Democrat Party has spent decades building cultural and political systems designed to punish Black Americans who dare to step off their ideological plantation. They don’t want us to think for ourselves—they want us to comply. And in the absence of nuance, in a world where disagreement is treated as betrayal, we’ve turned every conversation into a circular firing squad. But I won’t be silent. I won’t be shamed. And I will never apologize for thinking freely. Because freedom of thought is the essence of liberty, and no party, no movement, and no mob will take that away from me.

Wesley Hunt

142,165 просмотров • 1 год назад

This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16's Social Media Ban - an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny. If only Senators had time to do this. Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it's better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees. I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that "supposedly" protect children from accessing porn. What utter rubbish! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the "Are you over 18?" box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing. This bill is about many things - keeping children safe is not one of them. One Nation will NEVER support this bill because: (1) it should be the responsibility of parents; (2) freedom of speech is every Australian's right; (3) every social media user will need to verify their age by Digital ID.
8:30

This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16's Social Media Ban - an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny. If only Senators had time to do this. Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it's better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees. I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that "supposedly" protect children from accessing porn. What utter rubbish! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the "Are you over 18?" box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing. This bill is about many things - keeping children safe is not one of them. One Nation will NEVER support this bill because: (1) it should be the responsibility of parents; (2) freedom of speech is every Australian's right; (3) every social media user will need to verify their age by Digital ID.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

54,552 просмотров • 1 год назад