🇺🇸 👨‍⚖️ Trump. Obama. Clinton. Biden.

These two men are the real power…   [New Trading View Logo]( [New Trading View Logo]( [“Always give your best effort even when the odds are against you.” — Arnold Palmer]( Editor's Note: Occasionally, an opportunity comes to our attention at New Trading View we believe readers like you will find valuable. The message below from one of our partners is one we believe you should take a close look at. Name any politician… Chances are [these two men]( influence them. [The Two Men Destroying America]( For two decades, through both Democrat and Republican tenures, these two unelected men have been steering the U.S. towards their dystopian vision. [And what they have planned next will shake you to your core](... They’re engineering a financial and economic reset that could result in your retirement account, stock portfolio, and wealth being wiped out. It may be the single greatest threat facing retirees and investors. I’m not talking about a market crash, inflation, or a recession… [This is far more destructive.]( It could cripple our country, our economy, and potentially end America as we know it. Yet, you’ve probably never heard a whisper of this looming reset. That’s why it’s critical you watch legendary financial analyst Porter Stansberry’s new exposé now – before it’s too late. [→ Click here to stream it now at no cost.]( You’ll discover how these two men are steering the U.S economy, financial system, and your wealth towards the edge of a cliff… all so they can achieve their utopian dystopian vision. Click the link above now to watch the film while you still can.   You are receiving our newsletter because you opted-in for it on one of our sister websites. Make sure you stay up to date with finance news by [whitelisting us](. Copyright © 2023 New Trading View.com All Rights Reserved[.]( 234 5th Ave, New York, NY 10001, United States [Privacy Policy]( l [Terms & Conditions]( Thinking about unsubscribing? We hope not! But, if you must, the link is below. [Unsubscribe]( [New Trading View Logo]( Christopher John Hipkins (born 5 September 1978) is a New Zealand Labour Party politician who is set to succeed Jacinda Ardern as the prime minister of New Zealand by 7 February 2023.[5] He currently serves as minister of education, police, the Public Service, and leader of the House. He has served as the member of Parliament (MP) for Remutaka since the 2008 election. He became a prominent figure as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, serving as minister of health from July to November 2020 and minister for COVID-19 response from November 2020 to June 2022. On 21 January 2023, Hipkins became the sole candidate to succeed Ardern as leader of the Labour Party. He is expected to become party leader on 22 January 2023, and appointed by the Governor-General as the 41st Prime Minister soon after.[6] Early life Hipkins was born in the Hutt Valley in 1978.[7] His mother is Rosemary Hipkins, chief researcher for the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.[8] He attended Waterloo Primary School and Hutt Intermediate. He was head boy at Hutt Valley Memorial College (later known as Petone College) in 1996.[1] Hipkins went on to complete a Bachelor of Arts degree majoring in politics and criminology at Victoria University of Wellington,[1] where he was student president in 2000 and 2001.[9] In September 1997, as a first-year student, Hipkins was one of dozens arrested while protesting the Tertiary Review Green Bill at Parliament. The matter went through the courts, and 10 years later an apology and award of over $200,000 was shared between the 41 protesters. The judge ruled that despite claims by police that the protestors were violent, the protest was peaceful and there were no grounds for arrest.[9] Before politics After graduating, Hipkins held a number of jobs, including working as a policy advisor for the Industry Training Federation, and as a training manager for Todd Energy in Taranaki. Hipkins also worked in Parliament as an advisor to Trevor Mallard and Helen Clark.[10] Early political career New Zealand Parliament Years Term Electorate List Party 2008–2011 49th Rimutaka 47 Labour 2011–2014 50th Rimutaka 30 Labour 2014–2017 51st Rimutaka 9 Labour 2017–2020 52nd Rimutaka 7 Labour 2020–present 53rd Remutaka 6 Labour Hipkins in 2011 Hipkins was selected to stand in the Labour-held seat of Rimutaka (renamed Remutaka in 2020) in the 2008 general election, following the retirement of sitting MP Paul Swain. In his first election, Hipkins won the seat with a majority of 753 and comfortably retained the electorate on each subsequent attempt.[11][12][13][14] In the 2020 general election, he had the highest majority of any successful candidate other than Ardern.[15] For the first nine years of Hipkins' parliamentary career, Labour formed the Official Opposition. In his first term, Hipkins was the Labour spokesperson for internal affairs and a member of parliament's committees for government administration, local government and environment, and transport and infrastructure.[16] In May 2010, his Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill was drawn from the member's ballot.[17] The bill would have reinstated an ban on the thermal generation of electricity which had been imposed by the previous Labour Government in September 2008 before being repealed by the incoming National Government in December 2008,[18] but was defeated at its first reading in June.[17] In Hipkins' second term he was promoted into Labour's shadow Cabinet as spokesperson for state services and education under new leader David Shearer. He also became the Labour Party's chief whip for the first time.[16] As education spokesperson, Hipkins was outspoken in his opposition to the National Government's implementation of charter schools in New Zealand. He continued as education spokesperson under subsequent leaders David Cunliffe, Andrew Little and Ardern.[16] Under Little and Ardern, Hipkins was additionally shadow leader of the House.[16] In April 2016, his Education (Charter Schools Abolition) Amendment Bill was drawn from the members' ballot. It was defeated at its first reading in November.[19] Ministerial career As a senior Labour MP, Hipkins was a key figure in the Sixth Labour Government. Between 2017 and 2023, he was the sixth-ranked Government minister from the Labour Party and he was assigned responsibilities as minister of education, minister for the Public Service and leader of the House. He was later looked upon as a "fixer,"[20] and was given additional responsibility as minister of health and minister for COVID-19 response during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, and later as minister of police. He emerged as the Labour Party's "consensus candidate" in a January 2023 leadership election triggered by the retirement of Ardern. First term (2017–2020) Hipkins was elected as a Cabinet minister by the Labour Party caucus following the formation of a Labour – New Zealand First coalition government supported by the Greens.[21] It was later announced that he would serve as minister for education.[22] Hipkins at the NZEI strike rally outside Parliament, 15 August 2018 As education minister, Hipkins has supported the abolition of National Standards and charter schools in New Zealand, which were supported by the previous National Government. He has also signaled a review of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) high school certificate system. However, Hipkins has clarified that the Ministry of Education would continue to fund the University of Otago's National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement and the Progress and Consistency Tool (PaCT). The Government's announcement that it would close charter schools drew criticism from the opposition National and ACT parties.[23][24] In early 2018, Hipkins introduced legislation preventing the creation of new charter schools, while enabling existing charter schools to be converted into special character schools.[25] By September 2018, all twelve charter schools had successfully transitioned to become state-integrated and special character schools.[26][27] In December 2018, Hipkins rejected a recommendation by the Council of Victoria University of Wellington to rename the university "University of Wellington", citing the strong opposition to the name change from staff, students, and alumni. Hipkins said that "he was not convinced the university had sufficiently engaged with stakeholders, who should have their views considered."[28][29] In February 2019, Hipkins proposed merging the country's 16 polytechnics into a New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology to counter deficits and declining domestic enrolments. This proposed Institute of Skills and Technology will also take over the country's vocational and apprenticeship programmes. While the Tertiary Education Union, Employers and Manufacturers Union, and the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce have expressed support for the Government's proposal, this has been criticised by the opposition National Party, Southern Institute of Technology CEO Penny Simmonds, and Mayor of Invercargill Tim Shadbolt.[30][31][32][33] In response to the Christchurch mosque shootings, Hipkins extended the polytechnic submission timeframe to 5 April 2019.[34] In early May 2019, Hipkins announced that the Government would be investing NZ$95 million to train 2,400 new teacher trainees through increased scholarships and placements, new employment-based teacher education programmes, and iwi-based scholarships over the next four years to address the teaching shortage. These measures were criticised as inadequate by the Post Primary Teachers' Association and National Party education spokesperson Nikki Kaye.[35][36][37] On 1 August 2019, Hipkins reaffirmed the Government's plan to merge all polytechnics into a single entity in April 2020.[38] In addition, he announced that the Government would replace all 11 industrial training organisations (ITOs) with between four and seven workforce development councils that would be set up by 2022 to influence vocational education and training. While polytechnics have been cautiously optimistic about the changes despite concerns about losing their autonomy, ITOs and National's tertiary education spokesperson Shane Reti have opposed these changes, claiming they would damage the vocational training system and cause job losses.[39][40][41] By 2022, the merger began to strike difficulties including low enrolments, large deficits and resignations of senior staff.[42] Following the resignation of David Clark as minister of health on 2 July 2020, Prime Minister Ardern appointed Hipkins as interim health minister until the 2020 New Zealand general election scheduled for October 2020.[43][44] Second term (2020–2023) Hipkins was re-elected to the seat of Remutaka during the 2020 general election. He defeated National candidate Mark Crofskey by a final margin of 20,497 votes.[45] In early November 2020, Hipkins retained his education portfolio. He was also designated as minister for COVID-19 response and minister for the Public Service.[46] On 31 January 2022, Hipkins, in his capacity as minister for COVID-19 response, issued a statement that the Government had offered stranded New Zealand journalist Charlotte Bellis a place under the emergency allocation criteria to travel to New Zealand within a period of 14 days. However, he also claimed that Bellis had indicated that she did not intend to travel until late February and that MIQ had advised her to consider moving her travel plans forward. He also confirmed that New Zealand consular assistance had earlier twice offered to help her return from Afghanistan in December 2021. Bellis was an Al Jazeera journalist who had left Qatar after becoming pregnant due to the Gulf State's law criminalising unmarried pregnancies. Bellis had travelled to Afghanistan where she and her partner had visas allowing them to live there. Due to New Zealand's strict pandemic border policies, Bellis had struggled to secure a place in the Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) system.[47] Hipkins was criticised by Bellis' lawyer Tudor Clee for allegedly breaching her client's privacy by sharing personal details about her circumstances and indicated that she was considering "legal options." In response, Bellis stated that she did not give Hipkins consent to share her information and disputed the facts in his statement. National and ACT Members of Parliament Bishop and Seymour also criticised Hipkins's actions, stating that they were "unbecoming" of a minister of the Crown.[48] On 22 June 2022, Hipkins publicly apologised for releasing personal information without Bellis' consent and making inaccurate comments about Bellis travelling to Afghanistan and being offered consular assistance. As a result, Bellis and her partner Jim Huylebroek had received online abuse. Hipkins had earlier privately apologised to Bellis in mid-March 2022.[49] In a June 2022 reshuffle, Hipkins was shifted from his COVID-19 response portfolio and replaced Poto Williams as minister of police.[50] In September 2022, Hipkins apologised to former Finance Minister Bill English for suggesting that he had granted his brothers favourable government contracts. Hipkins had made those remarks during an exchange over the awarding of government contracts to Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta's husband Gannin Ormsby.[51] Prime minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation as leader of the Labour Party in a media conference on 19 January 2023, stating that she no longer had sufficient energy for the demands of the role. She indicated that she will formally step down no later than 7 February 2023.[52][53] Hipkins was confirmed as the only nominee shortly after nominations closed at 9:00 a.m. on 21 January.[54][55] Stuff reported that Kiri Allan, the East Coast MP and minister of justice who had been speculated by media as an alternative candidate, was one of the seven MPs who nominated him.[56] Hipkins had previously demurred when asked about his leadership aspirations, stating that he would support whichever candidate the Labour Party could "reach a consensus" on.[57] In a media standup outside Parliament at 1:00 p.m. on 21 January, Hipkins commented that he discovered that he had emerged as that consensus candidate as "the door to the plane [that he had boarded for a flight to Wellington] was closing," leaving him unable to respond to his messages for 40 minutes.[58] The formal meeting to confirm Hipkins as leader is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on 22 January 2023.[53] Personal life Hipkins is married with two children. His wedding was held at Premier House, Wellington in 2020 and Grant Robertson was his best man.[59] When he took extended paternity leave for his second child's birth in 2018 he was one of the first senior male cabinet ministers to do so.[60] abel Magdalene Freer (née Ward, later Cusack) was a British woman whose exclusion from Australia on morality grounds in 1936 became a cause célèbre and led to a political controversy. Freer was born in British India. After separating from her first husband, she began an affair with Edward Dewar, a married Australian Army officer stationed in Lahore. When Freer and Dewar sought to return to Australia together in 1936, Dewar's family and military authorities lobbied immigration officials to prevent her entry on morality grounds. On arrival in Fremantle, Freer was administered and failed a dictation test in Italian, allowing her to be declared a prohibited immigrant under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. She was accepted into New Zealand where she sought legal redress, making a second unsuccessful attempt to land in Sydney a month later. The "Mrs Freer case" proved politically damaging for the Lyons government. The decision to exclude Freer was criticised on a number of grounds, including that it was arbitrary, infringed on personal liberty and was motivated by sexism. Interior minister Thomas Paterson was widely perceived as having mishandled the case. He publicly attacked Freer's character and used dubious or fabricated evidence to defend his actions. Federal cabinet eventually allowed Freer to enter Australia in July 1937, although her relationship with Dewar did not continue. The controversy contributed to the end of Paterson's ministerial career but had no lasting legal implications. Early life Freer was born in 1911 in present-day Pakistan, with different sources giving either Lahore or Rawalpindi as her place of birth.[1][2] According to her own account, she was one of five children born to William A. Ward, a retired British Army officer who ran a hostel in Lahore.[3] She visited England as a child before returning to live in India. In 1929 she married Ronald Freer, whose mother Edith was the sister of British government minister George Cave, 1st Viscount Cave.[4] She left for England in 1933 with the couple's two children, returning to India in 1935 where she filed for divorce.[2] Relationship with Edward Dewar In 1936, Freer began a relationship with Edward Dewar, a lieutenant in the Australian Staff Corps who had been seconded to the British Indian Army in Lahore for a year of training. Dewar's wife Alice (née Howells) and infant daughter remained in Australia.[5] In August 1936, Dewar wrote a letter to his wife stating that he would be returning to Australia with Freer and asked that she "release him to enable him to marry".[6] Ronald Freer named Dewar as a co-respondent in their divorce proceedings, which under the Indian Penal Code made Dewar liable to up to five years' imprisonment for immoral conduct.[3] Dewar's father Robert Dewar and father-in-law Frank Howells were appalled by his intention to abandon the marriage and sought to break up his relationship with Freer. His father sought the assistance of military authorities in Lahore, who also disapproved of the relationship.[6] Dewar's commanding officer Philip Myburgh disparaged Freer's moral character and suggested that attempts be made to prevent her entry into Australia.[7] Howells subsequently contacted military authorities in Australia, who believed that Dewar's career would be at risk if the relationship continued. As the couple were due to arrive in Australia imminently, the matter was quickly escalated to the top levels of the Department of the Interior, which had responsibility for immigration. Interior minister Thomas Paterson accepted his department's recommendation that Freer be excluded from Australia as an "undesirable person", with Myburgh's correspondence as the primary evidence.[8] Exclusion from Australia Customs officials boarding TSS Awatea in connection with Freer's second attempt to enter Australia First entry On 20 October 1936, Freer and Dewar arrived in Fremantle, Western Australia, aboard RMS Maloja.[9] Although Freer held a British passport, upon arrival customs officials boarded the vessel and administered her a dictation test in Italian. She failed the test and was informed that she was considered a "prohibited immigrant" under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901.[8] Maloja continued on to Melbourne, where Dewar disembarked, and then to Sydney where Freer changed ships to MS Wanganella bound for Auckland. She was accepted into New Zealand without issue,[10] where she worked odd jobs and obtained legal representation.[11] The dictation test used to exclude Freer was developed to enforce the White Australia policy, allowing customs officials to deny non-white visitors entry without engaging in explicit racial discrimination that could have implications for international relations. In the absence of other legislation, it was also used to exclude foreigners on political grounds, notably in the attempted exclusion of Egon Kisch in 1935 where the test was administered in Scottish Gaelic.[12] The application of dictation tests to exclude foreigners suspected of "immoral activities" was not unprecedented, but had typically been reserved for sex workers.[13] Attempted re-entry and legal challenge On 4 December 1936, Freer returned to Sydney on TSS Awatea, hoping to use the negative publicity generated by her earlier exclusion to force a reversal. Her journey was financed by the The Daily Telegraph, which may have also covered her legal bills. On arrival she was administered a further dictation test in Italian, consisting of a weather report.[14] Freer again failed the test and was informed that she would be deported.[15] Awatea departed back to Auckland after only nine hours in Sydney, during which time she received visits from two women's organisations.[16] Prior to her deportation, Freer's solicitor Norman Cowper lodged a writ of habeas corpus on her behalf. The application was heard by High Court judge H. V. Evatt, who had also been involved in the Kisch case where he made several rulings against the government.[15] However, in Freer's case Evatt found that her exclusion had been lawful, as the government had followed the process in the legislation and there were no grounds to overturn the minister's decision. In obiter dicta Evatt stated that the court was not "in any way endorsing or confirming the justice of any executive decision" or reflecting upon Freer's personal character.[16] Reaction Ministerial response Interior minister Thomas Paterson Although he had little involvement in its earliest stages, interior minister Thomas Paterson soon became a central figure in the Freer case.[17] He made no public statement on the matter until 11 November, more than three weeks after her exclusion, when he spoke in the House of Representatives and stated she had been excluded as "a person of undesirable character".[18] He elaborated on his decision the following day, asserting that he had intervened to protect the institution of marriage and attacking Freer as an "adventuress" and homewrecker of suspect moral character.[19] Paterson's statements in parliament failed to extinguish the controversy. Freer and her supporters accused him of misusing parliamentary privilege to libel her, and continued to lobby for him to reverse his decision.[20] Paterson was surprised by the negative reaction, which according to Martens (2019) prompted "a belated, frantic scramble for corroborating evidence to justify both the use of the dictation test to exclude a white Englishwoman and the minister's disparagement of her character".[21] On 11 November, Paterson received a telegram from Walter Hunt, a Sydney resident, claiming that he had known a woman named "Vera Freer" in India, which he believed to be an alias used by Mabel Freer.[21] Paterson requested further information from Hunt, who falsely asserted that Freer was a mixed-race woman – "half-Sinhalese" – who had had relationships with multiple men and fathered a child with an Armenian.[22] By late November, largely relying on Hunt's letter, the Department of the Interior had prepared a summary on Freer which concluded that she was a "cunning and utterly immoral woman [...] little better, if at all, than a common prostitute".[23] Paterson largely accepted Hunt's claims at face value and sent cablegrams to authorities in India, Ceylon and the United Kingdom, seeking to obtain confirmation of her past relationships and racial identity, which under the White Australia policy would have fully justified her deportation. However, information provided by Indian authorities found no evidence of Hunt's claims and tallied with her previous disclosures.[2] Additionally, on 28 November tabloid newspaper Smith's Weekly revealed that Hunt had previously served a jail sentence for perjury, which the department had failed to uncover. This revelation discredited Paterson and led to widespread calls for his resignation.[4] Public reaction The Freer case became a cause célèbre in the Australian press.[24] It occurred at the same time as King Edward VIII's relationship with Wallis Simpson became public knowledge, with the media drawing frequent comparisons between the two situations.[25] Warwick Fairfax, head of the Fairfax media empire, later recalled that he could not "ever remember the whole of the Press of all parties having been so unanimous on a point of public policy", but emphasised that that the media was simply reflecting public opinion.[26] The first reports of the Freer case appeared only days after she had been refused entry. She gave extensive interviews to journalists and cultivated a narrative that "elicited widespread sympathy and successfully cast her prohibition as unwarranted, unfair and contrary to the White Australia policy".[10] Paterson's actions were characterised as an arbitrary misuse of his ministerial powers and an infringement on personal liberty, with commentators defending the principle of non-interference in private relationships.[27] There was additionally concern that the dictation test – intended to be used in upholding the White Australia policy – was instead being used to deport a white British subject.[17] Both male and female commentators noted that Freer had been subjected to a sexist double standard, with little attention given to Dewar's role in his marriage breakdown.[28] Women's organisations and feminist leaders played a key role in the controversy, leading attacks on Paterson in the press.[27] Jessie Street wrote a letter of protest to the prime minister on behalf of the United Associations of Women,[21] while Mildred Muscio of the National Council of Women stated that there was "widespread anxiety, and in many cases, indignation among women as the result of this arbitrary action".[29] Millicent Preston-Stanley, the president of the United Australia Party's Women's Coordinating Council, described Paterson as "dictatorial", while Agnes Goode, another member of the council, stated that the case demonstrated the need for marriage law reform to faciliate quicker divorces.[30] Political reaction Daily Telegraph cartoon satirising Paterson's attempts to justify Freer's deportation Paterson had few supporters when the Freer case was debated in parliament. Several government backbenchers openly criticised his handling of the case,[19] with William McCall emerging as one of the most prominent critics.[31] Paterson's stance was also unpopular amongst his cabinet colleagues, who failed to defend him in parliament and leaked information about his decision to the press.[17][32] Resolution of the Freer case was complicated by Paterson's status as a member of the Country Party, the minority partner in a coalition government with Prime Minister Joseph Lyons' United Australia Party (UAP). An uneasy joint ministry had been formed after the 1934 federal election, with the Country Party holding four out of fifteen cabinet posts.[33] Country Party leader Earle Page interpreted calls for Paterson's resignation as an attack on his party's standing, threatening withdrawal from the coalition if Paterson was forced out.[16] As a result, no action was taken to overrule Paterson when cabinet met on 2 December for the last time before the summer parliamentary recess.[32] Resolution and legacy The Freer case was politically damaging for the Lyons government. It contributed to the failure of its March 1937 referendum proposals and surprise defeat at a May 1937 by-election, with A. W. Martin concluding in his biography of Attorney-General Robert Menzies that "the extent of the damage which the Freer case caused the government can scarcely be exaggerated".[34] On 2 June 1937, federal cabinet reversed Paterson's decision to exclude Freer, allowing her to re-enter the country on 12 July.[35] Her arrival in Sydney became a major event, with The Sydney Morning Herald reporting that she was "given a reception equal to that of an international celebrity".[35] Paterson resigned from the ministry and as deputy leader of the Country Party after the 1937 federal election.[36] Commentators have noted that the Freer case has attracted little academic interest, especially compared to the contemporaneous Kisch affair.[27] This has been attributed to the fact that no legal precedent was set and that the case did not result in any legislative changes. Robertson (2005) describes the Freer case as "an illustration of the tendency of Australian governments of various political stripes to manipulate immigration laws for ends unrelated to their original aims".[37] Martens (2019) concluded that the incident stood as "an example of successful public mobilisation against government overreach that simultaneously challenged patriarchal assumptions about marriage and respectability, and reaffirmed the racist practices and principles underpinning the White Australia policy".[28] Later life Freer's relationship with Dewar did not survive the controversy around her entry to Australia. In a letter to Prime Minister Joseph Lyons at the height of the controversy, Dewar wrote that both of them had contemplated suicide. The military continued to interfere in their relationship, transferring Dewar to Western Australia in the same week that Freer's entry was finally approved.[25] Freer sought compensation from the government for her deportation, but a proposal from Robert Menzies for an ex gratia payment was rejected by cabinet in December 1937.[38] She worked in a beauty salon after landing in Sydney and in 1938 married John Cusack, a fish merchant. She subsequently "faded from public interest".[25]