TRUMP ON DEEP STATE'S USAID, DEEP CHURCH BISHOPS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, Fb Messenger or X (Twitter). Protestant rants are uncalled for and unwelcome.

'Pope Francis' leveraged by USAID in globalist interests 

If ever a man were asking for it, that man is US President Donald Trump. What he seems to be asking for, by declaring war on the Deep State, is his own assassination. He accepts the risk, he's prepared for it and he credits the failed attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania for deepening his faith in God.  

Not only does he take on the Deep State, but in defunding USAID (aka the CIA) and revealing that the No 1 recipients of NGO USAID funding - to the tune of $4.6 billion - were the US Catholic Bishops, he's also opening the Pandora's Box of Deep Church. US Government documents show that 'Pope Francis' has been leveraged to serve the globalist agenda. Hundreds of thousands of children sex-trafficked across 'Catholic' President Biden's open borders have gone missing: cardinals and bishops could face investigation, audits, indictment and arrests. Dr Taylor Marshall reckons they are "stunned". https://youtu.be/ldJla3TZ0p8

What will the US bishops do when the funding rug gets pulled from under their feet? Go cap in hand to the faithful, whose churches they closed, whose sacraments they denied, whose sex abuse they ignored? 

The faithful can only pray for a future orthodox pope to cleanse the Church as Trump and Vance are cleansing the State; for a pope who will ban Eucharistic Prayers 2,3 and 4. And Prayers of the Faithful and Communion in the hand. And so-called 'Eucharistic Ministers' and altar girls. 

And ask that the role of USAID in post-Vatican II papal conclaves be uncovered.

Fake Bishop Tamaki doing the real bishops' job once more

 

President Donald Trump announced the creation of a White House Faith Office on Thursday while approving a task force aimed at eradicating “anti-Christian bias” across the U.S.

“I really believe you can’t be happy without religion, without that belief,” Trump said. “Let’s bring religion back, let’s bring God back into our lives.”

At the National Prayer Breakfast today in Washington D.C., Trump said he is instructing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to root out any and all persecution of Christians in America.

 

“The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government, including at the DOJ, which was absolutely terrible, the IRS, the FBI, terrible, and other agencies,” he said. 

Tells you something about NZ's MSM riff-raff

 

Trump clarified that the purpose of the agency will be to “fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society and to move heaven and earth to defend the rights of Christians and religious believers nationwide.”

 

Just hours after being sworn in on Wednesday, Bondi announced the formation of the “Weaponization Working Group.” Its purpose is to review Biden-era targeting of Catholics, pro-lifers, President Trump himself, as well as other religious and conservative Americans.

 

 

Trump also told attendees he would be forming a White House Faith Office to be led by Evangelical Paula White.

 

It's a step in the right direction. Towards the famed exorcist Fr Chad Ripperger, for instance. 

White, a noted Zionist and longtime ally of Trump, was tapped by him to lead a near-identical initiative in 2018 called the Faith and Opportunity Initiative, which Joe Biden scrapped upon assuming office in 2021.

Trump spoke at two events that are associated with the National Prayer Breakfast today, one of which was held on Capitol Hill while the at the D.C. Hilton Hotel.

Trump notably referenced the failed assassination attempt made on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year.

 

“I believed in God, but I feel, I feel much more strongly about it. Something happened,” he said. “It was God that saved me."https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-speaks-at-national-prayer-breakfast-lets-bring-god-back-into-our-lives/

 

 

St Romuald, Abbot, please pray for the Church 

$15M PARIS ACCORD, HATE CRIME, TIKANGA FOR TEETH: NO!

To comment pleaae open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

 

Unless the Coalition Govt wakes up from its Woke Global wet dream

 Let's not tear our hair out just yet, people. Even when National asks for advice on 'hate crime' legislation which could never work. Even when they gave away $15 million New Zealand doesn't have, on climate change which is nonexistent. And nearly $30 million to UNRWA for Hamas' little helpers in Gaza. Even when our corrupt socialist judiciary say you must learn Maori tikanga before you can sell real estate or clean people's teeth. Even when Te Pati Maori are thrilled to bits at ACT's leader being deplatformed at Waitangi.  

Who can possibly tell anyone's motivation for anything? You can't.  We exercise our judgment on others' deeds but not on why they did those deeds. A government's first duty is to protect its own people. Giving people preferential treatment because of the colour of their skin is not Christian. That's all Catholicism 101 but Catholics don't know it because the NZ Bishops don't teach Church doctrine, they teach 'social justice'.

Meanwhile US President Trump is dismantling USAID and the Africans applaud him. And he's defunding UNRWA. And Planned Parenthood. And the Paris Accord - like India, Russia and China, whose products are still selling like hot cakes and so would New Zealand's. David Seymour's suggesting the next election be fought over the globalists' Paris Accord. It can be done. 

 

 

Despite canning unworkable and incredibly unpopular 'hate speech' laws at the beginning of their term, the National Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, has instructed the Law Commission to prepare advice on creating 'hate crime' laws in New Zealand. Yesterday, they released the consultation document.

 

It baffles me as to why this Government would pursue such a fool's errand. 

 

You likely don't need me to tell you, the inherent weakness of 'hate speech' laws is also found in 'hate crime' laws: it's impossible to objectively decide what 'hate' means. 

 

Put simply, there is no logical reason to support ‘hate crime’ laws, but reject ‘hate speech’ laws. They both come from the same faulty assumption that the government can simply make ‘hate’ illegal.

 

When Canada passed C-250, a ‘hate crime’ law in the mid-2000s, the bill’s sponsor MP Svend Robinson argued that it did not go far enough as it did not include ‘hate speech.’ Subsequent laws in Canada have fulfilled Robinson’s wish.

 

Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have each shown the folly of trying to address division in this way. 

 

Scotland, the land of Braveheart  
https://x.com/SpeechUnion/status/1857803685100744883

 

If this Government accepts advice to create ‘hate crime’ laws, ‘hate speech’ laws will be passed within the next five years, and NZ Police will be mandated to suppress ‘wrong speech'. 

 

Together, tens of thousands of Kiwis pushed back against the Government trying to outlaw 'hate' previously. Up against a majority Government (the first in a generation), we defeated laws that would have been a death knell for free speech in New Zealand. 

 

And that's exactly what we have to do again.  

 

 

If we don't win this one, the implications for tomorrow are clear. Just look at what 'hate crime' laws have done in Canada, what non-criminal 'hate' incidents have done in the UK, and how the Government has regulated online speech in Australia.

 

We have stood in their way to accomplish the same in New Zealand; let's do it again.

What actually makes a ‘hate crime’ different to other crimes? 

 

Being ‘tough on hate’ certainly makes us feel like we’re achieving something. Laws usually act to some degree as deterrents for criminal behaviour. But as I told Whena Owen from Q+A, ‘hate crime’ is unavoidably subjective.

 

For instance, was the attack on a Treaty of Waitangi display at Te Papa Museum in 2023 a ‘hate crime’?

 

When pro-Palestinian protestors threw red paint on an MP's office, was that a 'hate crime'?

 

What about a car doing burnouts on the rainbow crossing on K-Road? 

 

If you feel inclined to brand one a ‘hate crime’ but not the other, this ought to be reason for caution.

 

John Key signed us up. Then took off.

 

Without some broad agreement as a society on what we deem ‘hateful’, we’re treading on shaky ground. Who gets to call it?

Calling it is the business of the Catholic Church, but what we have in New Zealand instead of the Catholic Church is the post-conciliar, Novus Ordo Synodal Bergoglian sect. The Church still exists as it always will, but only in pockets of traditional Catholicism, here and there, where the Traditional Latin Catholic Mass is celebrated. The Mystical Spouse of Christ is no longer fronted by the socialist NZ Conference of Catholic Bishops.  

In NZ law, intent – what someone seeks to do – and motive – why they do it – are already central factors in determining guilt and sentencing. Though not always easy to prove, these two factors can be reasonably demonstrated to a court.

 But figuring out which crimes we call hateful is impossible in reality. Some acts may well seem obvious – fire bombing a synagogue or viciously assaulting a man because of his skin colour might easily fit the bill. But beyond these sorts of cases, things get tricky.

 

 

We can be against crime that is hateful, yet still against ‘hate crimes’ laws that will only give a big stick to those who want to beat, not just criminal activity, but wrong-thought. 

https://freespeechunion.org/doctors-and-vicars-accused-of-non-crime-hate-incidents/

 

Aside from the obvious use of the word ‘hate’, which elicits a strong emotional response from the public, there is no evidence that ‘hate crime’ laws have reduced the sort of offences they were designed to address. Laws of this kind in the UK has been a prime example of this failure.

 

In fact, evidence increasingly suggests that such laws have actually been counter-productive in combatting the kinds of extremism they were supposed to address.

 

Preserving an open society where thought and speech are free, and everyone is held accountable under the same rules - that is the best path to fighting hate. Jonathan Ayling, Free Speech Union

 

 

St Agnes, Virgin and Martyr, pray for us 

 

5TH PRIEST CANCELLED FOR CALLING FRANCIS ANTIPOPE

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter). Protestant rants are not posted on this page.

 

Benedict XV Klaus Schwab, WEF

"The coming of a world state is longed for by all the worst, most distorted elements. It would banish all national loyalties. No acknowledgement would be made of the authority of a father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror.” Pope Benedict XV, “Bonum Sane” (1920).

So one century on, "these ideas" are indeed being put into practice, and by none other than the man millions of Catholics - cardinals, bishops, priests and lay people - still call 'Pope Francis', whom the "worst, most distorted elements" want to see running the New World Church. But for all sorts of reasons Jorge Mario Bergoglio is in fact an antipope, and more and more faithful priests are finding the courage to say so. Five so far, all in Italy. Another called Bergoglio 'anti-Christ' and his congregation clapped.

More and more lay people will follow these white martyr priests into the light of truth. Vide the clamorous applause on this page to America's President Donald Trump's defunding of the US Bishops' 'Catholic' Charities Foundation, and their near-unanimous refusal to bail out those venal prelates. Watch how Trump's cleansing of America's Democrat Augean Stables plays out as faithful Catholics desert the post-conciliar, Novus Ordo, Synodal Bergoglian sect to return to the Mystical Body of Christ.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/bee7c4df-b762-4341-84ff-f68ba26a8b4b?shareToken=b6e8caebd2476baed68c8dd79cb0ef6f

 

Father Natale Santonocito has joined the ranks of priests punished for doubting that Francis is Pope. They include Father Giorgio Maria Faré, Father Fr. Fernando Cornet, and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

 

Father Natale Santonocito has been  excommunicated just for telling the truth, namely, that Bergoglio is not the legitimate pope, but an antipope, because of the clearly documented impeded see of Benedict XVI.

 

https://youtu.be/8QIdUK-1aFU

 

In Italy there has been carnage among priests who offer themselves to the sacrifice of being excommunicated or reduced to the lay state so that they may pierce the mafia-like wall of silence that dominates the mainstream.

 

 

Fr Santonocito

 

In 2024, before Fr. Santonocito’s punishment, it was the turn of the esteemed Carmelite theologian Father Giorgio Maria Faré. He was preceded by Fr. Fernando Cornet, the author of the volume Habemus antipapam? Both these priests had argued that there is a Bergoglio antipapacy. All the priests were sanctioned without being challenged on the merits of the issue. 

 

On December 8, Fr. Natale, a 61-year-old priest from the diocese of Palestrina, near Rome, posted on his social channel a rather succinct statement, conveying the message by listing a few objective truths:

https://youtu.be/_R54UEucHP8

In just 12 minutes, Father Natale outlined the main canonical reasons concerning the non-abdication of Benedict XVI and the consequent invalidity of Francis’ election.

 

After talking about the patent falsifications in the original Latin version (they changed commissum into commisso) and in foreign languages (in German the munus-Amt swapped places with the ministerium-Dienst), Fr. Natale dealt with the substantive error (Pope Benedict’s failure to renounce the munus), specifying that Bergoglio’s heresies are just an obvious consequence of both not being the legitimate Pope and not having the Petrine munus, the divine investiture that assures the Vicar of Christ of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit. (Could someone please make Bishop Strickland understand this?)

 

 

The pagans are bemused by this

 

Benedict XVI, with that famous “resignation” of Feb 11 2013, had retraced the footsteps of Him, whose Vicar he was: with his Declaratio, Benedict said, “Some of you will betray me.” Then Cardinal Sodano also gave the famous “kiss” at the end of the declaration; Benedict was dethroned, confined, and exiled as stated in Canon 412 on the totally impeded see.

 

He decided to call himself “pope emeritus,” an entirely new formula for which we have also given an explanation through pictures. It is nothing more than a euphemism for “impeded pope.”

 

Bishop Gaenswein, whom Benedict placed under the seal of papal secrecy, as he himself admitted during a conference in Sabbioneta, has been trying for years to make us understand in every way the reality, as in this famous speech at Lumsa University:

https://youtu.be/BZtk7NuEGe4

 

So now could he excommunicate Fr Marko Rupnik???

Recently we published here on LSN the document that explains how the Declaratio was actually a “decisio,” a juridical decree that can be issued by the Pope for the most serious crimes against the faith. With that judgment, Benedict XVI excommunicated and put into schism the “handful of cardinals responsible for the misdeed,” that is, the authors of the 2013 coup d’état, including Bergoglio.

(T)he Declaratio of Benedict XVI dated 11 February 2013 was released, at that time, by Vatican sources in an artfully manipulated way, both in the original Latin and in its translations, to be given out to the people as the Pope’s determinative act of abdication.

In actual fact, it was completely different. It was a declaratory judgement, that is, a criminal decree [1] that the Pontiff issues for the three major crimes against the faith: heresy, apostasy, and schism. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/exclusive-the-benedict-code-author-says-late-popes-declaratio-was-not-an-abdication/?utm_source=most_recent&amp%3Butm_campaign=usa&amp%3Bfbclid=IwY2xjawIHQm9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdOC_I2qluio3zf7lstt-cUze2MSNbsW52NiJP7rG6hv

 

A petition signed by 1,852 faithful was delivered to Bishop Parmeggiani so that he would withdraw the suspension a divinis imposed on Father Natale immediately after his public statement. The signatories demanded that either the priest be challenged on the merits of the allegations, or  that the sanction against him be lifted.

 

Instead Parmeggiani punished Father Natale by misapplying canon laws n.751 and n.1364, which excommunicate those who refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff. However, Bergoglio is not the Supreme Pontiff, as is evident from the combination of the articles 76 and 77 of the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis.

 

If Pope Benedict’s renunciation was not made in compliance with Canon 332.2, the subsequent election was null and void, without any intervening declaration in this regard.

However, a copy of the petition to Bishop Parmeggiani had been sent, along with the others, to the Secretariat of State, and the return receipt of the document sent to Cardinal Pietro Parolin has been received.

 

Now those in the Secretariat of State can no longer say they do not know the truth. The next legitimate pope will one day also deal with Bishop Parmeggiani, who excommunicated a priest-martyr who told the truth to defend the Church.

 

 

 

The situation is terrible: the canonical reality is explosively obvious. It would take only a couple of minutes to have the antipope arrested according to Canon 1375 (usurpation of ecclesiastical office), and yet the truth is being kept under wraps not only by Bergoglians, but also by traditionalist hierarchies who prefer to speak of a “heretical Pope Francis” (horribly offending the Holy Spirit) than to break the bank and purify the Church for good, as Pope Benedict envisioned.

 

This is the typical vice of that clerical church that always tries to avoid scandal at all costs. We have seen with the sexual abuse cases how useful this strategy of “truncate and sooth, sooth and truncate” can be.

 

Still, some cardinals are beginning to understand. Cardinal Robert Sarah, to whom we sent a 5,000-signature petition a few weeks ago, responded in a recent interview to the arrogant question of the journalist Riccardo Cascioli, asking what he would reply to those “emotionalists who say that there is no Pope” in an interesting way.

 

Cardinal Sarah used a complex system of periphrasis precisely to avoid saying that “there is a Pope, and he is Francis.” He did not even mention him. Instead, he called for remaining united with the Church—which is what we who want to get rid of the usurping antipope by following the norms of canon law do. We witnessed something different with Cardinal Raymond Burke, whose secretariat deleted the study on the decisio without even reading it. 

 

Meanwhile, while the pre-2013 cardinals hesitate to fulfill their duty, the one enshrined in Article 3 of the UDG, i.e., the duty to enforce at all costs the rights of the Apostolic See, on the battlefield of this latest, eschatological anti-papal war, these brave little priests continue to fall as cannon fodder, doing their duty by giving their lives for their flock of souls.

RELATED: Is Francis really the Pope? — the DebateAnother Italian priest excommunicated for denying Francis is Pope - LifeSite

 

CLIMATE CHANGE CRAP: NATS NUKING NZ

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter). 

John Key's come out of the closet; he's chummed up with China

Forget Batshit Bonkers Britain (pace, Katie Hopkins); we need to talk about Nats Nuking New Zealand. And not so much Nats as in national but international. As in global. As in Davos, WEF, UN, WHO and all the criminal cronies fixated on Climate Change who've recruited Christopher Luxon just the same way they recruited Jacinda Ardern who collected a Damehood for services rendered.

So New Zealand's now signed up to the Green New Scam Net Zero nonsense that will drive our farmers to the wall and cost the country up to $24 BILLION. While Trump who calls it a hoax seems to have God on his side, dodging bullets and fixing global warming with massive snowfalls in Florida and the 'Gulf of America'. Oops sorry, since the earth stopped warming in the 2000s it's called climate change, to keep Carbon $Taxes coming. And it's not even as if it'll do anything to reduce the dreaded emissions.

While the US Dept of Ag is scrubbing climate change and the Trump withdraws from the Paris Climate Accord, New Zealand which depends on agriculture licks the globalist boots with enough taxpayer dollars to pay for a dozen Dunedin hospitals. And there's Luxon throwing millions we don't have at that little crook Kelenskyy. Te Pati Maori complains about debate deterioration in the circus they and the Greens have made of Parliament and say caring more for children's safety than their ancestry is 'abhorrent' while the Greens complain about complaints made about migrants while wanting to kill off our native unborn.  

Which bring to mind the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference. While New Zealand 'doctors' and 'nurses' legally murder the unborn by the thousand the bishops busy themselves with yet another new lectionary - in a Church which must not change because the truth cannot change. And Luxon V for Very Ltd simply replaces our homegrown citizens with aliens. 

Luxon talks about 'human-induced climate change'. We're talking about  human-induced divine retribution. 

NB: Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick (top l), unmasked

 

A decision announced late Thursday night by the Climate Change Minister is nothing short of economic sabotage. In terms of our kids and grandkids enjoying first-world living standards, it's quite literally worse than any decision taken by Jacinda Ardern or James Shaw. 

 

It took everyone by surprise. My heart sank.

 

I appreciate that reasonable minds can differ on the urgency of climate change – but I think you'll agree that sacrificing New Zealand's economy for no material effect in emissions is the ultimate own goal.

 

In short the Government has just locked in the Ardern/Shaw anti-farming legacy, and signed New Zealand up for a brand new (2035) commitment that will see thousands of dollars for every man, woman, and child sent overseas for climate credits.

In 2021  James Shaw and Jacinda Ardern signed New Zealand up to a climate change/emissions target of a net reduction in emissions of 50 percent (compared to 2005) by 2030.

 

At the time, no meaningful economic analysis, public consultation, or debate occurred. 

 

 In fact, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment voiced their concerns saying “we are concerned that insufficient analysis has been undertaken to understand the fiscal and social impacts” of a 45 percent reduction target, let alone the 50 percent that Ardern and Shaw secretly agreed...

 

The politicians just took this decision because, in their gut, they just felt it was the right thing to do. 

 

And what caused particular angst was that the targets NZ signed up to include agricultural emissions (i.e. methane, or cow farts). Short of culling cows (and tanking New Zealand's largest export industry), those emissions are impossible to avoid.

 

No other developed country faces the same problem. Because of our small population and disproportionate reliance on agriculture, New Zealand's emissions makeup is more akin to a developing country, which, under the UN Paris Agreement, doesn't have to cut emissions in the same way as we have signed up to.

 

Even if we could cut agricultural emissions, it would be pointless in terms of improving global warming: New Zealand's agricultural sector is the most emissions-efficient in the world. Any calories/meat/milk-powder New Zealand doesn't produce will be done elsewhere, and likely result in an overall increase in emissions.

 

These were the points made by the 'groundswell' farming protests, Federated Farmers, and even the National Party when they were in opposition!

 

To put the 50 percent net reduction target into perspective, half of New Zealand's emissions relate to agriculture!

 

So that leaves non-agricultural emissions.

 

Thanks to Covid, in 2020 New Zealand shut down most of the economy to lockdown for months. Despite the Covid shutdown, official data^† shows that emissions declined by only three percent that year!

 

"So what's it all about, Alfie?"

So the idea New Zealand can or will get to a 50 percent reduction by 2030 is absolutely fanciful. To hit the 2030 target emissions would have to fall by five percent per year!

How much is the 2030 target going to cost households? There are lots of variables that go into forecasting where New Zealand's emissions are going to be in five year's time (e.g. the strength of the economy, how many trees are planted, whether we get wet winters and hydro lakes get rain etc). But what Ardern/Shaw signed us up for means that missing the target (and there is absolutely no doubt we will miss it) determines how much New Zealand is going to have to cough up and pay for international emission units. Last year Treasury worked out what New Zealand is on the hook for.  Up to $24 billion is the latest official estimate for the 2030 deadline. To put that into perspective, $24 billion is more than the current cost of NZ Super. $12,000 per household! And that's not even counting the cost of lost economic growth, higher energy costs, and lost exports. These numbers are unbelievable. It's a dozen Dunedin Hospitals. Or 34 times larger than the total new spending allowance Nicola Willis has set for this year's Government budget. Because the payment isn't due until 2030, it's just outside the Treasury's "forecast horizon" so doesn't yet appear on any of the Government's fiscals.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it's Ardern and Shaw's ticking time fiscal time bomb. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced that he is committing New Zealand to even harder targets for 2035! Simon Watts is set to sign NZ up for a second eye-watering bill for 2035. Once signed-up, it means New Zealand will have to pay a second time for a target that Christopher Luxon / the National Party have previously said is totally achievable! It's bad enough that New Zealand is hopelessly off track when it comes to meeting the existing 2030 target, and the $24 billion bill left by Ardern and Shaw, but to do it all over again is nothing short of economic sabotage. Why haven't the media covered this? Newsrooms are a fraction of the size they used to be, and those who are left are probably so young they either don't understand the economics or are so committed to extreme views of 'climate change mitigation at any cost' that they just don't care. And, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the only reason Simon Watts' office would wait until 8:30 pm on a Thursday night is so that the morning radio shows are already planned and there won't be 'breaking news' style coverage. It speaks volumes that Watts waited until after Parliament rose for the week, and with Parliament in recess next week, by the time political journos get back to work, the news will have moved on. As far as I can see, with the exception of the Taxpayers' Union, Federated Farmers, and other watchdog and industry groups, this announcement has been totally missed! If there is any chance for the economy to get back on track, we must ensure Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters, and David Seymour, overrule Simon Watts and set a realistic target.  While the USA has pulled out, and other countries hedge their bets, why is Luxon's Government doubling down?  Last week, the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement, and with the UK’s ‘net zero’ intentions in question (their Labour Government is 'going for growth' too!),  it makes no sense for the New Zealand government to sign up for a second round of ‘ambitious’, sorry, 'impossible' targets if they are serious about growing the economy. Simon Watts has got this one wrong. Introducing more ambitious targets to smash the economy harpoons Christopher Luxon's attempts to 'Go for Growth'.  Luxon was an advisor to Ardern and tried to join Labour before National But something needs to be done about climate change, right? New Zealand is already one of the most emissions-efficient countries in the world. More than 80 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources. Our farmers are the most emissions-efficient at what they do. We already have an emissions trading scheme that covers more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country in the world. Of course, we need to keep up the momentum, but it's not right to say we're not already 'doing our bit'. Paying the rest of the world billions of dollars serves to make New Zealand poor – it doesn't serve to solve global warming when the US, China, and Russia are not part of the same agreement/commitment. Christopher Luxon gets this – well he did when he was Opposition Leader anyway. The $24 billion dollar cheque could buy 12 Dunedin Hospitals. It could build 16 Transmission Gully Motorways. It could build 40,000 new school classrooms. It could even be used to fund more in-country climate initiatives! Climate Change Minister Watts (two horns on his forehead edited out) Simon Watts just turned the $24 billion liability into a potential $48 billion liability. It's economic sabotage on a grand scale.  In a country cancelling infrastructure, health, and education investment due to the fiscal crisis can we really afford to burn billions on an unobtainable climate target?  If this decision stands, Mr Luxon (and the country) is destined to fail. Peter Williams <team@taxpayers.org.nz>

             

 "A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel"

-Gospel, Feast of the Purification