The Hamish Report

South Auckland version of the Anchor Zero Lacto ad with that annoying kid

2012-02-01T03:21:00.000-08:00

If you live in New Zealand then you've probably seen the Anchor Zero Lacto ad with that annoying kid and his overly tolerant mum. Well this is the more realistic South Auckland version that more properly reflects modern New Zealand society.

Boy: Mum?
Mum: Eh wat?
Boy: Y do u drink milk different from us? U retarded?
Mum: Nah it's cos I'm f***** lactose intolerant OK? U got a prob with dat?
Boy: Wats intolerant?
Mum: It's wat I am of ya stupid questions u dumb $#*! Geez get a f***** education eh! Only had u to get da DPB & now dats gon 4 da week.

Nek minnit...
One News: A young boy is currently in a critical condition in the intensive care unit of Middlemore Hospital suffering from what police are calling "non-accidental injuries."

3 News wrong about Green Party's "record-setting night"

2012-01-23T05:02:00.000-08:00

Yes I know the election was nearly two months ago and I was going to blog about this much earlier but it's better to be late in pointing out false statements in the media than to let them remain unchallenged. So what did 3 News get so SHOCKINGLY WRONG? Well we all know about TV3's obviously extreme left wing bias (case in point: that liberal douchebag John Campbell) and their infatuation with the Greens. On Election Night they couldn't stop themselves from getting excited over their unprecedented success in capturing the idiot vote. While it is true that, unfortunately, the Green Party achieved their best ever result by pretending to be more sensible than they really are, 3 News made the absolutely false statement that it is the first time since the 1996 MMP that a third party has got over 10% of the party vote. I don't pretend to be an expert in extensive research but it didn't take much extensive research for me to quickly find out from the official election results website that the Green Party is NOT the first minor party to have won more than 10% of the party vote. In fact, in the 2002 General Election, New Zealand First won 10.38% of the party vote. Yes, 10.38% not just 10%. Now I know some of you (most of you idiots which is probably why you voted for the Greens) will be like "Wow 10.38%? That's pretty much close to 10% anyway. Big freakin deal!" But you don't have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that 10.38% IS STILL MORE THAN 10%!!! I'm honestly surprised that nobody else has realised this SIMPLE FACT before but then when has the lamestream media ever cared about facts and objectivity?

Remember the All Blacks - parody of a scene from Remember the Titans

2011-10-22T08:11:00.000-07:00

Coach Henry: It's all right. We're in a fight. You boys are doing all that you can do. Anybody can see that. Win or lose... We gonna walk out of Eden Park tonight with our heads held high. Do your best. That's all anybody can ask for.
Richie McCaw: No, it ain't Coach. With all due respect, uh, you demanded more of us. You demanded perfection. Now, I ain't saying that I'm perfect, 'cause I'm not. And I ain't gonna never be. None of us are. But we have won 75% of all our matches and every single game we have played at Eden Park since 1994. So this team is almost perfect and ranked number 1 in the world. We won the World Cup in 1987. And, uh, if it's all the same to you, Coach Henry, we want to win it again.

Why a try is called a try

2011-10-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

The Rugby World Cup 2011 is nearly coming to an end as the All Blacks prepare for the ultimate showdown against the unpredictable French. Of course we want the All Blacks to score lots of tries and waste those frogs but, if you're like me, you may ask yourself why a try is called a try when you've succeeded. Shouldn't they be called successes? Actually there's a good reason why they're called tries. When rugby was first invented in England in the 1800s what we call a try didn't actually give you any points. Back then, when you scored a try you just got the opportunity to "try" to kick a goal ie "convert the try" into points. Tries didn't give you any points until 1886 when you got 1 point for a try, 2 points for a conversion, 3 points for a penalty and 3 points from a drop goal. The value of a try increased to 2 points in 1891, 3 points in 1894, 4 points in 1971 then finally 5 points in 1992.

That's The Race You Are - Asian parody of Just The Way You Are by Bruno Mars

2011-08-03T00:40:00.000-07:00

Oh, her eyes, her eyes, make dental floss the perfect blindfold
Her hair, her hair, is black (not grey) unless she is old
She wears spectacles
And she studies everyday.
Yeah, I know, I know I can buy some things from her real cheaply
But it's so, it's so sad that they're usually bad quality
And every time I send an item back her way
I say

When I see your grades
There's not a doubt about your race
Cause you're an Asian
That's the race you are.

And when you drive
The whole world's shocked when you can survive
Cause girl you're an Asian
That's the race you are.

Her rice her rice
She can eat it all day when she's hungry
Her lunch her lunch consists of hot dogs and I mean literally
She wears spectacles
And she studies everyday
Oh you know you know you sound like you just got off the plane
Can't understand a word you say.
It's hurting my brain.
So don't bother asking if your English is okay
You know I'll say

When I see your grades
There's not a doubt about your race
Cause you're an Asian
That's the race you are.

And when you drive
The whole world's shocked when you can survive
Cause girl you're an Asian.
That's the race you are.

The race you are
The race you are
Girl you're an Asian.
That's the race you are

When I see your grades
There's not a doubt about your race
Cause you're an Asian
That's the race you are

And when you drive
The whole world's shocked when you can survive
Cause girl you're an Asian
That's the race you are

Jesus Christ - Christian parody of Dynamite by Taio Cruz

2011-04-22T08:55:00.000-07:00

I throw my hands up to the Lord sometimes
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!
I wanna emulate him in my life
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!

I I I II come to church church church church.
I grab a bible and I search search search search.
I'm looking up my favourite verse verse verse verse.
Sent his son to save the Earth Earth Earth Earth.
You you.
Cause he rules on and on and on
And he rules on and on and on.
Yeah.

I throw my hands up to the Lord sometimes
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!
I wanna emulate him in my life
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!

Cause he died on the cross
then came back to life
We gon give it up
All for Jesus Christ.
Cause he warned us once
He won't warn us twice
We gon give it up
All for Jesus Christ

I came to prove prove prove prove
He isn't just the King of Jews Jews Jews Jews.
He is the way, the life and truth truth truth truth.
I'm gonna spread the gospel news news news news.
You you.
Cause he rules on and on and on
And he rules on and on and on
Yeah!

I throw my hands up to the Lord sometimes
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!
I wanna emulate him in my life.
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!
Cause he died on the cross
then came back to life.
We gon' give it up
All for Jesus Christ.
Cause he warned us once.
He won't warn us twice.
We gon' give it up
All for Jesus Christ.

I'm gonna take my sins out.
God's gonna judge me while I'm standing.
I'm atoned for all my
Sins that I have still got outstanding.
Cause I I I believe in him
And I I I, I just give him all.
I just give him all.
I'm gonna put my hands close in prayer.
Ha-hands close in prayer.
Put your hands close in prayer-ayer-ayer-ayer-ayer-ayer-ayer-ayer.

I throw my hands up to the Lord sometimes
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!
I wanna emulate him in my life.
Saying ayo! Praise his name-o!
Cause he died on the cross
Then came back to life.
We gon' give it up
All for Jesus Christ.
Cause he warned us once.
He won't warn us twice.
We gon' give it up
All for Jesus Christ.

Why WikiLeaks is so dangerous

2010-11-30T06:04:00.000-08:00

Unless you've been living in a rock or trapped down a mine (no disrespect of course) you would've heard about the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, releasing all of America's juicy little secrets and thinking he's some saviour of freedom of information. But before you buy into the liberal media's narrative of him being such a hero KEEP READING to find out why his irresponsible childish actions are so dangerous.

Transparency and holding the government to account sound like such noble goals but this must be balanced with the interests of national security. Julian Assange can pretend all he likes that he's just a neutral defender of freedom but the fact is, by releasing secret documents relating to US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is choosing to help and side with the terrorists. That is plain and simple treason and is evidence that he is motivated by an agenda to give terrorists an advantage in the War on Terror. People may think it'd be interesting to find out all of America's military plans and operations but, as the saying goes, curiosity killed the cat. In this case, because the terrorists will also receive the same information, curiosity will also kill soldiers and innocent civilians. It's ironic that he claims to want to stop the war in Afghanistan when, especially by releasing details of informants, he not only puts soldiers' lives in danger but also the lives of innocent Afghan civilians who only want to experience the freedoms that you and I and everyone else take for granted. Now, because of his irresponsible actions, the Taliban have promised to hunt down and behead informants. Is there anyone who honestly even has the slightest doubt that they will carry out their promise? As a result of the potential threat on their lives, people will be unwilling to divulge information about the Taliban and help the US-led coalition forces in defeating terrorism in Afghanistan. If you think the war in Afghanistan is hard, giving terrorists a leg up has now made the mission for freedom even harder. Julian Assange and others like him need to stop being so naive and think about the consequences of their actions. Actually, scratch that, Julian Assange and other people involved with WikiLeaks know very well the consequences of their actions. They just don't care as long as they can continue to pursue their anti-American agenda. If they're so into openness and transparency then why are they so biased and only target the US and its allies? Why doesn't he release secret documents from Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Chinese or Russians or whatever? Why doesn't he release secret documents from the Iranian government? I'll tell you why. Because this isn't about transparency and holding governments to account at all. This is about an extreme anti-American terrorist-loving communist activist radical who would like nothing more than to see real freedom destroyed. He and other people like him are not interested in the truth but on spreading anti-American propaganda. If he's so interested in transparency why is he only telling one side of the story? Why is he only focused on giving the terrorists all the information they need to destroy America and its allies including New Zealand? It's time he and his America-hating ilk stop the facade of pacifist neutrality and admit to being the terrorist-supporting traitors that anyone with even a scrap of grey matter can clearly see. WikiLeaks claims to have released information about events that involve what they allege to be the US military killing civilians. Now, I admit I haven't investigated these allegations but WikiLeaks completely takes these events out of context and is only doing this to make the US-led coalition forces look bad thereby helping our enemies in the propaganda war. They don't explain the whole situation or tell both sides of the story. Killing civilians is never a good thing but there is a huge difference between terrorists deliberately murdering innocent civilians and coalition forces accidentally killing civilians (which is always unfortunate but very difficult in a place where terrorists so easily blend in with civilians). Julian Assange never does anything that does not involve hampering the War Against Terrorism. He is a terrorist-appeasing oxygen thief rapist who literally has blood on his hands. His hypocrisy is evident in the fact that he continuously moves place to place like a little shrew instead of manning up and facing the consequences of his actions. Why is he so secretive? He would probably answer that he has a right to privacy. But I thought everything had to to be open and transparent. Why is he allowed to protect his private information but governments aren't allowed to protect information that is vital for their national security? Does he not care? I know many people will probably argue that, if it weren't for WikiLeaks, the American military could do anything it likes. But there must be a balance between freedom of information in order to hold people in power accountable and protecting national security. If you release secret information about your company to competitors you'd be justifiably fired and no amount of crying about freedom of speech will save you. Releasing secret information about your company's plans to competitors harms its competitiveness and could potentially damage it. It's the same thing as releasing information about informants except, in this case, real lives are being threatened because of an egotistical, self-serving, smarmy little liberal communist leftist git who thinks he's a saviour when he's simply an idiot (and that's being nice).

John Key got something wrong

2010-11-11T04:28:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about accidentally calling United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, "President Clinton." At least he apologised for that and the media made sure everyone knew about that mistake. There's something else he got wrong earlier that week in Vietnam. Something much else. Something that nobody seems to have picked up on. Something that could've been avoided with even the slightest bit of research. By now you're probably screaming for me to hurry up and tell you what he got wrong. Don't worry, I'll get to that in a second. But first, here is something he said at the East Asia Summit in Vietnam last week.

"If you think about the lunch we went to; the richest man in the world was there in the form of the Sultan Brunei, three of the largest most populated countries in the world were there in the form of India and China and the likes, and arguably the only super power that currently exists (the United States)."

Did you read that quote very carefully, especially the part in bold? You should've figured by now that the Sultan of Brunei is not the richest man in the world. In fact the Sultan of Brunei isn't even one of the top 24 richest people in the world. So how could our Prime Minister get something so simple so wrong and not have anyone even notice it? How could he not know that Bill Gates is the richest man in the world?

Or is he?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? If you asked a random person in the street who the richest person is they would most likely reply, "Bill Gates." Actually, even though Bill Gates had been the richest person in the world for most of the time since 1995 (except in 2008 when he was overtaken by Warren Buffett) this is no longer the case. Since March 2010 the richest person in the world, with a net worth of $US 60.6 billion has been Carlos Slim Helu. Heard of him? Me either until I found out from Forbes earlier this year. Carlos Slim is actually a 70 year old Mexican telecom tycoon who owns heaps of companies based on telecommunications and other stuff. He's the Chairman and CEO of Telmex, America Movil and Grupo Carso (all telecom conglomerates) and $6.6 billion richer than Bill Gates, who's now the world's second richest. Find out more about him here .

Now that you've hopefully learned something new and shocking from the The Hamish Report keep reading this blog and make sure you vote in the poll on the right on another rich person, John Key, before 14 November, 11:20pm. Quick! Time's running out!!!

National Government's 2nd Birthday

2010-11-08T01:10:00.000-08:00

It's been exactly 2 years since John Key was elected Prime Minister of New Zealand and The Hamish Report is giving you the chance to have your say on how you feel about his performance (or lack thereof). Don't miss your chance to express your view on National's first two years in the comments below or take the poll on the right. Whether you love him, loathe him or just don't care make a comment below or vote in the poll BEFORE 14 Novemenber 2010, 11:20PM New Zealand time. ANONYMITY GUARANTEED!!!

Twilight kills people - most likely with boredom

2010-07-06T08:07:00.000-07:00

What do Twilight and that video from The Ring have in common? They both kill people. So if you're thinking about watching the new Twilight movie and you want to stay alive then you must read this PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING: This DANGEROUS MOVIE could KILL YOU WITH BOREDOM.

An unfortunate 23-year-old man in Wellington, New Zealand suffered the deadly consequences of not having this warning the hard way. It's no secret that you'll fall asleep from boredom but this guy who was watching Twilight: Eclipse at the Reading Cinema complex on Courtenay Place won't be waking up any time soon. A security guard found his dead body sitting in his seat after the 6pm screening on Sunday 4 July after being alerted by a cleaner who thought he was asleep (because obviously if he was alive he wouldn't be awake). Police say the death is not suspicious but remains a mystery. I say the cause of death is obvious: this guy was bored to death. He was found alone so we can rule out the possiblity of a girlfriend forcing him to watch it. This means he must've voluntarily put himself through this agony. Maybe he was a masochist and thought he could survive and wake up from the torturous boredom or maybe he was suicidal and deliberately killed himself with the boredom - I don't know. And I don't know the exact time of death. I just hope that if it was suicide that his death occured as quickly as possible while watching the movie because the later it occured the more painful it must've been. I'm not advocating suicide here but if you want a quick and painless way to top yourself then watching Twilight would be an agonizing way to do it. You might say that you can survive Twilight. Well you can survive Russian roulette too but that doesn't make it any less dangerous and at least Russian roulette would kill you faster and less painfully. To paraphrase an old saying: Twilight might not kill you but why take the chance? Take this as a serious warning. I'm not exaggerating when I say that if you watch Twilight you'll probably be quite literally bored to death.

Can't discriminate against unreliable workers

2010-02-03T01:33:00.000-08:00

When writing up a job ad there are lots of people you can't discriminate against. You can't discriminate against blacks, women, gays or old people. But that's not as sinful as discriminating against another section of society - unreliable workers.

A recruitment firm boss in England, Nicole Mamo, learnt this lesson the hard way when she posted a job advertisement for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner on her local Jobcentre Plus website. Like most other sensible job advertisements she made sure it didn't say things like "no blacks" or "gays need not apply." But there was something it did say at the end that got her in trouble with the local Jobcentre Plus office in Thetford, Nolfolk. The advertisement ended with the offending words, ''must be very reliable and hard-working''. Sounds pretty reasonable right? Not so for a certain Jobcentre Plus worker, who claimed that asking for reliable workers meant that they could be sued for discriminating against unreliable workers. As a result, they banned her ad from the Jobcentre Plus office itself. Understandably, the 48 year old mother-of-two felt this was ridiculous.

'I placed the advert on the website and when I phoned up to check I was told it hadn't been displayed in the job centre itself," she said. ''She said 'oh we can't put that advert on the job points'. She said it was because they could have cases against them for discriminating against unreliable people.

''I laughed because I thought that was crazy. We supply the NHS with staff so it's very important for the patients that we have reliable workers.

''We find jobs for hundreds of temporary staff every week and are proud of our workers but our reputation is at stake if they aren't reliable.

''We are taking people off the dole and finding them jobs so not displaying the advert just seems absolutely ridiculous to me.''

You can't make this stuff up. I wish I could say the above story was just a joke, but it's not. This is just another example of political correct madness taking over the world. Discriminating against blacks, women or gays is bad enough but how dare you discriminate against unreliable and lazy people. These anti-discrimination laws started off okay because no one can choose their race, sex or age. But now they're just crazy. Will unreliable workers now be considered a protected minority? Maybe for the sake of diversity they have to have a certain quota of lazy and unreliable people. I can just imagine a rejection letter saying, "We regret to inform you that your application for the position of politician has been declined due to your hard work and excessive reliability." If unreliability was a legal prerequisite for a job then unreliable people would be a shoe-in for political office. It's not like you need to be reliable and hardworking to be a politician. Seriously though, how many job ads say you need to be reliable? I challenge you to find a job ad that doesn't say you have to be reliable and hardworking. If I had a dollar for every job ad asking reliable workers I could more than pay my student loan off. A ban on asking for reliable workers would mean that most job advertisements are illegal. Next time you see a job advertisement saying you have to reliable and hardworking and you're just a lazy pig I suggest you sue for discrimination.

When will this political correct nonsense stop? Will David Letterman have to change his name to David Letterperson to appear less sexist? Let's have your comments and your own stories of how political correctness has affected you. I'm sure this can't be the only PC gone mad story around.

Balanced policy for the minimum wage

2010-01-30T04:38:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday the government announced the smallest increase in the minimum wage in ten years from $12.50 to $12.75 (yay 25 cents!). Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, and Business NZ Chief Executive, Phil O'Reilly, claim this is in line with inflation and reasonable enough to not price unskilled workers out of the labour market. But, understandably, Labour and the unions are calling the increase "miserly" and want it raised to at least $15. Opponents of the minimum wage argue that would price unskilled workers of the labour market as employers would choose skilled workers at the same price. Increasing the minimum wage is something that has arguments for and against but I've got a policy that should satisfy everyone.

The minimum wage should be increased to $15 to keep up with the cost of living. But I also understand that this would make unskilled and inexperienced people who aren't worth that much unemployable. So I think businesses (or at least small businesses) should receive tax credits (or at least some other form of compensation) so they won't feel like they're taking too much of a risk in hiring people who aren't as skilled. There should be give and take from both sides. If businesses are going to be forced to pay more for hiring someone they should get something back to compensate. You can only get at least the minimum wage if you've got a job so, if you're competing for a minimum wage job with someone who's more skilled and got more experience, then the other person would probably get picked over you. Giving tax credits to offset the increase in the minimum wage should balance things out a bit. Workers should be paid enough to survive on and not be oppressed but this doesn't mean businesses should be punished. Not all rich people and businesses are huge mean corporations that oppress and stomp on workers just like not all poor people and beneficiaries are lazy dole bludgers that just want to stay on welfare. Small businesses don't have endless pits of money so they don't want costs increased for no reason. If they can't pay less than $15 an hour for someone then they wouldn't want to take a risk with someone who's not worth that much. It's all about balance!

Anyway, that's the main idea. So what do you guys think? I know I haven't figured out all the numbers and practical stuff yet but the main idea is about balance - if you're going to increase compliance costs in one area you should decrease compliance costs in another. Your feedback, comments and opinions below are always welcomed. Give me your suggestions as to how my policy can be implemented (if at all!).

Top Ten Tweets from Osama bin Laden - Your ideas

2010-01-27T04:46:00.000-08:00

Remember Osama bin Laden? You know, everyone's favourite terrorist filmmaker mastermind that everyone's supposed to be looking for in those caves? Well he's back with his latest vlog entry and letting us know what's up following the Christmas Day underpants bomber attack. Now what if he was on Twitter? Let's see who can come up with the:

Top Ten Tweets from Osama bin Laden

Comment below.

David Beckham victim of feminist hypocrisy

2010-01-27T04:29:00.000-08:00

Throughout itstory personkind (yes I'm deliberately being PC) has been inundated with the feminazi propaganda that feminists only want equal rights for both men and women and that neither gender should be treated differently from the other. So everyone naively goes through life with that myth. But, while that may have been true back in the Victorian days, this latest incident over David Beckham has revealed the all-too uncommon hypocrisy that feminists are guilty of these days.

If you still don't know what I'm on about: basically David Beckham was doing an interview in Milan, Italy when a female reporter from a so-called comedy show grabs his...ahem...bits and pieces (you know..his package, private sector, whatever, you know what I mean). I'm not going to get into the graphic details. The point is feminists are such hypocrites. They go on about how women have been oppressed by men and get offended by even the slightest jokes about women so they want things to be "equal". Yet they don't say a word when David Beckham gets sexually assaulted. Apparently when a man gets that sort of treatment feminists feel vindicated and it's not such a big deal. Fairness and equality don't feature in their vocabulary. I'd bet America's national debt that if the genders were reversed and a male reporter was engaged in that sort of disgusting behaviour there would be lawsuits flying around the place and the media would have such a field day over a sportswoman getting sexually assaulted that Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton would look like eunuchs. They'd go on and on about it and there'd be a huge media brouhaha. The fact that the media has shoved this under carpet only proves the infiltration of the feminazi agenda and double standards. David Beckham did nothing to deserve this brutal treatment. He's never abused a woman (sexually or otherwise). So the vindictive argument that David Beckham was only getting what women have been subjected too throughout history won't wash with anyone. He's well within his rights to sue the proverbial out of that reporter for sexual assault at the very least.

Al Qaeda plotters behind potential Christmas attack released from Guantanamo Bay

2009-12-29T00:25:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-22T03:25:00.000-08:00

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

2009-09-16T22:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-21T23:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-12T23:52:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-12T22:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T20:55:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-07-22T02:07:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-07-21T23:04:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-21T19:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-10T21:01:00.000-07:00

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 Argentina.

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?

2009-05-27T18:12:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-05-24T02:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-24T01:44:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-05-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-12T01:15:00.000-07:00

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.