Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Australia looks set to take a Net Zero by 2050 pledge to COP26. But the mostly rural based National Party have a lot of explaining to do, to supporters who expected them to hold the line on affordable fuel prices, and protecting coal and farming jobs. The National Party are the junior partners in Australia’s ruling coalition.
Nationals agree to net zero target by 2050 despite Barnaby Joyce’s opposition
Agreement is conditional on cabinet submission reflecting negotiations between Scott Morrison and Joyce, who refused to reveal if he supported the target
Sarah Martin Chief political correspondent and Katharine Murphy Political editor
Nationals MPs have agreed to sign up to a net zero emissions target by 2050, despite the opposition of leader Barnaby Joyce, in exchange for a regional transition package and an extra cabinet position.
In a two-hour long partyroom meeting on Sunday, Joyce said the party had agreed to a “process” to support the net zero target, dependent on cabinet signing off on a package that would protect regional economies.
While details of the package are yet to be made public, it is understood it includes a new regional future fund and an extra cabinet position that is expected to go to the resources minister, Keith Pitt, who was dumped after Joyce became leader.
The Nationals MP George Christensen, who has repeatedly threatened to shift to the crossbench, told colleagues he would now reconsider his position in the government in protest at the party’s position.
Christensen attended the meeting remotely wearing a “support coal” T-shirt.
Others who spoke out strongly against the target included senator Matt Canavan and Wide Bay MP Llew O’Brien.
…
While details of the package are yet to be made public, it is understood it includes a new regional future fund and an extra cabinet position that is expected to go to the resources minister, Keith Pitt, who was dumped after Joyce became leader.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/24/nationals-agree-to-net-zero-target-by-2050-despite-barnaby-joyces-opposition
To say I’m bitterly disappointed in this apparent shift in position would be an understatement. Barnaby Joyce led what appeared to be a principled opposition to higher fuel prices and a net zero shutdown of the coal industry, promising coal workers especially they have their back. But I guess every principle has its price, when you are dealing with politicians.
The Nationals seem as invertebrate as a typical RINO.
The destruction of nations is a main goal of neomarxism,
therefore you can bet your butt that all significant positions are loaded with imposters like Boris Johnson.
Look at how fast the tea party movement was infiltrated and destroyed.
How fast the conservative party in Germany was infiltrated by Stasis who were communists a few years ago (De Maiziere was the chosen chanzler,but it was impossible to hide his Stasi past though he got massive Biden Style protection.
He was then replaced by Stasi Merkel,who was high ranked party member of a fake east german opposition party and best friends with the party leader who was a top Stasi as it turned out later and Merkel was also ‘best’ friends( = spy)with the son of East Germanis public enemy no 1 )
I don’t see why we cannot talk the talk and not walk the walk. The rest of the world seems to be doing it quite successfully.
Attempting this has a chilling effect on investment, at any moment the government could decide to make it real, and shut down high carbon businesses which thought they had a deal.
It really angered me last night when I heard comments from Coalition MPs warning voters that we must keep the Coalition in power because that nasty Labor Green mob would change the net zero emissions Coalition Plan if elected.
Do they really believe the Coalition could remain in power indefinitely, and if so what do they know that they won’t tell us?
I think the political line is the Labor/Greens in Government would legislate for net zero whereas the Coalition would set it as an unlegislated target,thus with some more flexibility.
It’s a huge gamble by the Coalition which could backfire terribly at the polls.
What plan? The one they promised to have before adopting net zero targets?
My view of the whole climate nonsense and wishing a plague on the COP26 shennanigans https://www.dropbox.com/s/f8epmwd9sc0vrl8/Glasgow%20greetings.pdf?dl=0
Someone on this site had a perfect meaning for COP.
Corrupt Oligarch Party
Given modern business makes most of its money from BS permanently, why wounldn’t think government is just BSing too permanently. One such BS is making money from getting consumers what they have
Exactly.
All these supporters of 2050 effects will be dead by then, so why not make grandiose promises now.
By the way, Obarmy’s 2008 promise to stop the seas rising from that moment hasn’t eventuated either.
2030 has it’s own targets too, almost 30% or so. And it needs legislation not just party balloons at Glasgow saying that.
Obama was successful in stopping the seas from rising. In fact, he was so sure of his success that he bought a house on the sea shore.
In fact, he was so sure that forecasts of sea level rise were BS that he bought a house on the sea shore. (Fixed it for you)
Historian Robert Conquest wrote about the effect of a constant flow of lies from governments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, it sapped the morale and self-esteem of the populations who were forced to accept them knowing they were lies, it’s very damaging.
“Let’s Go, Brandon”! The same thing is now happening with Democrats in the US who voted against Trump and got what they deserved. Unfortunately the whole country suffers with them. Let’s Go, Brandon! Brandon will read the speech someone prepared for him at COP26, don’t wait for it.
imagine how much time & effort has gone into preparing biden on how to act & react when the inevitable chant breaks out from the crowd that he is in front of; or surrounded by.
(“hey, our first option is to just keep him hidden and let Jen take all the heat. But what do we do when he actually goes out into the public? Have him get go with it like it is a joke? Have him ignore it? Have him scold their childishness? Just what the hell do we do?)
Two rap songs called Let’s Go Brandon mocking Biden are now numbers 1 and 3 on the iTunes chart (Adele has a song in the number two spot). The Democrats have lost the support of suburban moms, and now the youth vote. It seems the left has overplayed their hand, and made some serious miscalculations on how successful their indoctrination of voters was.
This will all be over with (in the US) in another 18 months when a new Congress is sworn in.
Impossible to avoid walking and quacking at same time as the Paris Accord requires each country to pass it’s own legislation to lay out in legislation the pathway to net zero and a big cut by 2030.
Of course the greens and the ALP will vote for it too.
Maybe too late as the major polls show the government well behind. Morrison can’t get too lucky twice in a row and win again
The Nationals sold out their base in South Australia and have more or less disappeared. I expect the same will happen nationally at the next election. Voters will look elsewhere.
But where? There isn’t any sensible party in Australia.
I’m still rooting (in the Australian sense) for the Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll Coalition myself. We’ve already got the Sex party the Drugs party.
Then accidentally vote informal. The nationals (and liberals) need to be sent a message and the only way to do that is the ballot box.
The Sex party changed it’s name to Reason party…so you know that indicates the climate type of reason
One Nation has Senator Malcolm Roberts. He tortures greens in the senate by meticulously shredding their cost and benefit estimates. At the very least I want to see him win again.
Malcolm Roberts is not up for re-election for another three years. But, yes, I want to see him win whenever he is a candidate. His Party leader Pauline Hanson is up for re-election in 2022. I hope she makes it across the line.
any Indy that will NOT pref labour or greens is about the best we can hope for
love to get enough indys in to really upset the 2party non democracy we have
Yeap.
The confusing stupidity of all this is that if the voting public REALLY wanted to support Green Policy, they would VOTE GREEN.
They don’t.
There is multiple elections worth of evidence that there is no overwhelming desire to Go Green within the Australian voting public. Or perhaps more correctly, there is no overwhelming desire within the Australian voting public to be forced to spent their own money going Green.
This is another point backed by overwhelming evidence. Australian (and I suspect international as well) airlines offer travels the option to pay a few extra dollars on their airfare to offset their carbon. Once you remove the business travellers (who are not paying for the flights) NO ONE WANTS TO PAY.
Going Green is NOT a vote winner. Accept that fact and exploit it or get voted out by someone else who does.
Doesn’t the High Church of Climate Change have confessionals?
sarc.
Unfortunately,it is a vote winner in several inner city latte sipping electorates presently held by small margins by the Liberal Party.Remember Tony Abbott’s surprise loss.
barnabys once again flipped
all hat no cattle
He’s just another big mouth, a waste of space.
Can you say “bribery”? I can…
As a 5th generation Australian who has provided more to society than I have ever taken out, I cannot stand by to watch this cave-in by our elected politicians.
Nobody has ever sought my opinion on whether we should agree to “net zero carbon by 2050” (whatever that means). Nobody in power has explained the consequences of net zero. Nobody has explained why we, the voters, have not been told what the options are. We have not been offered a referendum, a debate, a national public opinion poll, nothing.
In particular, most people with a working knowledge of future Australian energy needs can envisage horrible, large-scale disruptions to our industry, to our economy, to our standards of living, we the voters have not been told of these likely drawbacks. This is astounding, because we are being asked to endorse the largest change to our way of life since World War II, not personally, but by being encouraged to stay calm and quiet and trust the chosen path of our senior politicians (while we do not know what that path is).
Sorry Mr Morrison, this is simply unacceptable, to the serious extent that for the first time in my long life I am thinking that physical violence will be needed before we rid ourselves off a large drop in our standards of living, for no plausible gain.
Earlier, I managed government relations for one of our largest Australian companies, so please believe that I back these comments with more than usual experience.
Agreeing to a net-zero carbon scheme by any date is simply not acceptable to any Australian – apart from the insane. Geoff S
When there is no plausible path to net zero (and even John Kerry says 50% of the problem will need to be solved by future tech) you have to come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the population are sheep and/or imbeciles.
I think it’s the latter. It’s New Zealand where the vast majority of the population are sheep. Here we still have fewer sheep than people (just).
On driving up Cape York, I guesttimated about 10,000 termite mounds per square km. Some of these mounds are 5m tall. Our population is predominantly termites. I don’t see any Termite Lives Matter protests, however…
Maybe that’s the solution for net zero. Kill all of the termites which emit more than human activity many times over.
Something like early flying days and a pilot telling the passengers they must jump out, but not to worry technology might develop a parachute sometime in the future.
Sheep. Imbeciles would be willing to spend their own money to
“stop” CAGW, but poll after poll has people unwilling to spend anything at all. But as the government squanders their tax money on Rube Goldberg schemes that have no possibility of succeeding, they say nothing. If they really supported this, they would in fact be imbeciles. But they don’t, they just don’t have the backbone to publicly oppose it, lest they be called “deniers”. .
I disagree. People speak out, try to voice their opinion in newspapers, and lobby their politicians, (I have done this frequently). There are also very learned people like Professor Ian Plimer who write books and lecture on the subject. BUT no one listens. Especially the politicians. The media refuses to publish dissenting opinions and letters, but promotes the Climate Change lobbyists and so-called “scientists” ad infinitum. It’s a one way street and has been this way for fifty years. We have had two generations of school children indoctrinated with lies. These are now the voters of today. (A few months ago I met a young lady who believed 25% of all carbon emissions were from cattle and therefore we needed to go vegan and shut down the meat industry. She was taught this in school.) Is it any wonder 80% of the Australian population believes the government should take action on Climate Change? It’s all a lie and nothing good can come of it.
In an article on ‘Our ABC’ this morning it was stated by a PhD student that the average reading level of ‘the public’ is 8th grade level (she was studying the disconnect between the availability of medical data and the information gleaned from same).
If true, it’s no wonder ‘the public’/sheeple do not understand climate data/info and accept whatever the ‘leaders’ decide for our future.
The PM needs to look at what is happening in the UK & Germany to see the folly of going to net zero emissions & relying on green energy. These two countries have exorbitant power prices with their grids appearing near collapse! The latest Newspoll in Australia shows 54/46 for Labor. We need a shift to Helio coal fire power stations & Nuclear power stations for baseload energy. PM Morrison appears to follow his UK counterpart hell bent on destroying our power grid.
If there was a choice, and not pressure to cooperate with the climate hoax agendas, no Australian Government would have proceeded with a transition to renewables.
But what exactly is the form of the pressure? John Kerry will say mean things about Morrison? Talking heads on TV will say bad things about Morrison?
There are literally no consequences to telling the climate hysterics to pound sand, and, it will save the Australian government billions in “green” energy subsidies.
These politicians are just spineless wimps hoping to cash in as “consultants” for the industries they subsidize.
They’d probably lose some crucial inner city electorates if they maintained the status quo.The logic seems to be that if they plug those holes,they might still win the race which is very soon sometime in new year.Politics is a very devious game,trying to sound like you are telling the honest truth but knowing it is BS.
I believe that our closest allies the UK and the US are behind the change, meaning that during the 2019 election our Government was opposed to net zero emissions and condemned the Labor Opposition stand supporting it.
It was reported that PM Morrison while attending the last G7 Meeting refused to include net zero in a new Free Trade Agreement terms and conditions discussed with the UK PM. What did he agree with the US President and UK PM when the three of them reached agreement on the new AUKUS defence arrangements including nuclear submarine technology, long range missiles and more?
It is worrying.
pity the tree of knowledge at barcaldin got roundupped to death isnt it
cant even water it with blood now
Geoff, this is from a non-Australian, U.S. observer: No political party in the world has described a “Net-Zero” plan. Had they, they would be out of power at the next election. They know it; the pain would be so obvious that the average voter would rebel.
Your National party seems willing to give nothing (not opposing a meaningless “Net-Zero 2050 pledge” [no backup legislation]) to gain some minor, temporary political slot and a meaningless “commitment” by the other parties to voting for future money to their constituents. Your government, under pressure from its trading partners, must get some face-saving, non-enforceable “Net-Zero 2050 pledge” for COP(less)26 and is willing to offer political bribes.
Each of the Australian parties to this Kabuki Dance seems willing to go along with the others’ bullshit “commitments” to get what they perceive to be a (fleeting) political gain. Both parties will suffer from voters’ distaste of such obvious pandering. Other political parties will ultimately gain from such machinations.
This typical political concentration on short-term “gain,” ignoring long-term harm not only themselves but to your entire country’s political health. This is also all too typical in the U.S.; political cynicism has been growing and has resulted in the “third way” political movement, probably a strengthening of the Trumpism phenomena. People in the aggregate are not stupid.
After the $billions spent on renewables the return on investment will be:-
a) Global temperature will be reduced by 2C or
b) Global CO2 will drop from 0.042% to 0.02% or
c) My electricity bill will be reduced by 25% or
d) Make me feel warm and fuzzy.
Commonwealth of Australia Federal Government
Legislative Assembly
Liberal Party MPs 43
National Party MPs 10
Senate
Liberal Party Senators 30
National Party Senators 4
Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNP) 23
Here are statistics published in The Australian today: M”A sobering perspective on ‘net zero by 2050’ written by Ticky Fullerton …
“The world gets 83 per cent of its energy from fossils. For the Middle East that number is 99 per cent, Australia 91 per cent, China 87 per cent, the US 83 per cent. Germany spent 20 years turning itself green but it is still 78 per cent fossil fuels.”
“Since the first global climate meting in 1992, the world has only achieved a drop from 87 per cent to 83 per cent fossil fuels.”
In other words COP 26 in Glasgow will be another exercise in futility.
That’s if the organisers really were concerned about unnatural climate and weather variations. But we know they are not, UN Officials like Christiana Figureres have admitted that the real objective is to wreck ‘capitalism’ as the world has known it, free enterprise free markets private sectors.
COP pledges are virtue signals and every one knows it. The fact that they go through this same lie fest every time should awaken people to the real intent of those participating and should be a signal by now but the MSM hides it. All the participants want to do is placate the Green vote which I think is small. But when you’re making a coalition of minorities every minority counts.
Intersectionality.
The likelihood is that this madness will cease or become reasoned within the next 10 years as the predictions continue to fail at every step.
You simply can’t continue faking the “science” as it will come back to bite you.
EG they are running out of reasons to homogenise temperature records, the Great Barrier Reef is recovering beautifully and the poster boy Polar Bears are thriving.
Many is the time a Government has said one thing in an Election cycle and done the opposite after an Election.
Federal Elections To Come, Australia;
2022,2025,2028,2031,2034,2037,2040,2043,2046,2049 — 2052.
Ten (10) elections and how many present day MPs will still be in Parliament?
If you smarten up none of them should make 2022. What is with Aussies nowadays? They are not the people who turned desserts into productive lands for farming etc. who now look like they will abolish the farming industry? Or the people that charged at Gallipoli, the Western Desert, the jungles of Borneo and Burma. And then dare I say Peter Ridd? Shout a good fight but runaway when it starts.
2030 has it’s own targets to be met on pathway to nett zero….I reckon embrace it , as the sooner the gap between ambition and reality becomes obvious to the elites the quicker it can be ‘ replaced by a new target’
Election year looming. The whole “net zero emissions by…a certain date” is just an accounting problem.
The biggest problem for the accountants, is the elephant in the room. Quantifying, a measurable return on investment.
Exactly. This whole “net zero carbon” is a money making sc@m. It’s why the Chinese are looking at it now.
Off Topic, but perhaps a dilemma someone would like to resolve. The following comment was posted at CFACT to Dr. Wojick. Does anyone know the answer to his question?
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/22/laughing-at-climate-hysteria/#comment-5582961032
BalloonBoy David Wojick • 7 hours ago
There is an intricate specific detail of science being discussed below. Maybe more basic and not so intricate, but perhaps you can weigh in anyway.
There is a fellow named Charles Anderson who claims that climate scientists don’t understand how radiative heat transfer works. He states that it is not possible for cold objects to emit radiation that is absorbed by hotter objects. His ideas can be found in more detail here:
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/11/solving-parallel-plane-black-body.html
What I would like to call to your attention is the formula for the amounts of radiation emitted by the hot and cold plates when both are gray bodies.
Anderson writes that the radiation emitted by the hot plate to the cold plate is:
P_HI = σ ε_H T_H^4 – σ ε_C T_C^4
Now, the question is, can this possibly be correct?
If one plugs in the following numbers for a possible scenario that this formula should apply to:
TH=400K, εH=0.1, TC=300K, εC=0.9, and σ=5.67 x 10^(-8) W/(m^2 K^4)
we find that the value for P_HI is actually NEGATIVE.
So perhaps you can weigh in and comment on whether or not Anderson’s formula could possibly be correct.
Not this bollox again!
EVERY SINGLE object radiates heat if it is above 0K. The NET transfer of heat may be negative, but you can’t have negative radiation. You can’t even have zero radiation!
So according to you all the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere is radiating because it is above 0K. Can you quantify that compared to how much CO2 radiates?
What is emissivity of those three gases?
And you can have zero radiation if the object is at 0K.
Can you point out the flaws in his equation? I am not familiar with his equation and would need to study the logic to understand it.
Here is a quick calculation using his numbers producing a positive result.
 
I forgot to mention that black holes don’t radiate either. There are two examples where you can have zero radiation.
If you accept that black holes exist.
That form of equation is straight out of the Engineering handbooks for Net Radiant heat transfer. So
“ Now, the question is, can this possibly be correct?” Yes
Here is a web link with explanation on area and emissivity factors.
(Note – I manually edited the equations below so they would display correctly)
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
“Radiation Configuration FactorRadiative heat transfer rate between two gray bodies can be calculated by the equation stated below.”
Q = fa fe σ A (T1^4−T2^4)
where:
fa=is the shape factor, which depends on the spatial arrangement of the two objects (dimensionless)fe=is the emissivity factor, which depends on the emissivities of both objects (dimensionless)
The two separate terms fa and fe can be combined and given the symbol f. The heat flow between two gray bodies can now be determined by the following equation:
Q˙=f σ A (T1^4 −T2^4)
(2-13)
The symbol (f) is a dimensionless factor sometimes called the radiation configuration factor, which takes into account the emissivity of both bodies and their relative geometry. The radiation configuration factor is usually found in a text book for the given situation. Once the configuration factor is obtained, the overall net heat flux can be determined.”
DE (P.E. Retired)
If we wanted labor and green policies we would have voted them in at the last election.
An article in today’s Australian newspaper by Liberal Party (conservative party) politician Dave Sharma sums up the usual arguments used to promote ‘net zero’, viz. change is inevitable, new technologies such as ‘clean hydrogen’ ‘green steel’ and ‘green aluminium’ will provide future export income to substitute for coal and gas, that the world is already ‘decarbonising’ and if Australia doesn’t also it will be left behind.
‘Clean hydrogen’ production either generates huge quantities of CO2 or is prohibitively expensive, ‘green aluminium’ and ‘green steel’ need plentiful reliable economical electricity, in any case these are immature technologies that may never be economically profitable.
Sharma wants national policy based on wishful thinking.
There is no energy transformation and the world is not decarbonising:
Strangely Sharma doesn’t mention uranium or nuclear in his article but even if Australia started building nuclear power plants tomorrow ‘net zero’ in the next thirty years is impossible:
(Australia primary energy consumption 2017).
Sharma is not stupid, it’s inexplicable.
A good salesman, any salesman does not need to believe in what he is selling.
But an elected representative should look after the best interests of his constituents, unfortunately the Ivory Tower syndrome too often applies first and foremost.
Sharma took over Turnbull’s parliamentary seat, a very wealthy area of Sydney, maybe political survival trumps all other considerations.
He’s not stupid, he’s rotten
and in 2020, 27% of Australian electricity was from renewables…
The growth of Australia’s renewable energy industry showed no sign of slowing in 2020 as increased support from state and territory governments saw numerous records set across the large- and small-scale sectors.
The industry passed a significant milestone in 2020, with more than a quarter of the country’s total electricity generation coming from renewable sources for the first time. Much of this was due to the small-scale solar sector, which added more than 3 GW of new capacity in 2020 to record its fourth-straight record-breaking year. The large-scale sector also contributed almost 2 GW of new capacity in 2020 as 32 projects were completed around the country.
At the end of 2020, 76 large-scale wind and solar projects were under construction, representing more than 8 GW of new capacity and employing over 9000 Australian workers.
Do you have a reference for that because that is not what the graph above is saying and many households have highly subsidised rooftop solar?
“and in 2020, 27% of Australian electricity was from renewables”
On what day?
More likely between which hours of what day?
Griff when you copy / paste content from some source or other, not your own work, you’re supposed to provide a citation.
It is intermittent; get that through your thick head
Sharma’s electorate is in inner Sydney and in real danger without the Liberal’s flip to a net zero target.
That’s his reality.
”Australia looks set to take a Net Zero by 2050 pledge to COP26.”
**************************************
Is not and Will not be legislated
**************************************
In other words, it’s lip service for Cop26. ”Nothing to see here”
Not how it works. Legislation does need to be passed, as A climate change Act. Glasgow won’t be fooled by just party balloons from Australian delegation
Words from Barnaby Joyce….
”The difference between us and Labor is that they will legislate”
They threw the coal miners, and actually ever other constituent, under the bus for one bloody cabinet seat!
Typical of politicians. For an extra cabinet position, they’re ready to throw all their engagements wrt their electors overboard. And of course the other parties know it’s a poisoned gift. The people who voted for this party will let them fall at the next election,
so they probably won’t be coalition partners anymore.
This party
https://citizensparty.org.au/ourparty
has the correct policies.
As we see all the Mainstream parties fold under the witches spell, not everyone is spellbound!
Net zero, a physical impossibility.
petrol n diesel in my rural voc town are at 1.60 a litre n rising
what? affordable fuel was that? nearest town to shop for more than basics is 200km round trip over 1/4 tank fuel=40$ or so
Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, a 10% albedo not 30%, a barren rock ball hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot not cold. That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE “288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler ice ball”
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as analog for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut MMU w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
Trenberth atmospheric heat balance model (TFK_bams09.pdf (ucar.edu)) and dozens of clones.
Fact 3: Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Conclusion:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
An absolutely disgraceful decision. A complete sell-out of the nation to the UN. For me Joyce and Morrison are no different to Whitlam. All three want/wanted to destroy the nation.
It could be worse, you could have this monster…….
New Zealand Prime Minister Admits it is Her Intention to Create Two Purposeful Classes of Citizens, Vaccinated and UnvaccinatedOctober 24, 2021 | Sundance | 366 Comments
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is the most adored leader amid global leftists. She is worshiped and praised by leftists, globalists, socialists and those who love big government around the world. Arden is unapologetic in her views that government should rule the citizens.
Recently, the mad queen of smiley-faced fascism was asked if her national vaccination mandate was intended to create two classes of citizens in New Zealand, vaccinated and unvaccinated. The Prime Minister did not flinch before gleefully exclaiming that is entirely her objective, “Yup, that’s exactly what it is, yep.” WATCH:
https://youtu.be/17PZ1MvgDTM
I watched some of the interview at another YouTube channel. She’s dangerous but NZers won’t object.
I live in a Red state in the U.S. Nobody I know would allow ourselves to be treated anywhere close to that way for a minute. The first time a rogue cop body slammed an innocent person face first into the sidewalk as was done at the station in Melbourne, two dozen or more men would be on him and his comrades with a vengeance and would make a citizen’s arrest and hold them until REAL police could arrive and haul them to jail.
We are not hot heads or prone to violence, but neither are we cowards or serfs to be ruled over with abandon by tyrants. If things don’t improve on the national scene soon, it may be up to us to restore our Republic by whatever means is necessary, and if that involves forming militias from the thousands of military and law enforcement veterans being booted out of their jobs along with political leaders still loyal to the Constitution, bring it on. We could provide our own security and if bureaucrats tried to impose unconstitutional “mandates” or “rules” on us, we could reject their intrusions and ignore their tyranny. The Governor of Florida has threatened to arrest any federal agents Biden tries to send into his state to enforce his unconstitutional mandates. We believe in Federalism. The STATES formed the FEDERAL government and gave it limited powers, not the other way around. The 10th Amendment gives the authority to the states and the individual citizens for everything not specifically enumerated to the federal government, and nothing Biden has mandated is listed anywhere in the Constitution, Article 1 or anywhere else.
The elites probably wouldn’t know how to survive if all the blue collar workers refused to provide any services to them. Pressure on them would translate to pressure on state capitals and to D.C. If a monumental sea change doesn’t occur with the 2022 mid term elections and our liberties restored, it might get pretty sporty for the globalists. As one person said, “We know where you live, and we are not averse to doing to you and your families what you are doing to ours…not a threat, just an observation.”
Cool-aid all around then.
In Ireland the climate alarmists are stabbing both our farmers and the public in the back without any proper cost benefit analysis of their loony policies.
“Christensen attended the meeting remotely wearing a “support coal” T-shirt.”
Brings back memories of a ‘laid-back’ parliament.
In 1995 I spent six weeks in Australia. Was driving from Brisbane to Melbourne to visit some young friends, passed through Canberra. Radio on, listening to a broadcast from Parliament House. “If the hairy-chested gentleman from across the aisle would care to step outside…” I almost ran off the road laughing.
I guess they’re a little more up-tight these days.
Do they regret this ill-conceived decision from the past?…South Australia nps west coal bunker and tower demolition
No, they’re doubling down. They’re currently surviving by taking coal electricity from Victoria and NSW, but Victoria and NSW want to get rid of their coal as well.
I think the western “democracies” have been so thoroughly captured, voting is becoming meaningless.
Rocks and hard places.
The Nationals should have withdrawn their support for the Coalition. Scotty would then have to grow a spine and have a point of difference with the Labor Party. As it is the Liberals just implement the Labor Party policy but “better”. We know we can’t trust the Liberals but now two thirds of the Nationals are sell outs as well. There is a general election in six months and the Coalition will be slaughtered. BTW. Australian elections are paper ballots, hand counted and heavily scrutinised so very secure. What you get is what the people voted for. There are several minor conservative parties which will take votes from the Coalition and to a lesser extent Labor. The idiot Greens will keep their 10% in line with the brain dead socialists/communists that continue to vote for them.