Updates from March, 2015 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Redbaiter 13:35 on March 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Germanwings crash   

    Pilot deliberately crashed plane? Right now, I don't buy it 

    Pilot Andreas Günter Lubitz

    Pilot Andreas Günter Lubitz

    It amazes me the way we rush to judgment and accept something so improbable as a given. After all, scientists are always saying we should look for more logical explanations before we suspect that the spinning disc in the sky was a flying saucer from some other galaxy, and I agree with that thesis.

    With the information available at present, its difficult for me to accept the claim that the pilot of the Germanwings aircraft deliberately crashed the aircraft and that there was not some alternative explanation.

    For one thing why? Nobody has yet attributed a motive. If the pilot was indeed suicidal there would still need to be an explanation as to why he would take 150 innocents with him. So far that explanation does not exist.

    Secondly, if the pilot was intent on crashing the aircraft, why carry out such a comparatively long slow trajectory? It could have been a lot more vertical and a lot faster than the ten minutes or more it took to reach the crash point.

    Authorities have reported that the co-pilot can be heard breathing on the cockpit voice recorder, with the captain’s increasingly desperate efforts to gain entry audible in the background. A Finnish aviation official on Wednesday evening interpreted this as evidence that the copilot was unconscious, precisely the opposite of the conclusion reached by French prosecutor Brice Robin.

    Is there evidence that the second pilot was still out of the cockpit? Could he have returned earlier and was it someone else trying to break down the door? I guess the voice outside has been positively identified as the other pilot or though I don’t see this explained fully anywhere.

    I’m not saying the scenario produced by the German authorities is completely wrong. I think I would need a lot more confirmation before making such a judgment. There seems to be a trend of late to blame pilots for crashes or disappearances in circumstances that defy logic and depend heavily on speculation.

    Update- this site claims the pilot has connections to Islam and this is the reason he crashed the plane.

    Muslim Convert Co-Pilot Andreas Günter Lubitz Committed Jihad By DELIBERATELY Slamming The Plane Into The Mountain! Murdering All On Board.

    Again, I consider the claims are tenuous at best. However there is this from the Daily Mail-

    Police investigating the Germanwings crash said they had made a ‘significant discovery’ at the home of co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who deliberately ploughed the Airbus A320 into the French Alps. Officers refused to reveal details of the potential breakthrough but said it was not a suicide note. Speaking outside the flat on the outskirts of Dusseldorf, police said they had ‘found something’ that would now be taken for tests, adding it may be a ‘clue’ as to what happened to the doomed jet.

    Still too little to convince me of any deliberate intent by the pilot, especially as if it was done as deliberate sabotage, then what is to gain by not openly identifying it as such? There is no point to an act of terrorism unless some cause is clearly identified.

    • pmofnz 15:34 on March 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      “could have been a lot more vertical”
      I read on one site today that the A320 electronics doesn’t allow massive deviations from a ‘normal’ descent envelope and will auto self correct to keep the fly by wire machine relatively stable. So a descent slope inside normal parameters doesn’t alarm the passengers or the ground controllers – till it’s too late.

      Secondly, one wonders which Taleban training camp he spent his six or so years in during his flying career hiatus subsequent to the depressive episode.

    • caleb 20:02 on March 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      It sounds as if he had to control the descent, override the door locks and disable the auto pilot, all together pointing to a deliberate act. We will have to wait to hear about background checks and the search info. At the end of the day is it even possible to stop a psycho like that, if this is indeed the case…?

      • Redbaiter 20:12 on March 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Yep, I have to admit its difficult to explain the door lock scenario otherwise. Apparently they disengage after five minutes and have to be re-engaged. if so, then it seems there was a deliberate attempt to keep the door locked and I presume the other pilot on the outer. So if it was deliberate it appears the pilot decided to commit suicide and for no known reason take everyone on the plane with him. That is the act of one special kind of bastard.

        Also illustrates a scenario that makes it difficult to design a future door lock system.

  • Redbaiter 02:38 on February 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Meteor explosion   

    Video of last night’s meteor explosion in New Zealand 

    This is a dash cam video taken in Tauranga NZ of the unidentified flying object crossing the sky and the huge explosion that followed. Scientific opinion seems to support the view that the item was a meteor.

  • Redbaiter 15:49 on February 5, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: New theme   

    New Theme 

    Hi readers. Thought a new theme may reactivate my interest in blogging. Been working fairly intensely for the last year or so but things have quietened down a bit now so maybe I will have the time. I’d so much like to see Conservatives getting a bit more political traction, and I guess that’s never going to happen if we all just hide away and let the place slide into the Progressive swamp. As great as the temptation to do so sometimes is.

    The new theme is about short and sharp, so I will try and keep it that way.

  • Redbaiter 15:33 on July 30, 2013 Permalink
    Tags: , , , Taranaki Courthouse,   

    Police, investigating white man Greg Shackleton, but Maori can shut down courthouses 

    In the most stark example of the political corruption that infests NZ at the hands of the progs, we saw a massive outcry yesterday concerning a perceived insult thrown at a Muslim taxi driver by an elderly white Invercargill man. He was going to be investigated by the Police, and re-educated by the Human Rights Commission. Might even lose his job. That will teach that horrible criminal right? The usual Kiwiblog progs are cheering their stupid damn heads off.

    But if you’re Maori, and you invade and shut down a courthouse in Taranaki, the Police do nothing, and the government stays quiet. Story from NZ Herald-

    A group of 200 protesters forced the Hawera District Court to abandon proceedings this morning.Judge Allan Roberts was to hear several cases as part of a standard police list day, but supporters of Kiri Campbell, who was due to appear on charges of using a document for pecuniary advantage, forced him to remain in his chambers.

    The public gallery was packed with people, some even having to sit on the floor. One protester was waving a flag and Judge Roberts, through police, requested the flag be removed but the protester refused.

    About six police and court security officers entered the courtroom at 10.15am to ask the protester to remove the flag a final time but he refused, and court officers including media were escorted from the courtroom.

    And apparently that is the end of it. No arrests, no investigations. That’s NZ under the progs for you. Don’t dare insult an immigrant, (you evil racist), especially if you’re an elderly white man, but you can shut down a court house anytime you like if you’re a member of the special race.

    And those lib bastards at Transparency International still keep saying there’s no corruption in NZ.

    • Pascal 17:11 on July 30, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Keep it up RB. Eventually those who keep diverting their eyes and minds might finally wake up. Ace of Spades is almost there.

      The primary problem with the so-called elites is that they are not elite,
      and they are neither wise, nor intelligent, nor educated, nor
      enlightened, nor superior in any fashion save two, accident of
      circumstance and elevated self-regard.

      They do not have any conception of what they’re doing, of the history of
      this country, or of the disasters their stupidity visits upon the ruled
      every day of the year.

      And they will be the death of us all.
      – Ace of Spades, Obama: I Didn’t Bother Asking a Lawyer If I Could Unilaterally Suspend the Law; All I’ve Done Is Merely Seize Plenary Power on Behalf of the People

      Ace is almost where I have been for over 2 decades. Yet Ace does not see the errant connection between his second paragraph and his third. “They do not have any conception … that they will be the death of us all.”

      To see why else I am disappointed with all top Right Bloggers, please click on my name above.

      • Redbaiter 20:44 on July 30, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        You’re on to it Pascal, the self appointed elites know well what they are about. Take journolist for example- They saw Palin’s inaugural speech and their reaction was “Wow, she’s so good she is going to win the election for McCain, we have to destroy her,” and then they went on to discussing strategies to achieve this.

        They are thugs and crooks and liars and propagandists it is so plain and yet the Republicans still treat them with respect and dignity. Clueless.

        (tried to post at your blog but got in a tangle.)

    • the conservative 19:58 on July 30, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Red, today is the third day in a row that the Herald has put the taxi passenger through the wringer. I am really quite pissed about this one. This guy is an individual; he has no public profile; he is not a celebrity; he is not in the media; he is not a politician; he is no one; he is Joe Bloggs who hasn’t even committed a crime; he did nothing but hurt someone’s feelings in a drunken state. When individuals have their lives ruined for nothing more than being a drunken pratt, we are in serious trouble.

      And as you say, the privileged get a free walk.

      • Redbaiter 20:29 on July 30, 2013 Permalink | Reply

        Agree Terry- his employer getting involved is just so over the top. Nothing to do with them.

    • Caleb 20:11 on July 30, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      Are the same standards applied in the reverse? Not likely.


    • Pascal 02:09 on July 31, 2013 Permalink | Reply

      I’m sorry about the tangle. Send me an email and I’ll post it for you. (In order to keep comment spam under control I’ve got anonymous posting turned off. Blogger is quite the PITA.)

  • Redbaiter 11:37 on January 9, 2012 Permalink  

    General Debate Jan 9th 

    American motorcyclists fight back against police checkpoints-

    Stilwell, joined by about 10 of his friends wearing black leather jackets, some with firearms resting in holsters on their hips, stood along the sidewalk waving signs that read “Police Checkpoint Ahead.”

    But up ahead wasn’t a typical DUI checkpoint; the officers on Flamingo Road were pulling over drivers on cellphones.

    What a stark difference to the submissive mentality that prevails in NZ.

    Checkpoint draws protesters opposed to the method, but not the message

    • Chuck Bird 12:08 on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The public protest hear about serious criminal behaviour but the police ignore it. Well Len Brown is looking at the options. I wonder how long that will take? Below is my comment on KB. I will watch with interest for the response. I wonder when and if the Herald will publish my post on the issue.

      Chuck Bird (1,944) Says:
      January 9th, 2012 at 11:30 am

      Darrell Turner: Nudists folk-devils for moral panic

      I see an apologist for the perverts as Ladies Bay has been given a right of response. I am not a naturist but have no problem with genuine naturists. This guy is claiming to be an expert on the subject but his views are not only contrary to the local residents but genuine naturists as well. I have made brief quote from two web sites as well as the Herald.

      What do the liberals on this blog think the locals should do – surrender a local beach to perverted, deviate and criminal behaviour?


      “When I was 14 and my sister 18, we went to Ladies Bay for an afternoon swim and were followed up the stairway and along Cliff Rd by a man with an erection,” she said. “It was quite a lesson … and we have never gone back.”


    • Redbaiter 07:49 on January 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      There was not much traffic around in the blogosphere yesterday Chuck. Everybody getting back in the swing of work after the holidays. Even so, there seems to be a general lack of interest in doing anything about the Ladies Bay issues. How does it look from your perspective?

    • Chuck Bird 09:04 on January 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Below is a comment published in Monday’s Herald. If locals are concerned I would be happy to help out. Sadly many people are apathetic. I am not suggesting a violent confrontation but following an initial course of complaining to the mayor. He has a FB page. I think it would be useful if people countered the spin that those objected are opposed to genuine naturists. Some people may be but I think the majority are opposed mainly to perverts. I will wait and see what happens.

      Chuck Bird (Ngaruawahia)
      02:28 PM Monday, 9 Jan 2012
      I applaud the often liberal Herald on its stance on this criminal behaviour at Ladies Bay. I heard a local resident call talkback on Friday evening. She told of her experience of seeing man and a woman copulating on the beach and four men watching.

      She confronted them and followed the couple to their car with a witness and got their licence number. She complained to the police but they fobbed her off. If what she said was accurate and I have no reason to doubt her this would an indecent act in public place punishable by 2 years jail.

      The caller named Isobel asked why will not men do anything? Well, if she or any local residents would like to text me at 021 452162 I would be happy to help coordinate some action. A sympathetic lawyer who would consider taking a private prosecution if the police will not now take this matter seriously would also be appreciated. I am presently waiting for Len Brown’s response on his Facebook wall.


    • Chuck Bird 12:39 on January 14, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      A very concerning and informative article. I suppose my posting this will confirm to Cam Salter my lack of understanding about homosexuality and family issues as well as empathy for his long time on the dole due to his depression.


      I wonder if Cathy Odgers is still an ACT members as she seems to support his long time welfare dependency despite him having time to blog as well as challenge someone to a cycle race as well as a boxing match.

      I of course having nothing against homosexuals as Slater claims but very concerned about homosexual activism.

      Gay editor: ‘we will teach your kids the new norms’


    • Kris K 19:38 on January 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Good on you for waving the flag over at KB, Chuck.
      These social liberals, like Slater and Odgers, really have no idea that they facilitate much of the erosion of social values and decency by their stance. And when someone like yourself challenges their worldview and highlights their moral relativism they go all self-righteous and start throwing around labels and pointing out what they perceive to be character flaws in their [in their mind] accusers.

      These two really are peas in the same pod along with David “Mr social liberal himself” Farrar.

      And don’t get me started on most of the other lost-cause commentaters at KB – it really is a left-wing sewer which I seldom visit even with my nose pinched.

    • Angus 20:17 on January 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Slater, Farrar et al are what I’d call the “progressive right”. Like libertarians, they buy into the same culturally destructive nihilism that the left promote but foolishly do so thinking it’s all in the name of “freedom”. Apart from a handful of pointed monetary differences like taxation, industrial relations and welfare, they are in lockstep with the leftists on pretty much everything else.

      As for homosexual activism, that won’t abate once they get the “right” to “marry” and adopt, There will then be a push for asymmetrical laws and hate speech legislation designed to stop anyone from criticising or disagreeing publically with their lifestyle. Then the sexualization of everything will begin with all sorts of divergent sexual behaviours entering the mainstream – and there’ll be nothing to stop it. Polyamory is next, with progressive eggheads already openly talking about it in the newspapers, Labour’s Ruth Dyson even spoke about the need for the state to formally recognise a whole raft of relationships, including “triples”.

    • Chuck Bird 12:59 on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for that Kris and Angus. However, I do not have a problem with David Farrar although I strongly disagree with his liberal policies. If could not speak civilly with social liberals I could not be an active ACT member. Some may not like me like Odgers, Wittington and Douglas for me speaking my mind but I will not lose sleep over it.

      I think Colin Craig made a mistake not joining ACT and talking to a good number of members. ACT does have policies on issues that would usually be considered a conscience issue. Labour and National decide that to make the smacking issue party policy so ACT did as well. But that is an exception. Cannabis legislation is not and has not ever been party of ACT policy.

      ACT used to have more conservatives when Muriel Newman, Stephen Franks and others were in the party were conservative on many issues. If a few conservatives joined ACT they could make a big difference.

      I would like to see social policy decided by some sort of referendum. I favour a voters veto. It would not always give the result I want but it would be better than social policy decided when the leaders of both major parties and the Greens are liberal.

      Getting back to Slater and Odgers I try only to attack people who first attack me. If someone attacks someone physically they have no right to expect to response to be proportionate.

      My response to Slater and Odgers was in my view restrained. I will stay off their blogs but if they have another go at me on KB I will not be so restrained.

    • Chuck Bird 13:02 on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I thought I should keep things going with some General Debate

      Gay couple lose child after Kiwi porn link


    • Chuck Bird 13:15 on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yet another homosexual pedophile. Post this anywhere else and I will be called a homophobe by these liberals that put underage boys as risk,

      Tutor accused of rape


    • Kris K 09:41 on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      It’s a disease, Chuck, and one ‘created’ by the liberal left with their liberalisation of morality, and especially of homosexuality. These amoral enemies of everything that is/was decent have created this all permissive climate and then when accused of such have the gall to label conservatives who challenge such a world-view and its resultant fallout as ‘homophobes’ et al.

      Why are sodomites even permitted within the education system, let alone in sole charge of young boys in a boarding school type environment?! And why didn’t those hiring and the cops do a check of his on-line profile? – which would have alerted them to his sexual proclivities and this possible outcome. Beggars belief!

      And re: your previous comment about queer adoption/child-rearing: Just another natural by-product of the normalisation and decriminalisation of homosexuality within society; kids will be increasingly exposed to this sort of perversity. Similarly to above: Why are kids permitted to be raised/adopted by these sexual deviants in the first place?!

      The above are yet more examples that our increasingly permissive and liberal ‘elite’ in fact HATE children almost as much as those who expose the amoral liberal failed experiment.

      There’s a reckoning coming …

    • Chuck Bird 13:48 on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Kris, I could use a little support on Justice Hot Tub.


      Chuck Bird ‎”And lets pick our game up chuck and not be such a sexiest twat!!!

      Ky, can you not see the hypocrisy in that comment?

      Ky Selket actually NO chuck all i see is a dinosaur using outdated language and ideology to perpetuate lies and misinformation

      Ky Selket and Gordene Tuhoro are nasty left wing feminizes and Tuhoro sounds like a dyke as well.

    • Chuck Bird 13:50 on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I meant feminazis

    • Kris K 14:30 on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I would, Chuck, but I refuse to sign up to Facebook. I limit myself to blogs and online media articles.

    • Chuck Bird 07:10 on February 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Gay cruising hot spot


      I do not think any on this forum will be tempted to join these perverts.

    • The Gantt Guy 10:04 on February 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Chuck. I wonder why the council is allowed to get away with duck shoving like this. They need resource consent to trim the trees? How’s about the local neighborhood watch use their damn chainsaws (on the trees, not the sodomites) and the RMA be damned? Is one of these filthy characters going to lodge an RMa objection? Likely not.

      And they want security cameras installed? My my, aren’t the Sheeple quick to give away their freedoms. Imagine the outcry if one of those cameras happened to record a young girl or boy using the facilities. And imagine if some nefarious character in concil happened to put that footage on the Internet (as has been done elsewhere). Again, the answer isn’t security cameras but the local neighborhood watch. Scare the sodomites away twice or thrice and word will get out that they should consider using the privacy of their own homes.

    • Kris K 10:16 on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Forget about waiting for RMA approval to trim trees and installing cameras to catch these sodomites going about their sick sexual practices, time for a little community ‘justice’ to be meted out me thinks.

      If the ‘system’ won’t protect us from these sickos then we need to ensure our children are safe, and community standards are maintained, by taking appropriate action ourselves.

    • Chuck Bird 11:02 on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      One advantage of living in a small town is that locals would not put up with this sort of crap and would take appropriate action.

  • Redbaiter 12:22 on January 7, 2012 Permalink  

    To Zen Tiger, and On Engaging With Rabid Secular Progressives 

    Grateful for your brave and persistent attempts to get me to understand Zen. :)

    I do understand actually, and I realise its a judgement call that we all have to make.

    MY POV on such commenters is that they bring nothing to the debate. Nothing new. Nothing fresh. Nothing challenging. Nothing intelligent. They’re just ignorant thugs whose shared characteristic is a deep immersion in moral relativism and an extremely simplistic and facile understanding of the historical and cultural underpinnings of our society. They have no real in depth understanding of what makes western civilization better than most.

    Or should I say what made it better than most, for under the influence of the Progressives, we’re fast losing that advantage. Savagery and barbarism are on the rise in the west everywhere you look. (More …)

    • KG 12:47 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Beautifully put.
      “They’re nothing. They have nothing to offer. They have betrayed us to the left. They are a negative we just have to exclude from our focus. Time wasters, and we have so very little time to waste. Far more productive to engage with those who have the intelligence to be persuaded.”

      Yes indeed!

    • Gecko 12:48 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great post, well said RB :)

    • Redbaiter 12:53 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thank’s Gecko and KG. Appreciate your support.

      I understand Zen’s very civil attempts to explain why he feels he has to deal with these thugs, but for myself, I just do not have the patience for such infantile trash anymore.

    • KG 13:11 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Me neither, and I admire Zen’s patience and courtesy in explaining his position.

    • Pascal 13:28 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Were “Progressives” not such bigots towards conservative thought, were they to relinquish the words “progress” and “liberal” to their rightful owners, were they honest as to their objectives — to establish their authoritarian rule, were their media not deliberately comprised of the most dishonest bunch of smug morons this side of Hell, then maybe there might be something worthwhile to discuss with them. Let me thank you and KG for helping accept this reality. At some point patience runs out, so when Zen Tiger’s runs out, it is nice that you have tried to get him to understand that the problem isn’t with him.

    • Redbaiter 13:44 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Don’t forget the so called “educators” Pascal, for it is they who are largely responsible for the moral relativism and the ignorance of history.

    • Kris K 13:58 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      When you boil it all down, it’s a little bit like a ‘meaningful’ discussion between Chamberlain and Hitler – one naively likes to think the best of everyone [the whole “we’re all basically good” pov], the other is an evil tyrant who, given the opportunity, would quite happily send the other to the gas chamber.

      The key is working out whether you’re dealing with a ‘Hitler’ or someone who ACTUALLY DOES want to have a meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas.

      The ONLY way you deal with a ‘Hitler’ is to set a ‘ Churchill’ on them!!!

      Life’s too short to deal with deliberately evil and condescending pondscum.

      PS And in a biblical context – Christ had absolutely no time for the arrogant and evil Pharisees of His day. There’s a lesson there for those who claim to follow Christ.

    • ZenTiger 14:13 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks all for your insightful comments, except Kris, who is a bit like Hitler and is not interested in exchanging ideas, and life is too short to keep bringing up his rabid bias towards Catholics, ending his last comment with the passive-aggressive barb of “those who claim to follow Christ.”

      He’s not a nice person. Any chance you want to ban him Redbaiter? I really think it would lift your blog, and it would show every-one here I’m starting to listen to what you are all saying.

    • Kris K 15:00 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      For Zen:

      “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell
      [From Red’s sidebar]

      Gee, what a surprise – Zen finds my comments a bit too close to the bone so what does he suggest? Ban me.

      Lord save me from the all these ‘nice’ people.

    • George 15:03 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about fools. Don’t bother arguing with them. Most of them are snippy little maggots that somehow avoided being backhanded at school. Uncorrected, they’ve continued their obnoxious ways into an extended adolescent adulthood.

      The future is bleak for them, the world already has an oversupply of oafs and boors.

    • ZenTiger 15:11 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Kris, I wasn’t being nice. I was being ironic. And of course, it was in response to you not being so nice either.

    • Kris K 15:19 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Didn’t see the scare quotes, huh?

    • ZenTiger 15:40 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Red, out of deference to your blog I will henceforth ignore the troll.

    • Kris K 16:04 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      That’s what I love about [some] Catholics, they’re such martyrs – except when they’re burning others at the stake of course …

      Attempts to have me banned, now labels me a troll – will I ever re-discover my self esteem … hic, hic.

    • Kris K 11:22 on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Once again, as is usual, I can only conclude that people like Zen [and generally papists in particular] really do regularly miss the point. No doubt he thought my reference to Hitler above was somehow referring to him [which it wasn’t] – I actually thought the whole contrast between Chamberlain and Hitler revealed both the naivety and evil respectively of these sort of people. And highlighted that we can’t actually [and shouldn’t waste our time] engage with evil in any meaningful sense in a debate type forum. To do so is indeed naive.

      Another example would be Israel attempting to ‘negotiate’ with the satanic death-cult of Islam in the hope of coming to some form of compromise – when all Islam wants [and requires] is Israel and ever last Jew be wiped from the face of the earth.

      My main point was, and is, that one just can’t negotiate with evil. And entertaining such commenters on one’s blog is actually counter-productive.

      That Zen will entertain these evil commenters, and won’t ban them, but will request I be banned from someone else’s blog is kind of ironic. And perhaps reveals that he views those who challenge [the cult of] Roman Catholicism as more ‘evil’ for pointing out the truth, than those who are genuinely evil and would quite likely march us all into the gas chambers given the opportunity.

      And lets not forget that, interestingly, many of the hierarchy in the Nazi war machine were or course of the Catholic faith …
      Food for thought – although the irony will no doubt be lost on people like Zen.

    • ZenTiger 13:54 on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The Pope, September 2011, in Germany:

      As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology. This is where he celebrated his first Mass. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.

      “How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. The question no longer troubles us. But are they really so small, our failings?


  • Redbaiter 07:45 on January 7, 2012 Permalink  

    General Debate Jan 7th 


    Results of US survey on word association (“socialism” and “capitalism”) by race- (More …)

    • B2 09:18 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Rule #1 for understanding anything…..’everyone wants to live using Other People’s Money.’

    • Redbaiter 10:11 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I notice contributors Blair and TB12 have suddenly dropped off the list of authors at Clint Heine’s sewer.

      Don’t tell me they actually felt some shame in relation to the disgusting garbage that is written there and decided to quit.

      Who really needs their name associated with lowlife crap like that?

    • Redbaiter 10:20 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Ha ha-

      That idiotic little Stasi commie Clare Curran on Red Alert has inadvertently praised a company headed by Ruth Richardson-


    • KG 10:36 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Shame“? Leftists?

    • Kris K 12:58 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Re: survey on “socialism” and “capitalism” – while you would expect whites to favour capitalism, and blacks socialism [ties in with your recent post, KG], it’s interesting that Hispanics view BOTH socialism and capitalism negatively.
      You have to wonder what they do actually view as a positive system of government – or maybe they’re primarily anarchists ;) [or just confused]

    • Chuck Bird 13:06 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

    • The Gantt Guy 13:10 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure about Hispanics (having known very few Hispanic people), but I think the Socialism/Capitalism thing is less black/white than it is tribal. People from tribal backgrounds tend to favour a strong, central leader (e.g. a tribal chief) who will take care of them; feed them, clothe them, make all their decisions for them, etc. I suspect the reason it is more prevalent amongst black people is because they have a far higher proportion of tribalism in their heritage, but it seems to me it is equally true of white tribalists as black ones. This is the reason Scottish people vote for Labour party politicians in every UK election from city council right through to Parliament. They like their Clan Leaders to take care of them.

      I’ve been pondering this for a while now, and the more I consider it, the more it makes sense. Can someone please punch gaping holes in this theory for me, because I really don’t want to admit that tribal socialism is in my celtic blood!

    • Redbaiter 13:14 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Heh heh, that story on the woman on welfare being offered a job as a prostitute is funny Chuck. Liberals reaping what they sow.

    • Redbaiter 13:24 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “Can someone please punch gaping holes in this theory for me?”

      I’m thinking about it. Can’t come up with anything. Can’t wait to try the argument out on my Scottish socialist friend.

    • kowtow 15:44 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The brothel story reminds me of the attempt a few years ago,presumably by the Green SD coalition in Germany to force businesses to take on youthful apprentices.
      Did this apply to brothels? Oops,very well we’ll drop that one.


    • Chuck Bird 16:02 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Editorial: Time to crack down on beach’s naked poseurs
      5:29 AM Saturday Jan 7, 2012


      For once I mast applaud the Herald on its editorial. They are also accepting comments. I hope some on this blog take the opportunity.

      I have nothing against naturalist but what is happening at Ladies Bay if accurate is criminal behaviour. Indecent exposure is a summary offence that carries a 3 month jail penalty. Committing an indecent act in public carries a 2 year penalty. This type of behaviour is not confined to Ladies Bay or even beaches. Many of these deviants think it is okay to have sex in a public toilet. However, I say lets target Ladies Bay.

      Anyone in the Auckland area who is prepared to more than just comment on blogs often anonymously contact me at chuckbirdnz@gmail.com and we can coordinate an action plan.

    • Lucia Maria 16:23 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Contraception makes it possible for Governments to force women into prostitution. Just saying. :)

    • Kris K 16:24 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Good on you, Chuck – more power to your elbow.
      If I was up in Auckland I would be more than happy to join you. From the various articles I’ve read, including comments, it seems as though this might be the actions of the local sodomite community, and that they regard this beach as a “gay cruising” area.

      Lets hope more people complain, and that the cops come down on this hard, and don’t play the ‘homophobe’ card and go all limp on their response [puns intended].

      It’s going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out – keep us informed.

    • Kris K 16:29 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Your absence has been noted, Lucia – although I’m sure you’ve been loitering in the shadows both here and over at CR ;)

    • Chuck Bird 16:54 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Kris, perhaps you would like to support my comment on Len Brown’s FB.


    • Lucia Maria 17:27 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Been busy in real life, Kris. Having a look in occasionally.

      I see my other half has been boxing you around the ears. :lol

      You know, another ironic thing is that the whole contraception issue was the final thing that converted me to Catholicism a number of years back. I read the articles and they made total and absolute sense to me. So, it’s not one of the beliefs I accepted on faith.

      What I did have to accept on faith was that we had one life (ie no reincarnation) and that God became man and was born of the Virgin Mary. I found both quite incredible and difficult to believe.

    • mawm 19:32 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      People from tribal backgrounds tend to favour a strong, central leader (e.g. a tribal chief) who will take care of them; feed them, clothe them, make all their decisions for them, etc. I suspect the reason it is more prevalent amongst black people is because they have a far higher proportion of tribalism in their heritage, but it seems to me it is equally true of white tribalists as black ones.

      Well, where do I start? On black tribalism: you make an incorrect assumption that the African leader is benevolent. That is not the case as they rule by terror, imposing the harshest sanctions for disobedience and by keeping their henchmen happy through their largesse; always finding more thugs to do their fouls deeds through fear of falling foul of their ‘leader’. This has been evident in one post colonial African state after another, but it is not only a post colonial practice. Shaka Zulu marched through southeastern Africa devouring those who stood in his way. His fearsome reputation made one group after another bend to his wishes and fall into his service (and form the Zulu nation), creating a massive and diciplined army that killed off all his opposition (the mfecane)….or drove them north (Ndebele) or southwards (Xosa). Dingaan and Ceteswayo followed his example.

      Yes black people have tribal backgrounds (in that I’m assuming you mean their genetic origin), but then so do Caucasians – Celt, Saxon, Hispanic, Greek, Roman, Nordic, etc, etc. For centuries small groupings would band together, often in the lee of a fortress, seeking security in numbers. In return they would pay a tax/offer a service to the leader/strongman. As these groups became bigger/stronger a terratorial need would arise and they’d go and knock over the bunch next door. To get on together these groups needed a common language and developed common mannerisms….and so become a Nation/’a people’, often with similar facial characteristics, etc, through interbreeding. Europe was a dark and dangerous place of squalor and violence as the peoples struggled to survive and propogate their genetic material and by sticking together as a ‘tribe’ they were more likely to survive.

      Desmond Morris in his book “The Naked Ape” explores the similarity between human behaviour and that of various primate groups he studied, their societal structure, their leadership (chosen through displays of strength), etc. Robert Ardrey (“African Genesis” and “The Terratorial Imperative”) points out that it was social organisation, along with the ‘killer ape’ theory that differentiated us from other primates.

      So you can see that all three of the above examples have depended on a group sticking together under a leader for survival. The leader assumes that position through a postion of strength demonstrated through physical prowess and/or guile. The diffence between the three is their degree of evolution.

      On the other hand political ideologies in communities are developed because of prevailing circumstances/ideas promulgated by individuals within those communities. So we see this with the Scots………. just a miserable crowd, living in perpetual damp and cold, and who have a few shit-stirrers in their midst who feel others must pay for their miserable lives. ; )

    • The Gantt Guy 20:22 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for that mawm. Don’t really care about Africa (I included them for illustration purposes only), but it’s comforting to know Scotland is a socialist shite-hole not because it’s genetic but because the weather is shitty!

    • Chuck Bird 08:23 on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I notice a lot discussion about different peoples views on their interpretation of the Bible on GD 6 Jan. This just demonstrates again that a Christian party is not possible. I am a little disappointed that I have not got more support in doing something practical to stop militant and aggressive homosexuals taking over beaches not to mention public toilets.

      I realise direct confrontation is not everyone’s cup of tea but I see no one has even supported me on Len Brown’s FB. No one has emailed me offering any sort of support. These sort of things happen time after time. There has been numerous times when homosexuals have influenced sex education in schools. When parents find out what their children are taught there is an outcry and things die down until the next time.

      I contacted a friend who lives in St Heliers. He told me how when the old brick shithouse (literally) tucked discreetly up the back of St Heliers Dingle Dell Reserve and replaced it with a new metal electric door one, very visible and close to the road the high number of cruising queers was cut to zero overnight, and gave the Reserve back to the people. It looks like that has meant more have moved to Ladies Bay for their cruising.

      The Herald says, “United action will reclaim bay from exhibitionists”. It anyone prepared to help?


  • Redbaiter 07:45 on January 6, 2012 Permalink  

    General Debate Jan 6th 


    Has Kiwiblog gone downhill or what? On the few occasions I look in there these days the comments are unreadable. Mostly just a never ending round Robin of inane trash from the same small group of loons. Alexa shows a steady decline over 6 months and a 20% drop over the last three months. No wonder I reckon.

    • mort 10:10 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Kiwiblog is a show-piece in how someone can be proven to be a hypocrite.
      Farrah railed against the intrusions and thefts of the Klarkenfurhrer, and rightly so, but now he practically felches Keyster who continues to progress the Helengrad agenda.

    • bla 10:28 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Kiwiblog is disgusting, more so than the run of the mill leftist blogs. With the standard and such, everyone knows where they stand, and at least they don’t pretend to be something they are not. Farrar however masquerades as one of the good guys, when he is clearly just another pc leftist in disguise.
      Does this guy have a crush on Key or what?
      Crapping on about climate change and constantly posting pics from his overseas trips. Give me a break.

    • Jay 10:37 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      DPF is just a mouth piece for the National Party. Another Wellingtonian urban liberal who thinks they know best.
      There is a couple of good posters that still remain, but are usually drowned out by all the crap posted.

    • Chuck Bird 10:40 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      A very interesting article by Melanie Phillips is worth a read.

      Tory plans for tax breaks for married couples

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2075920/Marriage-tax-breaks-Nick-Clegg-living-different-planet.html#ixzz1icdtpzU6

    • kowtow 11:06 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      KB probably does so well as it gets so much exposure via RNZ etc It then builds up its own momentum.Some commentators there are very good,
      Farrar is also a National Party insider so will have a certain credibility on the “right”.But he is very much a part of the “beltway”, and as such is part of the problem of big government,something National should be against but isn’t.
      He is also a committed social liberal and is therefore not a conservative.Why that blog is constantly referred to as right wing is a mystery to me .

    • Angus 11:09 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      You get philu (until he was banned), that awful race-pimp Pollywog and the mad Marxist Penny Bright jumping in there to completely derail a thread . . and these dipshits like Big Bruv & dime, take the bait every time . . hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of Angling Times.

      Then, – oh the humanity – Andrei or Lucia post an opinion and all of the yellow-backed hyenas come out (i.e the NZ right wing)

    • Redbaiter 13:11 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yep, Kiwiblog is today dominated by a collection of left wing drongos.

    • Redbaiter 13:17 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for that link Chuck, an interesting read.

      Cameron is no Conservative, but if the heat is put upon politicians like him, they will become one.

      Nobody is putting any heat on Key, and his own party is too gutless to confront the cadre of left wing media advisers who so completely control him.

      One of the most important things the National Party has to do is fire Key’s media advisers. They’re all useless left wing cowards, and Key should not be listening to them.

    • mawm 14:16 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      This is a very interesting column by Peter Osbourne in yesterday’s Telegraph:-

      In every area of our public life, the Left is losing the argument

      But a handful of prime ministers have led governments that reshaped the world we all live in. Since 1945, only two – Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher – have fallen into this very rare second category.
      It now looks as if Cameron may turn out to be the third. In some ways this is very strange, because Cameron, at heart an old-fashioned Tory pragmatist, is the least revolutionary Prime Minister one can imagine.

    • Chuck Bird 15:07 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I am no prude. There are places on the West Coast where genuine nudists can discretely sunbath.
      It sound’s like many at Ladies Bay are perverts and I would not be surprised if most were not homosexuals. The is a problem at Okura North Auckland where homosexuals strut around displaying themselves to each other as well as anyone having a beach walk. What is Len Brown going to do about these perverts?


    • Redbaiter 15:14 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Need any more evidence as to what a nauseating bunch of cowards and thugs the secular progressives are? Check this classless example from one of Clint Heine’s lowlife little groupthink clan-

      Lucia Maria…..One sick bitch.

      Absolutely no concept of honour.

    • KG 15:26 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’m utterly baffled by NZ Conservative’s tolerance of pondscum such as this commenting in that blog. Is it some twisted view of Christianity, where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”?
      I’ve never admired pointless martrydom.
      The inability to recognise evil and deal with it is what’s wrong with modern Christianity. And spinelessness in the face of evil is not a virtue.

    • Redbaiter 15:33 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, just left a comment there to that effect.

      The cowards they attempt to reason with are just mindless ignorant fanatical thugs.

      Why give them oxygen, let alone try to reason with them?


    • Angus 15:42 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”?”

      That’s why left-wing shitheads like James, Heine, Piesse and the corpulent car salesman from Cambridge drop in there – because they don’t get any bite back.

    • Kris K 16:42 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “I’m utterly baffled by NZ Conservative’s tolerance of pondscum such as this commenting in that blog. Is it some twisted view of Christianity, where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”?
      I’ve never admired pointless martrydom.”
      The inability to recognise evil and deal with it is what’s wrong with modern Christianity. And spinelessness in the face of evil is not a virtue.

      In my opinion I’m not sure whether it comes down to lack of [spiritual] discernment, KG. Also, in the case of most [Catholics] at NZC their authority is not [even primarily] God’s word; the Bible, but rather their numerous popes, so called Catholic theologians, and extra-biblical writings.

      Of course there are also many [non-RC] Christians who would fit into your above category – what I call “Christian doormats” who also lack spiritual discernment.

      Alternatively, in the case of [some] Catholics anyway, it may come down to the equivalent of the RC practice of self-flagellation – at least in the metaphorical sense … ;)

      PS I agree, Heine & co are indeed pond-scum.

    • Kris K 16:53 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      PPS I meant to add this to my first paragraph:
      And therefore it primarily comes down to 1) “The opinions of men versus the opinions of men” as opposed to 2) “The word of God versus the opinions of men”. There’s a big difference.

    • Pascal 19:47 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Here’s an “Oops!” An EU convention invites a speaker who proceeds to hand ‘em their arses.

    • Chuck Bird 21:48 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I have heard more about the lewd behaviour at Ladies Bay on talk back. A local woman rung up and the behaviour is worse than was in the Herald and the police and the council are both bloody useless. Is anyone near Auckland prepared to help with a little direction? I am not talking about initiating violence just taking pictures and maybe licence numbers. The only way there will be violence is if someone tries to steal my camera.

      RB, would you mind posting their mug shots on your blog?

    • KG 22:14 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      If RB doesn’t want to, I will.

    • Redbaiter 22:17 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I will post them Chuck but any allegations that accompany the photos or any story on these events has to be fully authenticated. Don’t forget, the truth is never easy to come by. It is too easy to smear people these days. Be doubly sure.

    • Redbaiter 22:21 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the video Pascal. I don’t usually spend much time on videos but the guy drew me in. Very entertaining, and telling the necessary truth to those bureaucratc scum in Brussels. (Of course they’re not only in Brussels)

    • Chuck Bird 22:25 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks RB. From what I have heard on talkback the behaviour is pretty lewd. If some pervert is playing with his dick I think a picture will speak for itself.

      I just need to get a few volunteers as witnesses and backup. I have asked one by email. If he is a starter he will be as good as two or three.

      Good solid shoes will make any pervert think twice if they have no clothes on.

    • Chuck Bird 22:27 on January 6, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks also KG.

    • Angus 08:27 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Hi Chuck,
      The murmuring I’ve heard is that the beach is now some sort of “beat” for homosexuals to cruise for anonymous sexual encounters. But you can’t complain that it is in anyway inappropriate, homosexuals are super-citizens, beyond all reproach and any questioning of some of their more dubious behaviours is bigoted and “homophobic”, and families with children wanting to use the beach and surrounding areas will probably just have to get used to it.

    • Angus 08:31 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Here’s what you can and can’t say on Kiwiblog: (although I did use the “C” word which as a partial defence is fairly common from around my way)

      Rat (59) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      The only good christian is the chick who has spent years being brainwashed by her uptight christian parents.

      That christian chick shall be your next anal sex worshipper

      dime (3,835) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      Never a truer word spoken rat man

      Rat (59) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 2:04 pm

      Exactly Dime.

      The Parachute Festival is a den hole for Soddom and Gomorrah

      Angus (522) Says:
      January 6th, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Looks like you pair of cunts should hook up. Then you can butt fuck each other all you like.

      [DPF: 50 demerits]

    • KG 09:12 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Damn good comment, 50 demerits or not! That he will tolerate that kind of filth says all you need to know about the bald asshole.

    • Chuck Bird 09:18 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Angus, I believe what you say is correct. From what I have heard on talkback there have been indecent acts in public up full sex. I consider some guy playing with himself in public indecent. An indecent act in public is punishable with up to 2 years jail.

      I am trying to make contact with St Heliers Bay locals and see if they would like some help. If the answer is yes I will suggest they ask the council to sort thing out or they will. I am not talking about initiating violence. I am talking about taking pictures and licence numbers. As you know it is the left that usually resort to violence so I think numbers would be sensible. Are you from Auckland and if so would you like to help?

      You can see my comment at the bottom of today’s article.


      This is not about nude bathing or sunbathing. It is about allowing a bunch or perverts a deviants to take over a beach.

    • KG 09:23 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Angus, I just sent a copy of that exchange to the editor of the Herald and asked if hosting that kind of filth was acceptable for one of their contributors.
      The reply (if I get one) might be interesting. :-)

    • Redbaiter 09:45 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Its not as if Farrar’s greater bulk of left wing commenters don’t use similar language. They are seldom demerited.

      Farrar is just another liberal and progressive of the kind who take the big stick to Conservatives but is always fashionably “tolerant” of those who share his weak wet political/ social approach.

      Same old left wing control syndrome and hypocrisy- you can say anything you like as long as its in line with progressive thinking.

    • Angus 09:47 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      @ KG – I kind of did it deliberately to see what the response would be thinking the proceeding comments would receive even a gentle admonishment from Farrar. The character “dime” is one of the site’s stooges.

      @ Chuck – agreed. The concept of “consenting adults / behind closed doors” is totally lost on them (even though the preach those words often enough).

    • ZenTiger 11:18 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’m utterly baffled by NZ Conservative’s tolerance of pondscum such as this commenting in that blog. Is it some twisted view of Christianity, where giving a platform to one’s enemies is somehow the equivalent of “turning the other cheek”? I’ve never admired pointless martrydom.”

      The inability to recognise evil and deal with it is what’s wrong with modern Christianity. And spinelessness in the face of evil is not a virtue.

      KG, your entire theory rests on the idea that we don’t ban certain people from commenting because we are “turning the other cheek”.

      Please understand that this IS NOT THE REASON why we do not ban commenters outright. So if you can accept that that is NOT THE REASON then you will have to allow that there is at least another reason or reasons.

      I also advance the idea that we do not do this because we are spineless. This is a war of ideas, and if we refuse to debate them, then that is being spineless. We also believe that whether or not we banned some-one from our blog, that still would not prevent people like Bug Bruv doing posts like his recent one on his blog. The amount of rudeness in his rant against Lucia in some way speaks for itself.

      Also, we do delete comments. We do not tolerate certain types of behaviour, and comments will be deleted on that basis rather than “turning the other cheek”.

      @Kris K

      In my opinion I’m not sure whether it comes down to lack of [spiritual] discernment, KG. Also, in the case of most [Catholics] at NZC their authority is not [even primarily] God’s word; the Bible, but rather their numerous popes, so called Catholic theologians, and extra-biblical writings.

      When I write or discuss things, I am NOT often citing the Bible as my authority, because there is often no need to. The ideas I discuss can stand on their own, using reason, without needing to add biblical support. One of the things I like about Catholicism is that it is a synthesis of faith and reason – we are encouraged to develop both. Whether or not something can be supported by the bible does not mean it cannot be supported otherwise. Much of your criticism seems to extend to the fact that if Lucia or I dare to offer any argument or opinion on something, it is evil to use other sources to support that idea. You see everything uttered by a Catholic as an affront to your own brand of religion, yet people like KG can do the same, and not be required to cite the bible. Get over yourself.

      “so called Catholic theologians”

      There are many excellent Catholic Theologians. Get over yourself.

      Of course there are also many [non-RC] Christians who would fit into your above category – what I call “Christian doormats” who also lack spiritual discernment.

      Trying to imply we aren’t Christians, or we are Christian doormats…get over yourself.

    • ZenTiger 11:31 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply


      Yeah, just left a comment there to that effect.

      The cowards they attempt to reason with are just mindless ignorant fanatical thugs.

      Why give them oxygen, let alone try to reason with them?


      Hi Red. One thing I found out early on when I started blogging was there are always more silent readers than commenters. I also found when I would very rarely come across one of these silent readers, that they took great heart in the fact we answered the kinds of rude, inane comments as well as the polite and thoughtful ones, because those comments clearly had the kinds of barbs (factoids, misquotes, argument mischaracterisations) they themselves got hit with if they spoke up at work. One person told me they realised their opinion was not so unique, but they also liked the fact they could get a better idea of what those arguments might be and where the discussion might go.

      Interestingly, our Goggle ranking for our blog is quite good on a lot of topics we have blogged about, and sometimes people re-reading them will get a good perspective on the topic and get much from the fact we debated the idea and answered it to the readers satisfaction.

      The Big Bruv rant is interesting in that he has clearly not tried to read anything about the Catholic position on contraception and the reasons behind it, and has therefore not attempted to argue directly against any of the actual points, but just articulate his horror at the idea. You get that. But some readers will read, and weight up the arguments and maybe learn something that will expand their perspective. We can’t change these people by the point of a gun or even a law (in this regard, I’d be against banning contraception – things like that ultimately fail or turn us into fascists, communists or wahabbists)

    • ZenTiger 11:42 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      PS: All blogs have there own approaches to managing comments and commenters. I respect that idea, because it is their property. No-one has a right to say and do what they like on other people’s blogs – they are there as guests and need to remember that. Crusader Rabbit is (to many leftist people) seen as an extreme blog – I fully understand why you run the comment policies you do.

      Our blog gets fewer readers and fewer commenters, and would get less with stricter commenting policies. A certain size of commenters helps keep the blog alive. I have no wish also to create a blog that would, by it’s more specialised nature, turn into a “Hand Mirror” or a “No right Turn”

    • KG 12:22 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Zen, I’d like to clear one thing up. I was not accusing you or Lucia Maria of spinelessness in that comment, however badly I may have expressed it. I was speaking about modern Christianity in general, the tendency to appease and accommodate that which should never be appeased.
      On comments: People like Big Bruv and his ilk drive people away. It’s happened to very many blogs I’ve followed for years and the end result is to leave the field to the scum, because a lot of people simply can’t be bothered with the endless sniping and ignorance. People who would like to leave a comment end up as passive readers.
      If you regard that as a fair price to pay for keeping the blog alive then obviously that’s your call. But CR manages to get plenty of commenters and sometimes very lively debate without having to throw open the doors to people I wouldn’t spit on if I met them on the street.

    • ZenTiger 12:47 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      @KG – thanks. I realised you didn’t mean it that way and so didn’t take it that way. Partly why I also added my own clarification on your comment policy, :)

    • Kris K 13:30 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “Much of your criticism seems to extend to the fact that if Lucia or I dare to offer any argument or opinion on something, it is evil to use other sources to support that idea.

      Zen, not at all. But when you [or Lucia] push ideas which are founded on RC dogma [eg contraception], and the implication that somehow this RC dogma represents “the will of God”, then I will call you on it and stipulate in no uncertain terms that IT DOES NOT represent “the will of God” according to the word of God; the Bible [which is MY authority on such issues].

      [Zen:] You see everything uttered by a Catholic as an affront to your own brand of religion, yet people like KG can do the same, and not be required to cite the bible. Get over yourself.”

      Only when they [Catholics] put views out there which I know to be founded upon RC dogma and WHICH ARE an affront to biblical Christianity.
      If someone else [and I’m NOT using KG as an example here], who is not a Christian or a Catholic, puts out a view which IS NOT founded upon RC dogma then I will address that on its own merits – and if they use another authority to jsutify their views I will challenge that authority.

      And from your later comment where you said:

      “… the Catholic position on contraception and the reasons behind it”

      You yourself make implicit distinction between the “Catholic position” and that of other Christians. I rest my case …

    • ZenTiger 14:08 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      You yourself make implicit distinction between the “Catholic position” and that of other Christians. I rest my case …

      I made that distinction because many Christians don’t share the same view as the Catholic position. I don’t presume to imply that they would. Historically though, nearly all did share the same view until the 1930’s.

    • Kris K 14:50 on January 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      While many Protestant churches may have shared the RC position on contraception, this in no way implies this position is biblically sound, but rather that many churches that came out of the reformation still have some RC baggage they haven’t disposed of yet.

      As I have stated on several occassions now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO biblical mandate which outlaws, or even frowns upon, contraception where it is applied PRIOR TO conception.

      I’ll take the biblical view over that of man-made ‘rules’ everytime.

      PS I think many Protestant church are wrong on numerous issues as well, and I have challenged Pastors, elders, etc over the years where I believe such views/practices don’t line up with scripture. Sola Scriptura every time!

    • backcasts@yahoo.com 10:19 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Always been intrigued, maybe KK can help.

      How does can a religion retain any integrity at all unless it adheres to the letter to whatever final revelation of its deity’s instructions it uses?
      Be it the King James Bible or the Koran……..

      The point being, given my limited knowledge but long observation, none do.

    • Kris K 12:18 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      You have highlighted something I have been banging on about for years now – whether that be on blogs, amongst family, friends and work colleagues, or in the wider Christian community.
      And I think this is the main bone of contention when debating with Catholics, for example – the issue of authority.

      While I believe the Bible is clear that it is the ONLY authority upon which a genuine Christian can stand, others [which by definition must be regarded as dangerous cults] rely on EXTRA-BIBLICAL writings and pronouncements from their self-proclaimed leaders – whether that be a Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, or a numerous line of RC popes. All of these, while saying they follow the Bible, relegate the Bible to second, third, or quite often even their last authority. Their extra-biblical material forms the backbone of their belief system; and where it contradicts the Bible the Bible is simply ignored or reasoned away by their “later revelation” material, or in the case of the RC ‘church’ the latest pronouncement from its current pope [The current pope can over-ride both the Bible or even earlier pronouncements by previous popes – and yet RCs see no hypocrisy in this?!].

      Of course many Protestant churches are not immune to this, either, but they generally still adhere to the centrality of the gospel message, and that salvation is through faith in Christ alone. But not all; and those that don’t are heading into the area of becoming a cult, IMO [many Pentecostal ‘churches’, for example]. I could say more on this but that, perhaps, is another discussion.

      Regarding those who follow the Koran, I must admit a grudging respect. Don’t get me wrong, I think Islam is straight from the pit, and Salman Rushdie was right on the money when he entitled his book on Islam “The Satanic Verses”.
      Having said that, though, Islam presents a united front and in reality there is only ONE Islam. As lying [Kitman & Taqqiya] is permitted in Islam, especially if it will further the cause of Allah, we see this whole notion, for example, that Islam is a “religion of peace” promoted in the West by various Islamic leaders. The troubling thing, of course, is that many in the West actually believe this lie.

      One needs go no further than the founder of Islam, Mohammed himself, to see that he was a murdering, lying, adulterous, paedophilic control-freak [and quite likely demon-possessed if you read about him] who was sought on establishing a global religion through terror and the sword; one where there are zero dissenting voices, not to mention zero Jews [the genuine children of God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob].

      That Islam continues to use terror, deception, and the sword in its attempts to establish a global caliphate, then, is no surprise. Muslims are only being true to their origin authority; the Koran and Hadiths, and follow the example as personified in their founder, Mohammed.

      So, on that basis, Islam adheres to its founding documents and founder, while many Christian churches do not – and none less so than those which fall into the category of [Christian] cult.

      A bit long, but I thought it important to cover all the bases.

    • B2 12:32 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I had a simpler example in mind.

      The Ten Commandments appear to be bedrock theology? One of them states unequivocally, no work on the sabbath. Sunday shift workers are therefore infringing, therefore must be what ? Excommunicated?

      Open shut case, zero credibility for any bible based religion that allows its adherents to remain members and transgress bottom line theology.

    • Kris K 13:04 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      B2, strictly speaking the keeping of the sabbath is a Jewish observance/command, and the sabbath is Saturday. While Christians generally meet on a Sunday this is more for convenience – it could in fact be any day. The New Testament only encourages Christians to meet regularly, but never stipulates any goven day.

      But even if we are to take your point in the Jewish context, Christ Himself addresses this very issue of [Jews] working on the sabbath:

      Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
      Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
      Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
      Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
      Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

      And even if [which it doesn’t] the equivalent were to apply to Christians on Sundays – pastors/ministers work on Sunday.

    • B2 13:25 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply


      So no other individual Ten Commandment can have any more efficacy than its ability to be superseded by other considerations……. fair enough.
      I didn’t know they had been effectively diced.
      The Sabbath, (whenever it is is irrelevant), work Commandment was declared null and void by Jesus himself.

      Guessing…. to get to the only non negotiable core theology, I have to go to New Testament and maybe use the words of Jesus as the only ‘must do’s’?

      Is one Gospel ok or do I need two as cross check?

    • Kris K 16:16 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      B2, on the off chance you’re actually taking this seriously I’ll try and explain.

      Firstly, Jews aren’t Christians and Christians aren’t Jews. Sounds obvious, although perhaps not to some. The ten commandments were given to the Jews – they were to observe them and keep them and this was an expression of their faith in God. It was also an object lesson in that no matter how hard they tried they COULD NEVER actually achieve this – ie they couldn’t keep all the laws all the time and would fail. This was to highlight that man cannot earn his own salvation through works; a point that is made clear in the New Testament where it is ONLY through faith in Christ’s completed works on the cross, and Him being the Son of God, that one is saved [from the consequences of their sins].

      Christ reiterated the ten commandments in the NT – all except one [you guessed it]: sabbath day worship. And even though the other nine were repeated the observance of these were more to show that one was actually in Christ [ie saved] rather than a means by which one is saved.

      In fact it is harder for NT Christians than OT Jews: Christians are not to even entertain these things in their heart – to look on a woman with lust is the same as committing adultery/fornication; to wish someone dead is the same as murder. Whereas for the Jews it was the actual real thing they were to keep themselves from.

      But remember, keeping these things are after the fact; Christians are first saved through faith in Christ, keeping these things [even the thought of them] is more the fruit that someone is actually saved in the first place.

      In a nutshell – you need to establish exactly WHO the intended audience is [ie Pre-Jewish Gentile, Jew, or Christian]. Once you have done that the Bible becomes quite simple to understand and correctly apply.

      To highlight this point:
      Christians are not instructed, nor required, to sacrifice animals for their sins as were OT Jews – this has been superseded once the perfect sacrifice for sin, in the form of Christ’s death on the cross, was completed.

      I trust this addresses any confusion on your part.

      [PS I could have quoted numerous scriptural references to back all this up but for the sake of brevity [and my time] I haven’t]

    • B2 16:55 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Deadly serious…..and you’re missing the point.
      For whatever reason you give I accept all the Ten Commandments aren’t set in stone (so to speak) as the word of god, for Christian Bible believers.
      Let’s put that aside.

      I want to know what words of the Bible ARE immutable for Christians (because as you discuss the Ten Commandments clearly aren’t), do I have to go to the actual words Jesus spoke, as presented and confirmed by the Apostles?

    • Kris K 17:47 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      B2, as I said above, you need to establish the intended audience.

      Obviously there are some biblical truths that are for all the faithful and non-faithful alike; eg God loves us [and sent His son to die for all sin, even those in the OT]. Some things are just for the Jews; eg animal sacrifice for sin. And some things are just for Christians [or those seeking forgiveness of sin and salvation] eg faith and belief on Christ alone.

      Now to your point:
      What is just for specifically Christians?
      Pretty much all the NT [with a few provisos], but especially the writings of Paul. One must remember that until Pentecost, and certainly prior to the crucifixion, we are essentially still in the OT and under the old Jewish covenant. Although in reality we are in a period of transition from the Old to the New Covenant in the Gospels and Acts. So some things were for the Jews at the time and some for the soon to be born church.

      Also, some of the NT is in fact for those who will be left on the earth following the Rapture of the church and during the time of Daniel’s 70th week; the seven years under the reign of Antichrist and prior to Armageddon; eg some of Revelation, etc. And some other portions are for during the thousand year Millennial reign of Christ.

      A good Bible-based church with good teaching, as well as the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer, helps to bring clarity to what’s what in this regard.

      Luckily one doesn’t need to know all the subtleties to understand the gospel and how to receive salvation.

      Does that help?

    • WAKE UP 17:55 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Look it’s simple: Farrar has gone overground and has no credibilty. Ignore him.

    • B2 18:28 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks KK
      So up until the crucifixion we have the suss combined with the accurate.
      ie. unreliable evidence and instruction because it was directed at an OT or Jewish audience.

      I’m unfamiliar with truth as a relative concept, so that’s hard to understand.

      Alas, I have to discount any fast and loose Apostle philosophising that happened later in Acts that wasn’t directly presenting the words, as they remembered them, of Jesus.
      Acts, it seems, is double heresay.

      Unfortunately, and as always for me, the acceptable religious instruction and structure and evidence of divinity is inside a scant number of quotation marks quoting the deity on earth.

      Too thin, but thanks for confirming that.

    • Pascal 19:26 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Matthew 7:6 KK

    • Kris K 19:39 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, Pascal – and this one too:

      1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

      Can’t say I didn’t give it a good shot.

    • B2 19:42 on January 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Reality challenged Matthew baby doesn’t do neuro-surgery, engineer skyscrapers or fly 747s …..does he? :-)

  • Redbaiter 04:55 on January 1, 2012 Permalink  

    General Debate 

    Reinstated for 2012 by popular request.

    If you have any interesting links or comments, plese share them here.

    Happy New Year to all readers, and best wishes for 2012

    • Pascal 06:45 on January 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Happy new year to you R. Here’s something to prod general debate. Thing is, so many are afraid to take it on. I hope that changes.

      Well, exactly ten years ago today, a comment appeared at Free Republic in a thread based on the publication “Human Sacrifice Rationalization in 7th Grade Curriculum ”

      Here is the summary of the comment:

      A fundamental disparity appears to set up the battleground, the reason, the cause celebre, for the confrontation predicted in Revelations known as Armageddon.

      • The God-fearing belief they must be allowed to procreate, to obey what they see as God’s wishes, that the choice to have children ought be left solely to the couple and providence. They note that no matter how many people on the planet, God has provided when man is free to worship freely. The overwhelming success of this country is testament to that.

      • Those without faith in God have a different belief: the unshakable, Malthusian driven fear that believers in God must be neutralized in order to save the planet from the inevitable geometric growth of humanity if the wishes of “the great unwashed” are left unchecked. They fear the planet cannot stand further human growth, and are therefore dead-set against any who promote it. So they have aided, abetted and employed the God-scoffers to indoctrinate our children against God and belief in Him. Our children are being indoctrinated to not have this faith in God, to believe man must limit himself. Our children will be warned not to believe that God said be “fruitful and multiply.” Our children will think it patriotic to not have children of their own. Our children are being taught to believe that those who “breed” are traitors.

      Even non-believers ought be able to see how this conflict sets the God scoffers against the God believers.

      Institutional rot concomitant to advancing authoritarianism have only gotten worse since then.

      I’ve been flogging how the Precautionary Principle is at the core to morphing Western culture into accepting authoritarian rule ever since Christmas day. And that authoritarian rule is deliberately regressive in nature because true progress causes humanity to thrive — as happened when the ideas from the Age of Reason led to the toppling of authoritarian rule in British America.

      The Precautionary Principle the prime reason for the new morality that views population reduction as a moral necessity. The useful idiots who actually believe that “we must assume Malthus was right so we can prevent massive uncontrolled deaths” are delivering the West (the progenitor and protector of individual liberty) into the hands of power mad monsters. History is quite clear: power mad monsters always rain death.

    • The Gantt Guy 10:39 on January 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great comment, Pascal. Made even more so when one considers the West is in suicidal decline through failure to replenish. Most western peoples are failing to replace themselves and it is the Muslim world, where women tend to have 5 or more children growing at an alarming rate, whether it is the Muslim world in its natural home, or transplanted into the west.

    • Redbaiter 12:17 on January 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The “Precautionary Principle” is the triumph of superstition and ideology over science and technology.

      Almost always counterproductive, if we applied the precautionary principle to itself, ie asked ourselves what are the possible dangers of using this principle, we would be forced to abandon it very quickly.

    • jonno1 12:53 on January 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The Precautionary Principle seems to have morphed out of Prudent Avoidance, which simply put says “if in doubt, avoid it”. It came about in relation to EMFs, a field I work in [no pun intended] where all the scientific evidence indicates there are no health issues, however if an individual chooses to go without electricity or a cell phone, then fine, as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs, and more particularly costs, on others.
      Another example is so-called second-hand smoke, of which there’s no evidence of health risks, although it is annoying to have someone blow smoke all over you! Of course the risk to oneself of smoking are well-established (the exact opposite of EMF health effects), but again, it’s a matter of choice. Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit” programme on second-hand smoke was a good one.
      But the Precautionary Principle has got out of hand in terms of imposing controls on society, the worst current example of course being CAGW. On that topic, my holiday reading includes “The Chilling Stars” by Svensmark & Calder – a very good read indeed.

    • Pascal 20:11 on January 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      You kiwis are great. In the States I constantly have to explain the things like the Precautionary Principle and even Statism. I suggest it for discussion, and you just dive in. Fight to protect your educational system because it appears to have been better for longer than has ours. (Yes, yours is quickly descending, I’m sure given, the smug Nat SKUNCs you have running things so as to make you “equal” with 3rd worlders.)

    • Jay 21:30 on January 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Went and saw the Iron Lady tonight. The political parts were quite good. Showing the left using insults as a means of persuasion in debate, the cowardly members of her own party more concerned about their careers than the people and calling for compromise with the left, her hardline stance on everything she believed in, unrelenting and unwilling to give in to cowards.

      Most of the audience was of an older generation as expected. I was probably the only one in their 20’s. It made me think of how the demographic would be different if it was a film about Che Guevara.

    • Chuck Bird 10:09 on January 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      It great having General Debate so we can point out stuff that you may have missed or just not had time to blog about.

      Editorial: ‘Tea-tape’ costs bid is disturbing

      5:30 AM Sunday Jan 1, 2012


      The above would be worth commenting on directly to the Herald. I would be interested how much they censor the responses that oppose their view.

      If anyone posts to the Herald on the Tea-tape and you do not get posted please let me know at


    • ZenTiger 13:37 on January 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Chuck, I registered as ZenTiger and left a comment, but it seems to have been rejected (I made the comment yesterday).

      All I said was something along the lines that the Herald should do a story on how many NZ companies like to use contractors and free-lance operators, so that if they find something interesting the organisation might fund court cases and yet if the court case gets lost, they can cut the freelancer loose and let them suffer the financial fall-out, and then make some mileage on that story too.

      Not sure why such a thought is considered so dangerous to them?

    • Chuck Bird 14:37 on January 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Zen, I suspect that the Herald censors the posts particularly on a subject like this. I will do one myself shortly and see how I go.

    • Chuck Bird 15:48 on January 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      My response to addressing child abuse. It would be good if this Green Paper and their supposed call for public input was not just a waste of money. It will be interesting if I get a response.

      ——– Original Message ——–
      Subject: The Green Paper for Vulnerable Children
      Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:27:52 +1300
      From: Chuck Bird
      Reply-To: chuckbirdnz@gmail.com
      To: yourresponse@childrensactionplan.govt.nz

      Dear Sir/Madam

      Would you kindly tell me why I should take time to give a considered
      response to the Green Paper when the Prime Minister treated the view of
      about 87% of good parents with utter contempt?

      I heard that the main reason for rejecting the view of the majority was
      because of a conversation with Peter Sharples. Sharples thought that
      Maori in particular were not bright enough to know the difference
      between a smack and abuse. That might apply to Maori who vote for the
      Maori or Mana Party but that is not the case for the majority of Maori
      who do not support such racist parties.

      I note the parameters on the Green Paper are very narrow and ignore the
      real causes of child abuse.

      Governments over the last 40 years have undermined the traditional
      family, the primacy of parents in raising their children and sadly
      fathers in their important role of helping raise children. Common sense
      and research shows this have been a primary contributor to child abuse.
      One just has to look at the number of children murdered by mother’s

      Prime Minister Key promised to change the law if good parents were
      prosecuted for lightly smacking their children. They have been
      prosecuted as the video in this link will clearly demonstrate.

      Will you kindly ask the Prime Minister when he is going to honour his
      promise and let me know?

      Have you considered that the altering of Section 59 may actually be
      increasing child abuse even if that may be counterintuitive?

      When you are serious about finding parents and grandparents views on
      child abuse and do not set narrow terms of reference to give the answers
      you want please let me know.

      Kind regards
      Chuck Bird

    • Kris K 12:32 on January 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Very well said, Chuck – and absolutely spot on.

      I will also be very interested in knowing whether you receive a reply; and if you do whether it actually addresses all the issues you have raised. Keep us informed.

      I especially agreed with your assertion that “the altering of Section 59 may actually be increasing child abuse even if that may be counterintuitive …”

      As we all know, genuine child abuse has only increased since this law was altered, with the addition of good parents now being prosecuted for what was clearly never regarded as child abuse in the past [and nor is it now in any real sense of the phrase].

      And the real losers? The children of this nation. John Key obviously hates children – we already know he despises the opinion of 87% of the voting population [who only want the very best for their children].

    • The Gantt Guy 12:47 on January 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Mighty well said, Chuck! It’ll be a miracle if you receive a reply though, because your commentary doesn’t fit the meme.

    • Chuck Bird 17:52 on January 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I thought some may be interested in another good socially conservative blog.


  • Redbaiter 00:14 on October 17, 2011 Permalink  

    Which Socially Liberal Blogger Needs To Read Miranda Devine? 

    Most commenters or bloggers who disagree with the militant homosexual movement that seeks so called “gay rights”, and have spoken out in opposition, know all too well of the hate and venom that is the standard response.

    In more recent times, the movement has stepped up efforts to close down opposition, and taken to regulation to silence critics. Those who challenge or disagree have legal actions brought against them, and find themselves facing inquiries or appearing before commissions or even arrested, handcuffed, and up before judges, defending themselves against such subjective charges as “offensive” speech.

    It struck me that a certain well known blogger provides a miniaturization of this situation on his blog. He frequently runs behind the scenes kangaroo courts, where Conservatives are frequently subjected to a partisan review of their comments after objections are filed by anonymous cowards (who no doubt share the socially liberal views of the blog owner). The usual outcome of these kangaroo courts is the banning or “demeriting” of the “offender”.

    Australian columnist Miranda Devine has written a fine article on the hate expressed to anyone showing resistance to the “gay agenda”. Some excerpts below-

    Saying anything that is not wholly supportive of the gay-rights agenda is the new taboo—with same-sex marriage and adoption the hottest of hot-button topics at the front line of the culture wars.

    Yep, it sure is taboo, and while those in opposition can be enthusiastically defiled and insulted, there is rapid action taken against any perceived retaliation.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage are being dragged before anti-discrimination tribunals with complaints that are, at times, withdrawn at the 11th hour. But mud sticks, and the time, expense and stress of the process can make defenders of traditional marriage inclined to keep their heads down in future. Anyone daring to assert that, generally, children are better off with a mother and a father, a fact supported by research, is vilified to their reputational grave. If you are worried about free speech, this is as serious a threat as any.

    Yep, and what starts on the streets and in the media and in blogs soon finds its way into the courts. The suppression of views under the pretense of “offensiveness” is widespread in the socially liberal blogosphere. It seeps into the culture, and then, through sympathetic politicians, into legislation.

    Similarly, when Californian voters backed so-called Proposition 8 legislation ruling out gay marriage in 2008, opponents resorted to mob intimidation and violence, which has been dubbed “homo-fascism”. There were death threats, vandalism and boycotts against churches, businesses and restaurants suspected of being against gay marriage.

    Yep again, and yet there has been little if any criticism of these events in the same old sections of the blogosphere and media. Yet a Conservative or a Tea Party member puts a foot wrong and they scream blue murder.

    Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, has copped more than his fair share of abuse, yet he is one of the few who continues publicly to defend traditional marriage.He says intimidation is successful.

    “It stifles public debate because good people will not go out to get their reputation trashed,” he said. “Senior people in the Church can’t afford to be lambasted with the language and abuse which is put on anyone who stands up for marriage.”

    Correct, but of course that is the intent of the social liberals. They do not want debate. They want alternative views silenced.

    When Wallace appeared on the ABC’s Q&A recently, offensive comments on the program website included that “Jim Wallace is a c…”.

    “Why is it Christians or anyone who stands up for marriage can be attacked in this way and we’re not supposed to take offence?” he asked.

    Precisely. The judgment of the social liberals only swings the one way, at the same time as they hypocritically level false charges of bigotry and intolerance. On the blog in question, the most abusive social liberals out there are infrequently demerited or banned, and have virtually free reign to slander and abuse any Conservative whenever they choose. They know they’re always going to be fully protected by the blog owner’s craven supplication to the same fashionable cause.

    Miranda Devine- Call Off The Thought Police

    • Angus 10:50 on October 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Speaking of Kiwiblog, I must’ve missed something, but is this fool actually . . really . . seriously . . running for Parliament for the Fencesitters United Party?


    • Redbaiter 11:07 on October 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah well, as an odious pretentious duplicitous slimy POS, George would fit well with the current crop of politicians and especially as a lieutenant of Trougher Dunne.

      If anything would ever personify the useless stand for nothing sucker at the public tit style of politician it would be Pete George.

  • Redbaiter 06:07 on September 29, 2011 Permalink  

    Andrew Bolt- The Iron Rule of The Social Liberals 

    A shameful outcome indeed in the case of Andrew Bolt and his criticism of white aboriginals. The issue is made out to be racism, but anyone who knows Andrew Bolt understands there is not a racist bone in his body. Racism is just a smokescreen for the modern mantra that really underpins this grossly uncivilized finding, and that mantra is “you shall not challenge the dictates of the social liberals”.

    The essence of social liberalism is that no judgements should ever be made concerning certain identified groups in our society. In general, these groups have a common identifier and that is that they are perceived by the bleeding hearts as being disadvantaged in life by some means beyond their personal control.

    There are degrees of disadvantage, and as these degrees increase, so it is considered more blasphemous to criticise them. Probably, the most common identifier is the lack of a white skin (or though paradoxically in Bolt’s case this was not so) but its immensely helpful if you are also not heterosexual, and/ or come from a non Christian European cultural grouping. Capping it all off is gender, leading to the circumstance where if you’re a dark skinned lesbian from Ethiopia with only a smattering of English and you believe your life is governed by the moods of spirit who lives in a stream or up a tree or under a rock, you’re royalty to any social liberal.

    Having a strong belief in Gaia or the idea that mankind (meaning all the successful white skinned educated heterosexual civilized males of Christian heritage out there ) is destroying the globe is also immensely helpful.

    Bolt made the mistake of expressing scorn for one of the social liberal’s most worshiped groups, pseudo aboriginals who doubled as activists for various causes and who were bent on changing our society in some way. Any cause that diminishes respect for traditional white Christian heritage is fine. The social liberals just adore these people, and will not have them spoken ill of in any way or at any time.

    Bolt was put up on Stalinist charges in a kangaroo court and just like Conservatives are hounded off most blogs run by social liberals, so he will pay a price for the crime of breaching the strictly enforced behaviour, speech and thought codes enforced by these modern day jack booted authoritarians.

    They have assaulted Andrew Bolt because he does not think like them, because he does not speak like them, and because he does not behave like them. Like most ideas born from Marxism, the social liberal calls himself by a term that is a contradiction. Social liberals are not liberal. They are mostly vicious authoritarians who will use any means possible to silence and control those who disagree with them.

    The pseudo-liberal closely resembles the professional communist. He preaches tolerance while practicing intolerance; he condemns bigotry while being a bigot; he purports to be for open debate while silencing all of his opponents; he says he is for religious tolerance while routinely slandering Christians; he purports to be for multiculturalism while viciously attacking the traditional European culture.

    They are not liberals, they are authoritarian totalitarians, and Andrew Bolt’s disgraceful and disgusting treatment proves this beyond doubt.

    • The Gantt Guy 09:19 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      And this occurred in Australia, where there is still some resistance to the social liberal. Imagine had it occurred in New Zealand, were anyone outside the blogs brave enough to say people like part-Scottish Margaret Mutu, almost-entirely-Irish Stephen O’Regan (aka Sir Tipene), Hone Harawira, Pita Sharples and the thousands of others engage in self-selecting their ethnic backgrounds. And they do so to avail themselves of the preference that comes with being a member of that background, to insert their snouts for a lifetime into the trough, removing it only long enough to utter more of the language of the victim which ensures the trough remains full at all times. What would be the result? Exactly the same, and more.

      Even Don Brash, who in a very very mild way has had the temerity to say Maori ought not to have special treatment, has been villified by the liberal elite from one end of the country to the other. Imagine had he personalised his attack, and suggested not that it is wrong to (for example) have Maori electoral seats, but that the only reason Pita Sharples had self-selected as a Maori was to avail himself of one of those seats?

    • mawm 10:00 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Social liberals are not liberal. They are mostly vicious authoritarians who will use any means possible to silence and control those who disagree with them.


    • Maungakiekie 10:27 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Redbaiter, what you’re describing is ressentiment: ‘love’ for whatever is the polar opposite of what you hate.

      There’s a really good audio book, available for free at http://reformedaudio.org/schlossberg.html that discusses ressentiment in some detail.

    • Sika 11:10 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      One good outcome.
      Section 18 c is finished come the Liberal govt 2013.
      Because they are a ‘near Labor’ party they lacked the guts to zap it in office, this evil little statute has been sitting around waiting since Keating’s time.

      It’s a Statist social engineer’s dream……legislation you’d expect from NZ.
      It criminalise “causing offence” so you can silence anyone anytime.

      They have picked the wrong bloke to make an example of with Bolta.
      It won’t stand.

    • Sika 11:14 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply


    • Kris K 12:04 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well said, Red – and spot on as usual.

      The pseudo-liberal closely resembles the professional communist. He preaches tolerance while practicing intolerance; he condemns bigotry while being a bigot; he purports to be for open debate while silencing all of his opponents; he says he is for religious tolerance while routinely slandering Christians; he purports to be for multiculturalism while viciously attacking the traditional European culture.

      We all know communists in fact hate freedom; hate Judeo-Christian values, principles and morality; hate Conservatives/Christians; and naturally hate the one true God who under-writes all of the above.

      And therefore, as the majority of historical Western culture/society/nations are founded on the above, these communists hate all that has made the West great and prosperous [spiritually and economically], and therefore (as we well know) are doing everything in their power to destroy the West, and people like Bolt who personify, in their minds, all that is wrong with the West.

      Conservative blogs are, I’m sure, the next thing on their hit list …

    • stan 17:24 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      It won’t be long when aussies flood these sites due to censorship.Stupid liberals wasted 12 years by not removing this stupids law when it power in both houses of parliament .Now this disgusting law will stay at least 6 years due to the power of the greens in the senate-come on double disalusionment of parliament.Hey in years to come aussies may flood nz as political refugees fleeing the locals and the tailiban. ps great site to stumble upon -the bolt verdict hopefully will wake people up to whats going on in australia and make a stand against the do gooders in the left .

    • Lucia Maria 19:04 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      This is not good.

    • Sika 20:21 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Errr….no stan…..the Federal Attorney General in a Lib govt can simply decline to prosecute, effectively the statute gets shelved tho it’s still on the books……all the same as ‘sedition’.
      it happens in 2013.

    • Sika 22:02 on September 29, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Slightly OT…

      Same genre…..

  • Redbaiter 13:44 on September 13, 2011 Permalink  

    Agenda 21- You Need to Know What it is About. 

    From the United Nations Web Site-

    Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

    Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

    The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session. (More …)

    • KG 14:33 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      “..were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)..”
      And not one fucking voter had any say in that.
      People like Breivik begin to look eminently sane……..

    • mawm 15:53 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      What voters think is irrelevant KG. Promise them a bit more of their own hard-earned money…..or better still someone else’s, and they will be as happy as Larry.

      Will any politician ever have the balls to stand up to the UN? Doubt it.

      Now Al Bore is going to have a 24 hour Global Warming Special. These guys never give up, do they?


    • KG 16:01 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah. Very true, Mawm. I see Obama’s “stimulus” bill is funded by the taxpayer, so he takes credit yet again for spending other people’s money.
      Bastards, the lot of ‘em.

    • Kris K 16:04 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Scary stuff, Red.
      No doubt this is going to get a lot of attention from the conservative blogosphere over the coming months and years.
      Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you consider what will be required to overthrow these totalitarian Marxist scum you quickly come to the conclusion that ONLY a greater show of force/power will likely get the job done. We’re well past the point of negotiation, talk or the ballot box. I hate to say it, but, like you said Keith, Breivik starts to look eminently sane compared to the insanity of the above agenda.

    • john 16:52 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Agenda 21 is one of the issues covered by students (indoctrinated) doing environmental studies.This along with other UN propaganda.The tutors are all of a left/green persuasion as you all know.
      An uphill battle.

    • dad4justice 19:49 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Agenda 21 another control measure from the satan lovers, get ready for the mark. Yeah right, about time we fought back boys and girls.

    • KG 19:53 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Lol! “nahman” demonstrates the depth of its intellect. Keep going, please. You’re making my pet parrot feel like Einstein. :)

    • dondiego 21:09 on September 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I’ve been trying to warn co-workers, blokes at the pub etc for years. The indoctrination has been an overwhelming success. When I point out the commies weren’t deterred by their system/wall falling- they just got “environmental”, I’m looked at like I’m mental.
      An uphill battle alright.

    • Cait 02:45 on September 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I learned about Agenda 21 years back but paid no attention until February this year and have done extensive research on it and many of the other UN orgs. I wrote to the Baillieu govt (Victoria, Australia) about it including the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Education and Minister for Planning. Their response? Basically – get lost. The Min for Ed Ietter I received in reply was practically bragging about how wonder SD is and included several links to programs on SD in Oz so I could see for myself how great the Goebbels indoctrination lessons were. All the politicians on in on it. We need new parties to vote for.
      Something everyone should know about the UN – it was created by communists to spread communism throughout the world. The authors of the UN Charter were mostly communists – American born Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, Leo Pavsolsky who was an ex-pat Soviet citizen in the US, Andrei Gromyko was a Soviet national, and the Soviet Union’s Molotov, Stalin’s right hand man.
      And most the important fact that should be known is where the idea for a ‘united’ states of the world came from – Lenin. He called for in in the no.40, 1915 issue of the Socialist Democrat. The entire UN system is evil.

  • Redbaiter 12:29 on August 6, 2011 Permalink  

    John Key and National- Would You Trust Them To Write A Constitution? 

    Government Press Release-

    Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Māori Affairs Minister Dr Pita Sharples today announced the 12 appointees to the Constitutional Advisory Panel. The Government confirmed last December that it would conduct a wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements – including the size of Parliament, the length of the electoral term, Māori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.

    The first thing I noticed about this issue is its extra-ordinary low media profile. Here’s one of the most important governance initiatives in NZ’s history and it hardly produces a blip on the political radar screen.

    Then I read about what was planned and who was “selected” and it became apparent that the politicians we are suffering today have badly misunderstood the message. Here it is guys-



    A Constitution’s main purpose is to protect citizens from the predations of totalitarian government. That’s why the only one’s worth a pinch of goat excrement are those written after revolutions.

    Why would we trust a group of people who have spent the last few decades governing completely free of any constitutional limits, to write a constitution rolling back the power they have assumed? We have racial preferences. We have the removal of traditional legal rights. We have savage attacks on freedom of political expression. We have legislative theft of one man’s earnings and their distribution to another man. We have so many breaches of natural rights it would be impossible to list them here. All enshrined in laws passed by the same cynical deceivers who are now proposing to write a constitution. Laughable. Just utterly laughable.

    How can those who implemented all of these restraints be trusted to form a constitution, a task that if carried out effectively, would make so much of what they have done over the last few decades unlawful? Which it should undoubtedly do if said constitution is to have any real worth.

    Hey politicians- You see the economic meltdown on the near horizon? You caused it. You socialists and your cronyist mates in so called “business”. You have no credibility, you have earned only contempt and derision. Not only for the economic disaster we are facing but because of so many other acts of malfeasance.

    Who selected the selectors? You are outright liars who said one thing to get elected and another thing after the election. You are racists. You are separatists. You are fraudsters. We have a parliament drowning in its own dishonour. You work hand in hand with a lying and deceitful politically partisan media conglomerate. You have covered this country with a shroud of dishonesty and deceit the likes of which it has never seen before, in its entire history.

    And at this crucial period in time, one our society and civilisation will be lucky to survive, you expect us to endow upon you the right to draft a Constitution??

    We would never trust you or the people you have “selected” to carry out such a task. Go away. Leave it. Abandon your plans. This must be left until the sick socialist syndrome that has so destroyed much of the western world has passed or been destroyed by revolution. It cannot happen with the state of things today.

    Over the fold is a breakdown of the background of the mainly lawyers, Maori activists and academics and political favourites who have been “selected”. I’ve got so many concerns with this, I can’t write them all here, but the first impression I get is that the whole exercise is another sell out by the weak and duplicitous John Key of the rest of NZ while he again sucks up to Maori TOW gravy train riders. The primary intent of this whole exercise in Constitution writing would appear to be to enshrine the TOW in the document.

    Footnote- I notice NZ Pravda Herald columnist David Farrar is (as usual) carrying water for John Key and the National Party on this issue. Another reason to be mistrustful of the intent. This is the guy who demonstrated a pretty damning degree of cynicism when he campaigned vociferously against the Electoral Finance bill when Labour proposed it, but cheered for it when National implemented it. For Mr. Farrar its all about parties, not principles. Now he wants a Constitution to protect free speech?? Don’t be fooled again. (More …)

    • John 13:15 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Bang on again Red.
      I saw the list and thought I was seeing things.And as you say where was the response from the media.?…..none.
      This list is a joke and I find it a bloody insult to the people of this country.
      DPF a chearleader again.

    • KG 14:05 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      “This list is a joke and I find it a bloody insult to the people of this country.”

      It sure is! More than joke, it’s an effing outrage. A transparent, cynical ploy. Reminds me of the “Yes Minister” episode where Sir Humphrey lays out the requirements for a government “inquiry”.

    • kowtow 14:06 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      The whole thing is a sick joke. Yes this is Key pandering to the Maori Party. Another waste of time and money.
      Peter Chin presided over a huge spend up in Dunedin which many rate payers really resent and cannot afford.
      The make up of this body reeks PC.
      Co chair…….
      Sports personality…..(only in New Zealand)
      And it’s stacked with Maoris,how is that Constitutional?


    • KG 14:31 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      And should the results be inconvenient for the government (fat chance) Key has the Humphrey Option:

    • Cadwallader 15:26 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      If this gaggle ever deliver anything I shall be surprised. I hope they don’t. As I said on another thread today, I want a government that leaves me alone! I don’t give a toss whether there is a Constitution or not. I seek fewer laws and less governance. It is simple really. I agree that the colouring, both real and metaphorical, of the “panel” smacks of PC nonsense.
      I recall attending a (gag now!) restorative justice session about an over sexed 15 yo maori who had raped a 23 yo woman. Dr Walker reprimanded me in front of the entire gathering, for not rubbing his nose at the outset. I did shake his hand, but I suppose this Euro gesture was a sign of my innate colonial brutishness. Walker is a self-opinionated and evil cock! He added nothing to the session other than cast aspersions as to the victim’s sexual preferences.

    • Sika 15:32 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Alas and inevitably free speech legislation and human rights charters are designed to transfer power to unelected activist judges.

      In Victoria, Labor was desperate to set the limits of debate so the comrades criminalised speech causing “offence” by deeming it “hate” speech. That’s how you shut your opponents down.

      It’s the ideal way to proscribe debate, re, say, the immigration of non-assimilating failed 3rd world cultures to Australia.

    • octagongrappler 15:58 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Im outraged!!! Why is paul spoonley not on the list?

    • dondiego 16:04 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      No. Fucking. Way. You watch- they have a crack at this racist theft recurring nightmare crap and the staff at Australian airports wont cope with the influx of Kiwis.
      (I’ll be one of them, Key ignored me on the smacking- hateful clowns. Grrr)

    • Kris K 16:20 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Absolutely disgusting – more traitorous and racist actions by Key and his co-conspirators in their further attempts to increasingly marginalise non-Maori New Zealanders and promote Maori to elite and preferred status.

      This is nothing short of attempting to make the Treaty of Waitangi the DEFAULT Constitution of this nation!

      If this doesn’t wake up the damned sheeple of New Zealand, then nothing will!!!

    • KG 17:13 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Nothing will.

    • mort 17:28 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      why the fuck would they let cullen near anything that phucker has left NZ with a bill costing $300m a week to support, not to mention a broken arse train set that cost 700m more than it was worth.

      the only the nz govt should provide for him is a rope to hang himself with, then a bill to his family for cleaning up the mess the carnt caused

    • ZenTiger 19:16 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well said Red. I have only the deepest suspicion on any attempts to craft a constitution. In a year no less, and incorporate the treaty of Waitangi principles….already sounds like they want to incorporate some apartheid, sorry, co-governance model.
      It’s probably also a nod at something that allows them to create 4 and 5 year terms for politicians, and wave around a constitution (ceding what little authority remains to the UN) and announce the way is now open to form the Republic of Aotearoa.

    • Redbaiter 21:43 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yep, the bottom line is what else could these under educated ignorant of history cretinous racists and socialists come up with but the worst kind of document written in the worst kind of language.

      I don’t want them writing constitutions that give them greater power ( as it undoubtedly will).

      I want them to go away, to stop degrading my life, and stop degrading the country.

      Look at the UK and what these kind of people have done to that country. Look at how they have degraded the US. All over the western world, the same evil forces are at work, and the worst thing we can do is give them greater legitimacy by means of a Constitution that they themselves write.

    • KG 23:44 on August 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Adolf just left a comment under my post on this subject–and it’s nauseating.

    • Cadwallader 12:08 on August 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Red: You and I are definitely on the same page in this. I have always been in favour of a written Constitution, in fact the Libz have a very good draft one, but the utility of a Constitution is questionable when one views the incessant abuses of the US Constitution. In NZ if a Constitution is left to this lot to draft it will have the gravitas of a bumper-sticker. This is a talk-fest and a waste of our money. Why don’t they just fuck-off?

    • Redbaiter 12:48 on August 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      “Why don’t they just fuck-off?”

      Because they’re incompetents lacking in any real skill or ability and if it wasn’t for socialism and redistribution of wealth and big government they’d probably be living under corrugated iron at the local rubbish tip. That’s why they strive to maintain the status quo and struggle to preserve the fast fading mirage that they are needed.

    • Peter 12:59 on August 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      The really important stuff like ring-fencing property, upper limits on tax collectors, property rights, the really important stuff, will be ignored.
      +I’d look to see the treaty further enshrined/embedded/redefined, if not, made into a compulsory State religion. I cannot see these toady’s doing anything to define & restrict the States depredations upon the individual. Except maybe the right to be taxed, trampled and screwed, further.

  • Redbaiter 01:31 on April 30, 2011 Permalink  

    General Debate 30/04/11 

    Convicted Rapist Evaluated for Heart Transplant

    Rochester, N.Y – There are 49 people on the waiting list for a new heart at Strong Memorial Hospital. 13WHAM News has learned that a convicted rapist serving up to 40 years in prison, is being evaluated for a possible heart transplant. Kenneth Pike, 55, was convicted in 1996 of raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl in Auburn, N.Y. He is serving his sentence at a state prison in Greene County. (More …)

  • Redbaiter 05:00 on April 27, 2011 Permalink  

    General Debate 27/04/11 

    Pastor Terry Jones imprisoned to prevent Detroit Koran protest

    A local judge jailed Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida and his associate Wayne Sapp after a court found their planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan, could lead to violence. During his court appearance, Pastor Jones argued that the Koran “promotes terrorist activities around the world.”

    He also insisted that his right to protest against Islam was protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. “The First Amendment does us no good if it confines us to saying what is popular,” he pointed out.

    But Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad testified that his department had received information about serious threats made against Pastor Jones from local residents, and argued that his protest could lead to violence if allowed.

    Prosecutor Robert Moran argued that the protest had nothing to do with the First Amendment and at stake were security and peace in the community. The jury sided with the prosecution and Judge Mark Somers set bond at the symbolic amount of $1 each for the two pastors, which they initially refused to pay.

    Following their refusal, both were escorted to a local jail. But local media reported both men changed their minds after spending about an hour behind bars and posted the $1 bond. Under the judge’s ruling, both Pastor Jones and Mr Sapp are now prohibited by the court from going to the mosque for three years.

    But Pastor Jones was quoted by The Detroit Free Press as saying the two “will come back next week” to try to organise a new protest. UK Telegraph.

    • Bez 05:56 on April 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      It’s all about liberty v authority in the end. On that note, see the sales blurb by Ron Paul for his upcoming book: http://mises.org/daily/5219/The-Blessed-Institution-Liberty
      This guy talks a lot of sense in my view.

    • Pascal Fervor 06:03 on April 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Excerpted from: Why the Media won’t touch me – and never will
      Posted by Ann Barnhardt – April 25, AD 2011 9:46 AM MST

      Next, the mainstream media will never have anything to do with me because they know that to do so would be to take the rhetorical equivalent of a chainsaw sideways up the poop chute. They only want to go up against the weak. Jones is weak. The media whores (on both sides – because all mainstream media players are whores chasing a paycheck at the end of the day) are indeed smarter than Jones. They are NOT smarter than me, and they know this. Not that that is saying much.

      I saw this story of yours and began to think of Terry Jones being used by the Agency of Lies like they use Fred Phelps (who is associate with Jones). Like the trumped up Trump picking of low and overripe fruit, I smell SKUNCs at work with the way the Jones is being foisted as “The Anti-Muslim Kook.” Why? It’s written all over the coverage — for guilt by association purposes, naturally. “You’re not anti-muslim like that kook are you?”

    • Bez 08:26 on April 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Pascal – I got an additional explanation for you: bullies always pray on the weak.

    • Pascal Fervor 08:33 on April 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      You’re right Bez. Barnhardt said she was gonna list two very simple reasons and wound up listing a handful. She overlooked that one. I posted this because there is a bit of humor in what she’s saying, and some of it self-deprecating, but nothing is so humorous in a sad way of what idiots the media employs and the number of libs who have yet to catch on yet. The trolls visiting this site provide daily proof of how gullible they are.

    • Bez 08:53 on April 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      On a different topic, this guy makes some good points on education and state schools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6iHRSAIsCo&feature=player_embedded

    • Pascal Fervor 09:29 on April 27, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Bez, reader Cond0010, trying to help me nail down what is the “new” morality, struck on the idea that what the schools have tried to indoctrinate us with, and apparently succeeded with too many, is the equivalent of malware.

      After this observation and conclusion:
      “The aim was to mold students to have an ‘open mind.’ This is why the ‘best’ liberals never hear what you have to say about the lessons of the past. They’ve been inculcated to ignore it all lest they be seen as lacking that open mind their favorite teachers so treasured.”
      He built up his premise a bit more and that resulted in “Malware Designed for the Heart”. I posted it early this morning on my blog as a guest commentary.

  • Redbaiter 03:09 on April 26, 2011 Permalink  

    General Debate 26/04/11 

    AN OUTSPOKEN Christian campaigner has caused outrage on Twitter by saying Australian soldiers did not fight and die for gays and Muslims. “Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic!”, Australian Christian Lobby managing director, Jim Wallace AM, tweeted.

    The retired brigadier’s comment reflects the ACL’s aim to have Christian values implemented in Government and caused an immediate reaction on the social-networking site. (More …)

    • Bez 09:54 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      That’s another one biting the cultural marxist dust. The guy makes a perfectly legit comment and is pretty much forced into retrieving it. As he said, soldiers fight and die for principles. They are proud of their society and culture and they want to keep it free from outside interference. They fight for stability and continuity. They are so keen to preserve what’s there that they are prepared to lay down their lives for it.
      No politician has ever said to soldiers going to war: “you go out to fight and die, and in the meantime we’ll introduce gay marriage and import as many of our potential or even current enemies as we can find”. No, the rhetoric is always about protecting values and principles, about fighting for king and country, never about dying for some vague progressive notion.

      This case just goes to show the enormous pressure that is now on people to stick with the progressive liberal theme. What is wrong with saying you are against gay marriage or unbridled islamisation? The problems with both are more than evident, why can’t there be reasonable debate, and must any comment be smothered in PC drivel? Because there’s no valid counter argument, that’s why.

    • kg 10:16 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Great comment, Bez. But a very large part of our current situation is that people who state self-evident truths which run counter to the current pieties instantly backpedal and apologize in the face of attacks from the left.
      Without people prepared to state the truth and stand stubbornly by what they say in the face of vitriolic attacks, we’re lost.

    • Sika 11:03 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Jim Wallace understands that Australians, like Kiwis, are getting exactly what they’ve voted for over the last 40 years.

      The really important societal changing stuff could easily be put to a (new system) binding referendum.
      It’ll never happen, the LabLib / LabNat Establishment know the result.
      Any such referendum in Australia would shut down “3rd world” immigration overwhelmingly and at the speed of light.
      Dunno about in NZ , having more cowed thumbsuckers per square metre than OZ as it does.

    • Kris K 15:39 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply


      “No, the rhetoric is always about protecting values and principles, about fighting for king and country, never about dying for some vague progressive notion.”

      If you change ONE little word in your above sentence the justification for correctly villifying BOTH “Queer Marriage” AND “Islam” within Western societies is made simple:
      Replace the word “king” with “God” – God’s word, the Bible, makes it clear that both Islam and Homosexual Marriage are against biblical values. And therefore, on the same basis, they are both the enemy of societies founded upon Judeo-Christian principles AND the God behind those principles.

      If I ever had to go to war I would be fighting for “God and country”.

    • erikter 16:28 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

    • Redbaiter 17:36 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah read that erikter, wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Ethnic diversity and all that. Why not some input from the culturally enriching Al Qaida?

      This is the bit that got me- liars!

      Andrew Marr later told the newspaper: “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

      “It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

    • Sika 20:14 on April 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      For anyone who doesn’t get it.
      Despite the ongoing MSM attempt to obfuscate his position as a “Special Forces vagueness”…..

      Jim was Commanding Officer Australian Special Air Service Regiment.

      One serious operator.

  • Redbaiter 10:45 on April 24, 2011 Permalink  

    General Debate 24/04/11 

    An international law and order expert says successive New Zealand governments are to blame for the “scandal of the century” – a raft of offender-friendly legislation. In his newly released book, Badlands, NZ: A Land Fit for Criminals, former English National Criminal Intelligence Service analyst David Fraser says politicians should look back on their actions with shame.

    “The record of all governments in New Zealand since the 1950s in relation to crime prevention has been disastrous,” Fraser writes. “The fact is that all governments since then have gone out of their way to introduce policies that have encouraged criminals to become more criminal. Almost every piece of criminal justice legislation passed during the period has made it easier for judges to avoid sending criminals to prison, by expanding the number of non-custodial alternatives available to them. In addition, other acts of parliament, as well as procedural and administrative changes, have put numerous obstacles in the way of finding, arresting and convicting offenders.” (More …)

    • Robert 11:07 on April 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Apologies for posting this here because I couldn’t find an email to send it to.

      Its kinda about criminals in a way. Political ones that attempt to bury one freedom of speech.

      Has NZ now gone under national facist Rule.

      Seems freedom of opinion and freedom of Speech no longer are available unless we abide by the Mad Nick Smiths fascist rules.

      “I’ve been virtually told by [ACC minister] Dr Nick Smith and Sir Peter Gluckman [the prime minister’s scientific advisor] that I’m not qualified to put statements out about earthquakes. They will have me legally if I do that.


      If this report is accurate and what Ken Ring says is true then The Nats. need either get rid of Smith in a big hurry or declare themselves a fascist Govt. which will now longer allow freedom of speech.

      This is just appalling.

    • Fairfacts Media 11:13 on April 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I fully agree Robert.
      Smith and his henchmen have gone way over the top.

    • Robert 11:24 on April 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Of course that’s no different to this;


      Police decide they didn’t like a guys song in a private building.
      Gestapo anyone?

    • Kris K 13:41 on April 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Christ is risen!

      1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
      1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
      1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
      1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

    • Sika 13:51 on April 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      It’s a result of one of the long term national disintegrations of NZ life.
      The Welfare State decrees you are not responsible for much of your life, that’s now completely reflected in the legal system.

      Where but NZ could a premeditated double murderer get a sentence with parole available at 12 years. Barlow.
      Where but NZ are local property taxes (Council rates) repeatedly “forgiven” for special individuals? Try that in Australia, the Council waits until the amount is significant, seizes the property and sells it, no matter what your race.

  • Redbaiter 10:16 on April 19, 2011 Permalink  

    General Debate 19/04/11 

    Children are going to school hungry because their parents don’t have enough money left for food after paying exorbitant interest rates to moneylenders, budget agencies say. Family Budgeting Services Federation chief executive Raewyn Fox said her agencies’ clients owed a total of $63 million to finance companies, exceeding all other forms of debt except mortgages for the first time.

    Mangere Budgeting Service chief executive Darryl Evans said debt repayments meant 1000 of his clients, with an average three children each, spent an average of only $83.33 a week on food – less than half the $226 which Otago University’s annual food cost survey found would be needed for a “basic diet” for two Auckland adults, two 5-year-olds and a baby.

    He cited a Samoan family in Favona with children aged 6, 5 and 6 months who had nothing left for food out of a benefit income of $551 a week after paying $180 in rent, $75 on power, petrol and insurance and $307 repaying loans at interest rates of between 19 per cent and 52 per cent. (More …)

    • Redbaiter 10:58 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      The left are so hopelessly out of touch. This is not down to money lenders, it is down to the idiocy of the borrowers, who are actually more victims of socialism than they are of the lenders.

    • caleb 13:50 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      A friend of mine was a pawn broker next to a WINZ office.
      On behalf, he delivered a lounge suite to a state house with a late model WRX in the driveway, inside the kids were sitting on beer crates playing Xbox on the big TV… One of many such tales.

    • Bez 14:15 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      “who are actually more victims of socialism than they are of the lenders”
      Yep, particularly as a result of socialism’s focus on equality of outcomes and dumbing people down. Large groups believe that as long as they have the modcoms they will be perfectly happy, whether they have something to eat or not.

    • Kris K 16:23 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      … and let’s not forget that Lotto’s number one outlet is in Manukau City. So there’s another $20 a week that many of our down and out are not spending on food for the kids.

    • mawm 17:27 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Our beneficiaries think that cell phones, TV, Sky, cars, X Box, cigarettes, Lotto………(the list goes on) are essential items. They need to go to Africa to see what true poverty is like.

      There is a huge amount of malnutrition in South Auckland, and none of it is starvation. Education and taking away needless benefits is the only way their behaviour will be changed.

    • caleb 19:33 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      but wait… hot off the press.
      Dont feel bad, your only fat because of your mothers diet while pregnant.

    • mawm 20:46 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Caleb – that bit of journalism must rate as the worst bit of reporting I have ever seen on science. Whoever wrote it has absolutely no idea about what he/she wrote, no clue about DNA/genes and their expression, what constitutes a significant statistical analysis, etc. It is pure and simple sensationalism…..along with the cultural Marxists demonisation of slender white women.

      As for our esteemed scientific advisor……if he can attribute a 300 person study, which even he says he cannot be sure about other influences on the outcomes he has selected, as his most significant piece of work……well, all I can say is the Lingam Institute deserves him. No serious statistical analysis could ever show that such a small sample is significant in a study that could have so many causative factors for such a broad, undefined outcome. Bad, bad science.

    • mawm 20:50 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      RB – this is an interesting piece on BH Obama. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/

      It come via:- http://theobamafile.com/


    • The Gantt Guy 21:58 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      “Bad, bad science.”

      But a good headline, and good news for all us fatties that it’s not really our fault.

    • Falafulu Fisi 22:20 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I argued with socialists (so called scientists) at the local Govt SciBlogs here.


    • Falafulu Fisi 22:25 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      The funny thing about that article above from SciBlogs is guy Darrryl Evans (Mangere Budgeting Services ) on TV3 Cambell Live was that he commented that people are eating unhealthy, but he himself is a fat-fuck. He just wants the government to fund services like his one to advice people in South Auckland of how to eat healthy. How ironic?


    • caleb 22:43 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      you can lead a horse to water…
      you could give cauliflower away…

      For what its worth, Red has said it before, today even. Education is poor, social standards are slipping away… Government is trying to smooth it all out.

    • The Gantt Guy 22:55 on April 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Mr Fisi, it amazes me how many communists lurk in various dark corners of New Zealand. The discussion thread on sciblogs outed at least 3.

      Interesting the only context for these articles is the supermarket. If people want fresh fruit & veg, why is the supermarket the only option? I grow a small quantity of my own vegetables, which gives Miss Five no end of pleasure and which taste many times better than anything purchased at a supermarket. Thanks to our lettuce, tomato, cucumber, lime and chilli crops, we have beautiful fresh salads almost year-round. I will also frequent a local farmer’s market or, if the situation warrants, a greengrocer. Anybody who buys fruit & veg from a supermarket (or meat for that matter) deserves the financial shellacking they get.

      The question of milk is interesting. Over here in Melbournistan, the market is being warped at the moment as Coles and Woolworths are involved in something of a price war. They’re using Fonterra-supplied milk to try and kill local farmers and to out-play, out-stay, out-last each other. I can get 2L of milk here for $2! But even without that distortion, there were always a number of options. One could buy the very expensive stuff-from-inside-a-cow for $5 (or more) per 2L, or the home-brand cheap stuff-from-inside-a-cow for $2 per 2L.

      I guess the point of this ramble is that the price thing is a furfy. There are plenty of non-supermarket options for buying fresh, just as there are plenty of non-KFC and non-Maccas options for buying takeaway. It isn’t price, it’s laziness.

    • erikter 08:58 on April 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Her parents, whoever and wherever they are, sure voted for Obama.

    • Kris K 09:32 on April 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the link in your 20:50 comment, Mawm – “Who Is Barack Obama?” – very interesting indeed.

    • Redbaiter 09:47 on April 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yes, agree with Kris- thanks Mawm.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc