The first rule of government

65 countries either are building walls or have existing walls

by David Moffett

The first rule of government is to protect its people and its borders. Anyone reading this who values New Zealand?s heritage, our freedoms of speech and of association, will find it difficult to argue with.

Then of course there is the Left. Not all on the left want to go down the path of communism and socialism, because they too see that it is impossible to name a country where that experiment has been successful. Even Russia and China have realized that capitalism is the way to increased prosperity for their people. I certainly don?t agree with their dictatorial approach, but they have rock solid borders and protect their people.

That is no longer the case in New Zealand. By signing the Compact for Migration and by agreeing to articles 20, 21 and 30, Ardern and Peters have thrown us under the UN juggernaut. If you would like to revisit the original Charter of the UN it can be found here.?I found two main points of interest when reading it.

  1. Most of the Charter deals with aggression and threats of war and the intention of the UN to be a peace keeping force. They have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
  2. Point 7 says ?Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.?

On the basis of 2. above, the UN has no authority, binding or non-binding, to interfere in our sovereign right to control our borders. We will make those decisions without their interference.

So how has it come to pass that the UN thinks it can tell us what to do? Simply, it is a bulging bureaucracy full of unelected people who are trying to redefine a New World Order. They continually talk of a World Government where all countries should cede their sovereignty to a central power. That central power would be run by the likes of Obama, Merkel, May, Macron, Turnbull, Ardern, Soros, big banks, big business and the media. Putting aside the issue of migration and illegal migration, the re-purpose of the UN should send alarm bells ringing right around the world.

On the issue of the Compact for Migration, the Left seem to be peddling a view that this deliberate attempt to interfere in our affairs is non-binding, as are the articles mentioned above. The UN themselves accept that these so called non-binding agreements are essentially soft laws. ?Soft law? refers to rules that are neither strictly binding in nature nor completely lacking legal significance, in the context of international law.

So here is where it gets just a little messy for the Left. Here are three sections of the Compact for Migration that have a significant effect on New Zealand now that Peters has signed it, on behalf of us the people, without any disclosure or discussion. Information that it had been signed by Peters was released at the very last minute before the Christmas break. They hoped it would be forgotten in the New Year. We?ve got news for them. Their treachery will never be forgotten.

  1. The Compact on Migration document promises it is ?not legally binding? and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN?s efforts and implement its suggestions at home ? a soft law.
  2. The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the ?well-being of migrants?, including illegal immigrants, must come first ? a soft law.?
  3. The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law. The UN treaty doesn?t so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens ? who are often ignored ? a soft law.

New Zealand must come first.

Whichever way you want to look at it, these soft laws are binding. If an illegal migrant attempts to land in our country and is rightly denied access, they will immediately point to the fact that we are signatories to the Compact for Migration and will seek entry through the courts.

Three groups will be doing cartwheels over the signing of this Compact:

1. The majority of members of the UN, who are dictators and criminals and who have now been given the green light to export their people to Western countries in the name of migration. We are told the number is 53 million from Africa alone. They see the Compact as a one-way system of migration.

2. Those Western countries that side with Merkel, Macron and Obama, who see this as an opportunity to impose a New World Order on the world. They wish to see their communist/socialist ideology cemented by virtue of the migration dominated ballot box.

3. People smugglers and slave traders who have now been given open slather to profit immensely from the misery of others. This group, which is already active in all parts of the world, represent the most evil aspect of this Compact. One has to wonder whether they are being aided and abetted by the first two groups.

We will not rest until the people of New Zealand are made aware of this Compact, so that they can form their own views. This is a right which, thus far, has been denied to them by the government.