Al Qaeda plotters behind potential Christmas attack released from Guantanamo Bay

If you've watched the news lately you would've heard about the Muslim terrorist with explosive underwear who tried to blow up a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day but only roasted his nuts. Well here's some news the lamestream media didn't tell you.

I did some research on the incident (and by research I mean reading around on the internet) and it turns out that, according to American officials and US Department of Defense documents, 2 of the 4 Al Qaeda leaders that planned the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 were RELEASED FROM GUANTANAMO BAY in November 2007. Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad al-Awfi (the terrorist formerly known as Muhamad Attik al-Harbi) and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were released from Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia on 9 November 2007. There they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation programme" (whatever that means) and were later freed to plan this terrorist attack. Are you as outraged as I am? You should be. To make matters worse, both the Saudi nationals who planned this attack have emerged in leadership roles in Yemen.

So basically, these terrorist masterminds were sent to Saudi Arabia for some art classes to presumably encourage creating art instead of creating terrorism. One programme gives the former detainees paints and crayons as part of the rehabilitation regime. I guess they were asked to paint or draw creative ways to blow up a plane. You have to admit that hiding a bomb in your underwear is pretty crafty. We haven't seen this level of artistic talent since Richard Reid, the shoe bomber (maybe he's an alumni of the same terrorist art school). Maybe they should apply for a job at Victoria's Secret designing underwear that would make any guy explode in a different way if you get what I mean. But I digress. This so-called art therapy is supposed to rehabilitate terrorists into become creative artists but all it is doing is turning them into more creative terrorists. Even a US diplomat admits "the so-called rehabilitation programs are a joke." But Saudi officials claim that it helps terrorists return to a meaningful life. Yeah, if you count creative terrorism as a meaningful life! A similar rehabilitation programme in Yemen was stopped because the detainees quickly joined Al Qaeda or its affiliates. I've got an even better idea. Why not stop this whole art therapy nonsense and keep the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? Even Saudi officials admit there have been failures (wow really?) but they still insist that overall it works. I've seen plenty of failures from these art classes but not a single success. Can someone provide me with even one example of a terrorist who attended one of these art therapy sessions and is no longer a terrorist but living a meaningful life? Just one example? Yeah, thought not. Yet these bleeding-heart liberals, who go on about how Guantanamo Bay is so tough on terrorists because they don't get all the luxuries, still insist that if we're nice to them and cater to all their needs then let them go that they'll be good little angels and leave us alone. This potential terrorist attack on Christmas Day has invalidated that theory.

Now you may have noticed that November 2007 was when George W Bush was still president. So you're probably thinking, "George Bush released the terrorists! It's all his fault. Now Obama has to fix it up." But before all you Bush bashers jump up down, remember he was only doing what you guys were begging him to do - close down Guantanamo Bay. I know it was Bush not Obama that released them (although Obama would've been even more enthusiastic about releasing them) so yes I'm blaming Bush for listening to these liberal jerks. But don't forget that one of Obama's main election promises was to close down Guantanamo Bay. George Bush may have released a few terrorists but Obama will continue to release the rest to cause more terrorism. This is what happens when George Bush listens to all these communist idiots. Amnesty International, the ACLU and all these other terrorist-loving liberals have blood on their hands. It's no use blaming him for something Obama would've happily done and is continuing to do. We can go on about Bush's failures but Obama is the president now and the buck stops with him. It's time to stop this useless art therapy and keep the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay where they can't do any harm. The policy of closing Guantanamo Bay should be reversed immediately. Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano's comment that the airport security system is working "very, very smoothly" is not only a lie but does nothing to reassure anyone. If President Barack Obama doesn't take stronger and more meaningful proper measures against terrorism, instead of politically correct nonsense and empty gestures, then the future these terrorists paint isn't a very pretty one.

Washington State bans Christmas - Christians persecuted not just in Muslim countries

No this is not a joke. If you thought you were safe from the ongoing politically correct War on Christmas just because you live in a so-called free country and not Iran or Afghanistan then keep reading.

Persecution of Christians in those countries and others like North Korea or China isn't exactly news but now the war on Christianity has spread to the so-called Land of the Free. Thanks to protests from stupid atheist groups who should mind their own business, such as The Freedom from Religion Foundation, Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire has banned Christmas displays from the state capitol building in Olympia. The ban, which has been in effect since 1 December, means it is illegal to celebrate a Christian holiday and if you do you'll go to jail. You can't have any displays of religion especially nativity scenes because that would offend non-christians such as Muslims and atheists who should get a life. Christmas trees have to be called Holiday trees because stifling one religion in favour of others is what counts as tolerance these days.

Liberals are always going on about tolerance and how we should respect diversity. But apparently, this doesn't apply to Christians. They go on about the non-existent separation of church and state but forget that it's not mentioned even once in the constitution. All the constitution says is that the government can't set up a state-run church. It doesn't say anything about banning Christianity or Christmas. So, in other words, banning Christmas is actually a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion. But these are Christians we're talking about not Muslims so, to the politically correct bureaucrats who think they know best, it doesn't matter if they get offended. They would bend down to appease any minority group that demands special treatment such as Muslims but, although all religions are equal, it seems Christians are less equal than others. It's ironic that liberals who are always against Christians spreading their religion are quite happy to ram their's down our throats - especially man-made climate change. Why can't you harmlessly spread the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ but you can ram the religion of man-made climate change down people's throats? Notice how the media always only reports on the chicken little side of the global warming debate. That's because the leftists who control it have their own anti-Christian agenda and want to ram their religion down your throats yet claim that Christians are the ones who are intolerant and imposing their views on others. Liberal atheists who hate freedom want to take the Christ out of Christmas. They've already succeeded in Washington State and it won't be long before Christmas is banned in New Zealand. Christians and Non-Christians who care about freedom need to fight back against the anti-Christian agenda. Don't think that just because Helen Clark is gone that Christians are safe. The agnostic John Key has already refused the biblical right for parents to smack their kids for correction. He could just as easily ban Christmas and persecute Christians. National and Labour are just two sides of the same anti-Christian coin. We can start fighting against the politically onslaught by putting the Christ back into Christmas and telling overly sensitive atheists, Muslims and other minorities where to shove it.

Merry CHRISTmas! Yes I said Christmas not the Holidays or Season Greetings or Winterval or whatever. Got a problem with that? Tough!

Kanye West interrupts Weatherston's sentencing

Kanye West joins convicted murderer, Clayton Weatherston, in the list of people claiming to be "provoked." Weatherston was sentenced to life imprisonment on Tuesday with 18 years non-parole for the murder of Sophie Elliott. The nation was horrified and shocked to watch him try and claim he was provoked into stabbing her 216 times and mutilating her body. But no one was prepared for Kanye West's shocking outburst during the sentencing.

At the High Court in Christchurch Justice Judith Potter was delivering her comments and said, "Sophie Elliott's death was a tragedy in every sense of the word." But she could barely finish her comments about Clayton Weatherston's lack of remorse when she was rudely interrupted by Kanye West. The judge was pushed off her chair and had her gavel taken off her by the rapper who's no stranger to random outbursts.

Kanye took the judge's chair and said, "Yo Judge, I'm really sorry for you. I'mma let you finish your sentencing but William Bell was one of the worst murderers of all time...one of the worst murderers of all time!" This caused booing from everyone in the court, even Weatherston himself since he tried to have the limelight taken off him. The Elliott family were especially outraged at the same guy who interrupted a Nazi rally and proclaimed, "the KKK had one of the best racist rallies of all time...of all time!" But Kanye West just shrugged his shoulders, flipped the audience and returned to his seat. He was soon taken away by security and charged with contempt of court.

Like finding out Beyonce won the MTV award for best video of the year, Kanye West later found out William Bell did win worst murderer of all time in New Zealand in terms of prison sentence (30 years minimum non-parole).

Ball now in Key's court re anti-smacking law

They thought we'd forget about it. They thought it was over. They claimed it was confusing. They thought we'd be silenced. They were wrong. Over the past 3 weeks New Zealanders were asked if a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. After the nationwide vote, the answer is a clear and resounding NO. The tribe has spoken. Anti-smacking law, it's time for you to go. One question has been unequivocally answered but another question remains: What happens next? John Key now has a clear choice to make. He can either give in to the anti-choice anti-smackers and retain an undemocratic, stupid, ambiguous and unworkable law that criminalises good parenting but does nothing to real child abuse. Or he can be the outcast to Sue Bradford and her ilk. He can make the choice parents aren't allowed to make: the right choice. The right choice is to change this stupid anti-choice law and clearly define reasonable force so that good ordinary parents don't have to feel like criminals and the real causes of child abuse can be addressed.

Unfortunately, things don't look so promising. John Key continues to be pretty much as dismissive of democracy now as before the referendum. He tries to assure us by claiming that proposals short of changing the law are being considered by cabinet that would supposedly put parents at ease. These are empty promises from an empty suit because, as long as the current law remains, parents who smack their children as part of good parental correction will be criminals regardless of whether or not they actually get prosecuted. The so-called compromise between John Key and Helen Clark (Subsection 4) gives police the discretion not to prosecute when the offence is too inconsequential. But who defines what's inconsequential? If I stole a couple of grapes, that would be considered inconsequential by most people but I would still technically be breaking the law. Furthermore, discretion only applies to the police not others like CYFS. They can take away any kids they like just for a light smack. The substituted Section 59 is too confusing and leaves good parents in fear of whether or not they would be criminals. It allows reasonable force for prevention but not correction. But the subsection against correction prevails over the subsection allowing reasonable force for prevention. This makes parents who smack unsure of whether it is for prevention or correction. And, since the prohibition against correction prevails, this pretty much makes any form of reasonable force illegal. If Parliament won't make the law clear and the police don't have clear guidelines as to how to apply the law then how are parents supposed to know whether or not they're actually following the law?

Many people think that the anti-smacking referendum is just about smacking. It's not. It's about leaving good parents alone and giving them the right to choose the best way to parent under the circumstances. It's about telling the Nanny State to stay out of family lives. Anti-smackers claim the allowance for reasonable force under the old Section 59 let child abusers get away. If that's the case (and that's debatable) then reasonable force should be defined so parents know exactly where they stand under the law. The anti-smacking law did not stop the Kahui twins and countless other children from being murdered. Instead it continues to persecute countless good parents. Merely tinkering with the application of the law does not change the law itself. National won the election by only 45% and 88% voted NO in the referendum. This, along with a majority with ACT, provides a clear mandate to change this stupid law so that good parents have choice in parenting. Anything less is unacceptable.

If nursery rhymes were set in modern New Zealand

The thing about nursery rhymes is that they're so old and irrelevant. So here are a couple of updated nursery rhymes for New Zealand's modern politically correct society. Just a warning that most of these won't necessarily rhyme.

The Young Woman Who Lived in a Shoe

There was a young woman who lived in a shoe.
She had so many children so she could stay on the DPB;
She gave them some broth without any bread;
Then whipped them all soundly.
Now CYFS took her kids instead.
And she's facing charges of child abuse.

If Jack and Jill was set in New Zealand

Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his knee,
And claimed on ACC.
He's also on an invalid's benefit.

Stay tuned for more.

Who let the terrorist out?

Scotland let the terrorist out. Well, not yet. But they're going to release the Lockerbie bomber (Abdel Basset al Megrahi) on, get this, "compassionate" grounds. And no, they don't mean compassion for the victims' friends and family. For those who need their memory jogged, this is the Libyan terrorist who blew up a Pan Am airliner in 1988 killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground. Now the guy responsible for one of the worst (along with the 7 July bombings in London) terrorist attacks in the UK will be released just because he's got cancer. Getting cancer is far too compassionate for him and I for one don't have any sympathy for him. You'd forget, from hearing this news, that he's supposed to be serving a life sentence. But when has a life sentence actually meant a life sentence? The least he deserved was a death sentence back in 1988 so all this taxpayers' money could be saved. Somebody tell me how this is compassionate to the victims. I just hope this terrorist evil-doer is denied treatment but it seems as though, if a terrorist wants to get out jail, all he has to do is give him/herself cancer. Maybe Osama bin Laden will now be thinking of giving himself cancer so that, if he's ever caught and put in jail, he can be let out early on "compassionate" grounds.

Quote Quiz

Guess who said this:

"We need to go back to the time, back to the day when we parents saw somebody, saw some kid fooling around and -- it wasn't your child, but they'll whup you anyway. (Laughter and applause.) Or at least they'll tell your parents -- the parents will."

And who said this:

"… they don’t want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I think there’s a debate to go on…"

"Swine flu fighting" - parody of "Kung fu fighting"

Everybody is swine flu fighting
That virus is fast as lightning.
The media's making it frightening
As the death toll keeps on climbing.

"We'll be taxing you" - parody of The Police's "I'll be watching you"

Every job you take
Every cent you make
Every single day you'll be forced to pay
We'll be taxing you.

Oh can't you see
We're the IRD
How our pockets break
With every cent we take.

John Key and the genie

John Key is on his way to the Beehive for a cabinet meeting about the global economic crisis when he notices a strange looking wine bottle that somebody randomly left lying around. He picks up the bottle, opens it and out pops a genie. The genie says, "Okay, I've had to go through this several times already and I'm getting a little tired of giving people three wishes. We're in a recession for goodness sake so you only get one wish." John Key thinks of something then says, "Well, earlier this year we had a Jobs Summit to try to come up with ideas to create more jobs for New Zealanders and get the economy going again. One of the ideas, that I liked, was building a national cycleway right across the country. It would boost tourism, create lots of jobs for New Zealanders and of course it's good for the environment." The genie laughs incredulously replying, "Dream on! You really think a national cycleway's gonna fix up this mess? A cycleway is one thing but building one right across the country? I mean, we've got a huge enough deficit as it is. Yeah, it might create a few odd jobs here and there and be good for the environment, but think of the logistics. We have to go through the whole RMA process and endless consultation with local iwi. What if we upset the taniwha? How many houses are you gonna knock down? Plus think of all the concrete and other materials you'll need. Look, it's just an impossible utopian dream. Get real and think of another wish." So John Key spends a few minutes thinking of something else then says, "Okay, National got in last year because people had had enough of nine years of Labour. So we've had a pretty good run for the last few months. But, with all these scandals involving Richard Worth and Melissa Lee, I'm beginning to worry that our honeymoon is over. People are starting to lose trust in us over all kinds of things like the Auckland Supercity, public assets and the Smacking Referendum. I mean I've got this reputation for being slippery like an eel. People think I'm just playing the nice guy routine so we can push our radical right wing agenda. How can I regain the trust of the New Zealand people so they don't think I've always got a secret agenda? I wish the New Zealand people would trust me to lead this country out of the recession and not suspect we've always got something up our sleeves." The genie is silent for a while before replying, "So, about this cycleway..."

Random Jokes

1. What's the difference between the IRA and the IRD?
One is the Irish Republican Army. The other is a terrorist organisation.


2. What's the difference between Keith Locke and Kim Jong Il?
One is a neurotic communist maniac who's a threat to national security. The other is the President of North Korea.

3. What's the difference between Keith Locke and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
One is a Jew-hating, Israel-bashing threat to national security. The other is the President of Iran.

4. What's the difference between Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez?
One is a nationalising, high taxing, socialist egomaniacal dictator. The other is the President of Venezuela.

5. What's the difference between voting for Melissa Lee and buying a Lotto ticket?
You have a chance of winning Lotto.

How do liberals define free speech?

If you've read the news about the three Victoria University socialists students who got temporarily suspended for burning the NZ flag without a fire extinguisher you'd be forgiven for thinking they're suddenly the new champions of free speech. Apparently free speech means burning the symbol of the country that fought to give them the right to act like the left wing jerks that they are. These three Workers' Party (workers? When have they ever worked a day in their lives?) communists claim that ANZAC Day glorifies war and New Zealand imperialism (whatever that means). So fighting against Nazi Germany was imperialism? Okay that makes perfect sense. It wasn't enough for the VUWSA not to lay a wreath to commemorate the brave soldiers who fought for our freedoms (including free speech which these socialists are suddenly so fond of) they actually had to disrepect their honour and act like idiots. Burning the flag might be free speech to them but everyone else is paying the cost. Unlike the AUSA, membership of the VUWSA is compulsory so other students who don't agree with them had to pay for their "free" speech. If this doesn't justify the case for voluntary student unionism then nothing does. These communists are crying about how their right to hate this country is being trampled on. If they hate New Zealand so much why don't they stop leaching off the taxpayer and move to countries with wonderful human rights records such as China, North Korea or Cuba. I'm sure they would be welcome there. Nobody's forcing them to stay here.

So now flag burning is free speech? What about giving an honest answer to a question about gay marriage? When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, whether other states should follow Vermont in legalising gay marriage she gave her honest opinion and said marriage should be between a man and a woman. She's got the right to her own opinion so of course liberals defended her right to free speech just like they defend flag burning.
Oh no, wait they didn't! Look at how the liberal blogosphere persecuted her, calling her a dumb b****, just for giving the "wrong" answer on a question about a sensitive topic. Maybe liberals forgot she agrees with their Annointed Messiah Obama and most other Americans on gay marriage. When was the last time you heard Obama labelled a homophobe? Liberals are such big supporters of free speech that her answer cost her the Miss USA title and Donald Trump only just let her remain Miss California. If free speech matters so much to liberals they sure have a funny way of supporting it with regard to Carrie Prejean. Liberals are forever going about tolerance towards gays but try disagreeing with them and see how tolerant they really are. So I think we can cross out gay marriage from the list of topics that free speech applies to.

Now let's move on to immigration. Try expressing your view that immigration should be even slightly controlled and see how far you go without being called a racist or a redneck. Anything short of advocating open borders and illegal immigration is apparently racist according to leftists. Whenever New Zealand First called for immigration to be more tightly controlled did they come their his rescue and defend their right to free speech? No? I didn't think so.

What about anything to do with Islam, the so-called "Religion of Peace"? When the Pope quoted someone who called Islam a violent religion Muslims responded with...wait for it... violence. The kowtowing left quickly defended the free speech rights of the Pope didn't they? "What, they didn't? I thought he's got free speech." Well, yeah he does. But he didn't burn the flag and dishonour our veterans so that doesn't count. It's not just the Pope that's exempt from free speech. See if you can have a rational discussion about Islam with a liberal without him/her shutting it down with the epithets, "islamophobe" or "intolerant."

And let's not forget the ongoing calls from the left for "hate" crime legislation to protect specially designated victim groups (as if there's such thing as a love crime). If the US Senate passes the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009 it would be a crime to speak out against any form of sexual orientation. Not only does this mean pastors can't preach from the Bible against homosexuality but you wouldn't even be able to condemn pedophillia or bestiality (since those count as sexual orientations). This legislation would place sexual deviants alongside other of the left's favoured voting base victim groups who apparently need special protection. How these hate crime laws protect free speech is anyone's guess.

I could go on and on but you've seen just a few examples of how liberals define free speech. To them, flag burning is a noble act while disagreeing with them on any particular topic just isn't on. Free speech when it suits them it seems. The ungrateful communists who burnt the New Zealand flag think they have the moral high ground. Who do they think they're kidding?

UN calls taser use torture. No, really!

It's not news that the UN is a bunch of wasteful, hypocritical international socialist bureaucrats who waste taxpayers' money appeasing dictators and interfering with our lives. The UN Committee Against Torture has released a report warning New Zealand against the introduction of tasers for the police because they think it constitute a form of torture. Needless to say Comrade Keith Locke, with his soviet-loving communist credentials, and other Greens and bleeding heart liberals have seized on this report in their ongoing crusade to prevent police from defending themselves. The fact that Comrade Keith is against them means that tasers can't be introduced soon enough.

You just can't make this stuff up. Instead of condemning real human rights violators such as Zimbabwe, Sudan and Iran these busybodies think they know what's best for us. Apparently, defending yourself non-leathfully against a violent criminal is a form of torture. Don't bother trying to figure out the logic of these idiots. There is none.

So how do taser opponents propose we deal with the Steven Wallaces or Steven Bellinghams of this world? If tasers were available those two guys would still be alive today. Suppose you were a cop and a hammer-weilding maniac was coming towards you. You only have a pistol with one bullet and no taser (which can stop people without killing them). What would you do? Remember this is the real world. If you shoot him he might die but if you ignore him....well let's not go there.

Let me venture a guess as to how taser opponents suggest we deal with these situations. Now we could have a nice chat with the baseball or hammer-weilding maniac and kindly ask him to pretty pretty please stop smashing up the place. But that would take too long. Instead we should arm the police with magic wands. (I'm pretty sure Harry Potter is selling some of his old ones on ebay.) That way, if some maniac comes up the street waving a baseball bat around all a cop needs to do is wave a magic wand around, say the magic words and the situation will magically resolve itself.

"But," you say. "That's stupid!" Exactly. We live in the real world and in the real world real things happen. The only way to stop a baseball-weilding maniac is with force. And the only way to stop them without killing them is with a taser. If you taser opponents out there want to live in your own infantile fantasy world that's your problem. The rest of us are busy caring about the rights of ordinary people above those of criminals. You guys have run out of proper arguments against the taser. I often hear the argument that some police will misuse the taser (as if they wouldn't misuse anything else like a police baton or their own fist). That's a spurious argument. A policeman who misuses the taser would also misuse a police baton or his fist. So do we stop the vast majority of the police from having another tool to defend themselves just because of a minority? Normal people would suggest we remove those few corrupt police officers from the force.

Until taser opponents come up with a proper, realistic alternative to the taser they should go back to their caves and stop making fools of themselves.

So marijuana's not so harmless after all

You know how drug proponents are always saying that marijuana is harmless and that it should be legal because it doesn't hurt anyone? Well now scientists have confirmed what sensible people have known all along: Marijuana is more dangerous than ever before.

Samples of marijuana tested by the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project in 2008 were found to be more potent than those tested in previous years. The potency of marijuana is increasing more than ever before with average THC levels of more than 10.1% in 2008 compared to 7.3% in 2007 and 3.2% in 1983. Mahmoud ElSohly, the director of the project, is predicting that it could even reach higher than 15%.

Let me explain this in simple terms so even long-haired tree-hugging potsmoking hippies can understand. Marijuana is even more dangerous than it was in the 60s. It has higher THC levels than ever before which means the negative effects are further amplified. Younger, more naive and stupid smokers are have an even greater chance of suffering from dysphoria, paranoia, irritability...the list goes on and on. Many of these young potheads have parents who smoked marijuana when they were younger so they think it's cool and there's nothing wrong. But these studies have shown that marijuana isn't the same as it was then. Younger smokers are more naive and don't know when to stop. This increases the negative effects such as paranoia, psychosis and craziness hugely.

How does any of this justify the legalisation of marijuana? It doesn't. Marijuana is so dangerous only people under the influence of it would want it legalised. If you're reading this and you still think marijuana should be legalised I don't think there is a psychiatrist in the world that would be able to treat you.

Kurariki on bail...yet again!

They say that history repeats itself and no where is this more true than with New Zealand's youngest convicted killer, Bailey Junior Kurariki. Yesterday, Kurariki pleaded guilty to common assault and, after numerous breaches of bail and parole conditions, what do you know? The Manukau District Court judge in his infinite wisdom grants him bail. Of course this comes with so-called conditions such as a 7pm - 7am curfew but, judging by his record so far, who says he won't be back in court again? I've lost track of how many times this Kurariki kid has been in and out of jail. It seems this judge is either stupid or ignorant of the history of this killer. Has he been living under a rock for the past eight years? What makes him think Kurariki won't breach his bail conditions again like he's done numerous times before? I'm pretty sure this messed up kid was given a final warning earlier this year. Judge Semi Epati warned him it wasn't a game. But after being released on bail, to this pizza man killer it is a game... and he's winning. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a final warning mean no more warnings after that? Maybe there's another definition of final I'm not aware of. Yes, after given chance after chance I'm sure Bailey Junior Kurariki must be quivering in his boots at the thought of the consequences of breaching his bail conditions. So much for toughening up the bail laws earlier this year.

I'll bet dollars to donuts this taxpayer-leaching oxygen thief will breach his bail conditions and we'll have to play out this whole sorry saga again. And if he does get put back in jail he'll be living the life of luxury, watching plasma TVs and eating KFC, no doubt at the taxpayers' expense.

I've got a novel idea! How about keeping this killer in jail where he won't be a risk to the community and actually instilling proper discipline? Forget about his so-called rights and stop making excuses for him. Take away his luxuries and drugs and make him take responsibility. After the disrespect he's shown to the judge and to the community his punishment should've severely increased. If this killer is to have a chance in Hell of being rehabilitated (if that's even possible) things need to change. Get him off the drugs and make him pay for his actions. A bullet in his brain right at the beginning would've saved a lot of time and money but apparently that's too harsh for bashing a pizza delivery man with a baseball bat so let's not go there. It doesn't take a Nobel Prizewinner to figure people respond to incentives. If you keep giving people chances after saying they've got a final chance then what do you expect to happen? It's common sense to most people with an IQ higher than a goldfish but no. These bleeding-heart liberals still think there's hope for this waste of space. I'm surprised Tui hasn't used him for one of their billboards: Bailey Junior Kurariki will learn his lesson this time - Yeah Right!

Libertarianz politicising Len Snee's death

In its latest press release the Libertarianz wasted no time in scoring political points on Senior Constable Len Snee's untimely death. The Libertarianz claim that if only the police left Rambo wannabe, Jan Molenaar, with his arsenal of weaponry to "puff the magic dragon" then this whole Napier siege could've been avoided. They think that if it weren't for the War on Drugs we could've left the paranoid drug-crazed Molenaar to shoot and blow the whole place up in peace and we could all gather round the campfire singing Kumbaya.... Oh, and Constable Snee would still be alive.

Frankly that's a load of bull!

I'm not going to go into a debate about the legalisation of pot. I mean how can you have a rational debate about pot with people who are clearly high on the stuff? But let's say the routine search warrant wasn't for marijuana. Suppose it was for a harder drug like P (which even potheads admit makes people crazy). Would they be crying for its legalisation? Oh wait they actually do want all drugs legalised for "consenting" adults including P (which has caused lots of rampaging murder sprees). Who would've guessed? Drug proponents keep going on about black markets and how, if only drugs were legal for adults, gangs would just magically disappear. They don't realise that there would still be a black market with minors. So what's the solution then? Let drugs be sold to children?

Putting aside drugs altogether for a second, imagine if the search warrant on Molenaar was for something even the Libertarianz don't want legalised (like child porn or stolen goods). By their logic, if Jan Molenaar behaved like he did, that would justify the legalisation of child porn or stolen goods or whatever. I think you get my drift.

Basically it could've been a search warrant for anything but that doesn't give Jan Molenaar an excuse to act like a crazy gunman and shoot dead one of the most respected policemen in the community. Trying to paint Jan Molenaar as a matyr for the Libertarianz's cause for drug liberalisation is absolutely sick and an insult to Len Snee's honour. Anybody who thinks the Napier Siege is a justification for drug liberalisation needs a frontal lobotomy. If anything, this siege proves that drug laws need to be tightened and the police need to take better precautions when conducting raids. Those who do stupidly choose to have their health adversely affected by drugs but somehow don't get caught should be denied public healthcare.