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.