Winston Peters revisits contentious social issues, National and Labour unveil business and banking policies, ACT clash with the Greens over tax, and senior party figures trade blows in finance and post-debate exchanges.
Peters revisits NZ First culture-war positions
NZ First leader Winston Peters says his party opposed the conversion-practices law and hopes it can be overturned or revisited. He defended NZ First’s push to legally define men and women, saying, “There’s only ever been two variants, male and female.” On abortion, Peters said it can, depending on timing, “shade into” murder or assassination. On puberty blockers, he said politicians and the public, not the courts, should decide the issue. Watch Peters’ full 50-minute interview with Family First.
National unveils small-business policy
National has unveiled a small-business policy, with a 47-point plan covering regulation, tax, investment and employment. National’s plan to support Small Businesses – National Party
Labour takes aim at the big banks
Labour has announced plans to make it easier for new players to enter the banking market to compete with the major banks if they offered more digital services such as digital wallets and payments. Banking for Everyone – NZ Labour, Holyhekatuiteka on X and see RCR’s Action Tracker on CBDCs.
ACT attacks Greens over tax
ACT leader David Seymour has criticised Green co-leader Marama Davidson following comments at a Rotorua public meeting, arguing the Greens’ tax policies could drive successful business owners and investment offshore.
Finance debate
National finance spokeswoman Nicola Willis and Labour finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds have faced off in an RNZ finance debate, covering the economy, government spending, tax and their parties’ plans for the country’s finances.
Post-debate clash
National campaign chairman Simeon Brown and Labour campaign chairman Kieran McAnulty have clashed in a post-debate panel, with the pair trading accusations over their leaders’ performances.
This story has been republished with permission from RCR Bites. For news like this direct and free to your Inbox every day, go to biteme.news to sign up for RCR Bites.
If you are a media outlet interested in republishing RCR Bites stories, please contact inbox@rcr.media.
The foreign New Zealand Company Church Parliament is having a field day writing the script for their puppets to follow.
Where’s the coverage of the Freedom Party and the New Zealand Loyal Party???
Defining men and women, saying, “There’s only ever been two variants, male and female.”
And hermaphrodite?
Is calling a hermaphrodite a man or a woman discriminatory?
I don’t think they can have children (biological)?
Reducing them to “a man” or “a woman” is reductive- it picks one side and erases the other
That’s not “sexist” in the political sense, but it is inaccurate and dismissive of what they actually are physically
Male female (biological)- man and woman (gender)
Then there is the racial aspect- man mankind Adam the Adam Jews being separate in all instances
An interesting delve into what is normally not delved into
Perhaps some rock scientist of boffin could explain it all to us?
See how Chippy a good lieutenant got confused and what he had trouble answering
And what Winnie has inadvertently answered correctly
Genesis 1:27 backs Winnie up (Adamites aw-dawm) bara
“So ELOHEEM created man in his own image, in the image of ELOHEEM created he him; male and female created he them.” (he them plural)
Another aspect to this is political correctness
I say for example “She is a very good looking female girl or woman”
Or vice versa not being that way inclined
When really I cannot say that
Because I do not really know if they are a female woman or girl or the opposite sex
Which is political correctness on steroids but showing how ridiculous and unhinged things can become
So unless there is a physical inspection you don’t really know and may find what has prompted this discussion in the first instance
But anyway whatever
These are the rules of thumb so to speak and what matters
There are only two things that exist: ELOHEEM origin heaven Creation origin earth
ELOHEEM here to get a Life Creation here living a Life now
Life precedes eternal Death – ‘the’ Death precedes eternal Life
I put Genesis 2:7 to AI
Where YAHWAH God breathed the breath of life into the Word who was transformed into becoming ‘the’ Adam (definite article) at which point the Shakina not being able to exist in flesh departed for heaven and he became a living person a dichotomy a spirit and a soul
AI was still trying to formulate an answer 3 hours latter when I last looked
‘Formed’ previously existed Holy Sanctified- White Adamic- yāṣar
Why is AI having this problem?
Because AI like your friendly corner kike fake christian church has been programmed by and to accept Judaism and churns out the same snake oil (Jewish fables)
That the Spirit and the Soul are the same entity when in fact they are not being two entirely different things
“We are one” ah NO in more ways than one
Finger pointing clown show. No vote for any of you.