Have Your Say

Reports claim that U.S. intelligence assisted Mexican forces in locating and killing CJNG leader “El Mencho.” If confirmed, the operation would mark a significant moment in cross-border security cooperation between the two countries.
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) has been one of Mexico’s most powerful and violent criminal organizations, with influence extending into international drug trafficking networks. U.S. agencies have long coordinated with Mexican authorities through intelligence sharing, surveillance support, and joint task forces.
Such operations typically involve complex coordination, including tracking communications, financial movements, and logistics networks. Intelligence support does not always mean direct military involvement but often includes strategic analysis and information exchange.
Experts caution that removing a cartel leader does not automatically dismantle the organization. Historically, leadership losses can trigger internal fragmentation or short-term spikes in violence as rival factions compete for control.
Official confirmation from both U.S. and Mexican authorities will be crucial to verify details and assess broader implications. The long-term impact will depend on sustained institutional efforts beyond a single high-profile operation.

go Trump.

The Constitutional Gap No One Talks About
BY NIGEL GRAY

There is a clause in New Zealand law that almost no one talks about anymore — yet it sits at the heart of how we understand sovereignty, allegiance, and political accountability.
Under the Electoral Act 1993, a Member of Parliament can be disqualified if they:

“take an oath or make a declaration of allegiance to a foreign Prince or Power.”
(Electoral Act 1993, s.55(1)(a))
This wording still exists today.
It has never been repealed.
It has never been softened.
It is still the law of the land.
The purpose is simple:
No MP may hold allegiance to a foreign power.
But here’s the constitutional gap:

The United Nations is not legally classified as a “foreign power.”
Not a state.
Not a monarch.
Not a government.
Because of that technicality, the oath does not apply to:

• UN frameworks
• UN‑Habitat urban models
• UNDRR climate‑risk strategies
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• global “best practice” templates

So while MPs are barred from pledging allegiance to a foreign government, they can still align New Zealand policy with international frameworks that shape:

• zoning
• climate adaptation
• managed retreat
• urban design
• public‑space regulation
• social policy
• economic planning

None of this is considered “allegiance” under the law.
And that’s the blind spot.

The Framework Becomes the Influence
The UN doesn’t need to issue commands.
It doesn’t need to coerce.
It doesn’t need to “control.”
All it needs to do is provide:

• the framework
• the language
• the benchmarks
• the global expectations

Governments then align themselves to maintain:

• international reputation
• diplomatic standing
• access to partnerships
• perceived legitimacy

This is peer‑pressure governance — soft, subtle, and rarely acknowledged.
And because the UN is not legally a “foreign power,”
none of this triggers the constitutional protections designed to prevent external influence.

If the UN Framework Didn’t Exist…
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
If the UN framework did not exist as a shield of legitimacy,
and a foreign organisation exerted the same level of influence over:

• policy direction
• urban planning
• climate strategy
• risk zoning
• public‑space regulation

…it would be seen as full infiltration of New Zealand’s governance structures.
The only reason it isn’t viewed that way is because the UN sits outside the legal definition of “foreign power.”
That’s the constitutional gap.
And it’s time the public understood it.