Thursday, November 29, 2007
What is amusing is the ranting from radical lawyers and their fellow travelers to the effect that somehow the publication of this affidavit will prevent the guilty bastards from getting a fair trial. They say lawyers engage in theatrics most of the time and in this case there should be some Oscars handed out.
The affidavit is essentially a summary of the reasons why police think they have good reason to carry out further aggressive action against certain parties to get the evidence they need to launch a prosecution. A jury will bring in a verdict depending on the evidence which is put before them. The fact that the evidence is made public in no way detracts from the quality of the evidence. Moana Jackson simply is grand standing and playing the race card as hard as he can go.
When you have people playing around in the bush with armour piercing ammunition, .223 assault rifles, silenced weapons, grenade launchers, napalm, vehicle ambushes, sniper rifles, and other assorted goodies then you have a very serious problem indeed on your hands.
Adolf presently occupies an office in the same building as a well known Auckland law firm. He has noticed various suit attired dour and mournful characters in the lift muttering about contempt of court. Well , all I can say is, the legal fraternity needs to back off a little and stop showing contempt for the common sense of the average New Zealander who, if he read the 155 pages of evidence, would agree whole heartedly that the police acted correctly in EVERYTHING they did on the day they rounded up these dangerous lunatics.
Here's just one example.
Some of our darky commentators were criticising the police for including no Maori officers in the personell for the raids. Well, the evidence suggests there was a risk that such personell might have tipped of the plotters. They were being fed information from members of DOC staff so why would you take the risk of one sympathiser within the police force blowing the whole operation?
Not for nothing is he called 'The Smiling Assassin.'
Yet another sector of the community alienated by Clark.
Our good friend Whale Oil believes Trevor Mallard is in need of a holiday.
This morning the headline story around the whole world is the crass rudeness of our piss ant PM who was seen text messaging during the Queen's opening address at the CHOGM conference.
(pic stolen from Stuff)
There is nothing to admire in this crude, humourless, harridan who seems to specialise in insulting people and nations who could be our friends as she cuddles up to nations and movements which potentially may be our enemies.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Of course such a scenario could happen in many a European country, perhaps even in Australia and New Zealand one day.
There has been some debate on a few of the blogs about where you draw the line in opposing Islamism and allowing ‘racist’ organizations to join the fightback.
Aurora over at The Midnight Sun has even posted commentary from Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party on his blog.
Normally, I would share the horror of many on the left in giving the BNP a platform, but perhaps the BNP is reforming and finally has ditched its old racist and anti-semitic ways and now offers a constructive contribution to the debate.
Certainly more needs to be done to highlight the horrors of Islamism.
Some blogs have mentioned this horrific case of the Saudi rape victim, yes, rape VICTIM, being sentenced to extra lashes because she sought media attention to her plight.
Where are the left here? Are they too stupid and blind to the religion they unwittingly promote?
Fortunately, I saw this piece from UK liberal Joan Bakewell, which made it into this Monday’s New Zealand Herald.
But I heard no call from the New Zealand government to halt such Saudi Sharia brutality, apart from this Canberra story quoting our own Dear Leader, so a rare Goodonya Helen!.
So what can we do to stop the growing rise of this barbaric Islamist culture?
I see no alternative to raising the drawbridge against such immigrants.
I am calling for methods no worse than used by such organizations as liberal as the Department of Conservation.
Where there is a predator species causing harm to native plants and animals Doc typically wants the vector removed.
Thus, like conservationists calling for the removal for stoats and weasels, so the protection of native cultures in Europe and elsewhere demands the removal of the Islamist menace.
Not so much spraying the lands with 1080 poison, more a case of trap and release back in their native homelands, via Boeing 767 or Airbus 320.
I guess that makes me the ultimate conservationist, wanting to protect the indigenous cultures of Western Europe from Islamist aggressors.
As I walked down into Queenstown that fine Saturday evening, I noted a happy scene in our own GodZone.
It was a multicultural scene of people enjoying the warm sun, Belgian beer, Danish ice cream, Belgian chocolate, Thai and Indian restaurants, and there was some Kiwiana too- all being lapped up by Asian tourists.
Who could threaten the semi-rural Arcadia that we have created here in Aotorea?
Well, the Islamists might if we let them, as they are in Europe.
Far fetched you think? Well, the number one source of immigrants Britain is from the largely Muslim Indian subcontinent. Immigration could more than double the UK population to over 100 million within a generation or two, leaving the native British a minority in their own land.
And as for that Danish ‘civil war’ , well those ‘youths’ of ‘North African origin’ have been rioting - some of them armed- in Paris for three days now ( see picture above).
These poor little fellows have got themselves all into a lather because the National Party has spent some of IT'S OWN MONEY producing a somnolent DVD extolling the party leader John Key.
These folk don't realise that the only known cure for Juvenile Demenitia is 'irony' which can only be administered to those who can see it. These same clueless clots support the EFB and the Labour Wants Your Tax Money bill. Now THAT'S IRONY but of course the poor saps can't see it.
At a dollar a week, it seems they have only only sixteen weeks left before the world can attend the funeral of the once proud Newspaper of Record.
Powered by NYSE MarkeTrac | as of 17:13 ET 27 Nov 2007 | Market data delayed 20 min.
|Name||Symbol||$ Last Trade||Volume||$ Change||% Change|
|New York Times Co.||NYT||16.83||1,563,700||0.35||2.03|
The latest Herald opinion poll shows the sleeping giant of ordinary New Zealanders is awakening to the machinations of those who think the EFB and its cohort election spend as much of our money as you like bill will steal them the next election.
Audrey Young noted the poll coincides with John Key's anniversary as leader. That's nonsense. John Key has largely been out of the public eye and that's why he has not gained in the preferred PM rating. She misses the real story which is that the poll wipes out ALL THE PARTIES which support the Electoral Finance Bill.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
"It's a social arrangement. I buy him a nice shirt and we go out for dinner. For as long as he stays with me he doesn't pay for anything, and I get what I want – a good time. How is that different from a man buying a young girl dinner?"
Prime Minister Helen Clark has delivered a stinging attack on opponents of the Electoral Voter Consumption Bill. The controversial legislation that would allow Cabinet Members to kill and eat members of the public has been opposed by opposition parties and human rights organisations.
‘The critics of this bill are the usual hollow men that want big business and religious creeps to be able to buy and sell our democracy to the highest bidder,’ Clark announced at her post-cabinet press conference.
The Labour Party introduced the legislation in response to a police investigation into the activities of senior Labour MP’s Trevor Mallard and Parekura Horomia.
‘The law around whether cabinet members can smash peoples skulls open and feast open the contents is unclear,’ Clark announced today. ‘All that this bill does is clarify the confusion surrounding this issue.’
National leader John Key has announced his attention to repeal the bill should National come to power in the next election. But in a rare display of disunity, former National Deputy leader Gerry Brownlee will be crossing the floor to vote in favour of the bill.
Monday, November 26, 2007
In Britain, bureaucratic over-reach has seen the Labour Government creeping further and further into the lives of British people.
Goodonya Dave! Let us enjoy you taking your beliefs to their logical conclusion when you become British Prime Minister.
If the police had not acted as they did in rounding up the 'Urawera 16' they would have been done for criminal negligence. There can be no doubt the activities of these idiots were well and truly over the boundary of 'just a few loudmouths running around playing games in the bush.' This was much more than that. Silenced weapons, substantial quantities of ammunition, organised training for what can only be described as 'terrorist activities.'
The real scandal in all of this is that when the chips were down, Helen Clark's Labour government failed dismally in protecting us from these fools. Her legislation was incoherent and they've all been let go to continue on. Now that they have been enlightened as to the authorities eaves dropping methods, they will simply change the way they do things.
Contrast the dismal incompetent failure of Labour in New Zealand with the efficient and no nonsense actions of Fiji's Cmdr Bainimarama and I'll tell you who I'd rather have looking after the interests of ordinary people.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
And now John Howard is no longer PM of Australia and probably no longer the member for Bennelong.
Can't say I'd be too upset now if Howard did lose his seat.
After such a dignified speech last night , I feel John Howard can walk straight off the stage with huge amounts of respect and honour and with all our thanks.
He can take a much earned break with his family till he prepares for his next chapter in life.
Despite the scale of the defeat- emphatic but not a landslide- the Great Aussie Battler still has much dignity, or much mana, as we kiwis also say.
John Howard has a record to be proud of and it is indeed that record of economic stewardship that Kevin Rudd appears determined not to destroy.
Howard and Costello have delivered a much richer country, a more secure country, along with better public services.
Of course, Australians expect more from their politicians than we do. They are so easy to complain. And I guess the time for a change factor was strong.
Despite lefty talk of ending discrimination, ageism remains rife, dressed up in talk of the future, fresh starts, and change.
Change will obviously have to be a mantra for National here too in 2008, with a fresh, young and dynamic John Key contrasting against an old, tired and failing Helen Clark.
But even the greatest of leaders can outstay their welcome.
As a Pom, I recall the great service and the good things done to Britain by former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who resigned 17 years ago this week after a simialr 11.5 years in office.
Yet, her previous victories perhaps gave Margaret Thatcher too much courage or confidence to go too far, or at least further than what the people wanted.
This is where the matter of Work Choices will have contributed to Howards defeat.
With freedom comes responsibility. Giving employers the upper hand, more freedom to dictate the workplace, can lead to trouble.
In Australia, earlier this year, I recall one bar charging customers a surcharge for it being open on Anzac Day but the bar staff were not getting paid extra for working the public holiday.
The media hyped up this story for all it is worth and I don't know how common such cases were. But if employers were abusing Work Choices too much to their own advantage, it is inevitable that the 'workers' would get their own back by electing a government that will replace Work Choices with something more akin to the old-style Awards.
I have often argued with unionists that 'market forces work both ways' benefitting the worker too, but if the employer or employers seek to grab all the benefit themselves then it is likely workers will support a more collectivist solution.
Now, how the union dominated Labor Party will respond to Work Changes remains to be seen.
Kevin Rudd has created the image of a moderate, a social conservative even, Howard-Lite maybe, with so many 'me too' polices, such as taxcuts.
I have even heard of some comparisons with an Australian Tony Blair.
The right, upset as we are at Howard's end, can take some comfort.
Extreme leftism, which may well be lurking within Labor from the likes of deputy-PM Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, has been defeated somewhat.
Rudd has had to slay many Labor dragons to help him gain office. But now he is safely elected PM, will he continue to keep them at bay, or will they rise up and burn him?
This is the challenge Rudd has in the years ahead. Labor has to maintain and enhance the economic success of the Howard and Costello years. He has to show he is worthy of the trust Australia has invested in him.
True, there will be calls from the left for extra state spending- and he has pledged to sign Kyoto- but if Rudd can maintain a moderate stance that allows Austraia to carry on with its correct and prosperous course, he has the makings of a successful and good prime minister.
In Britain, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown managed to maintain a steady, safe and prudent course, until the temptation to spend became too much. We saw something similar happen with Clark and Cullen in New Zealand.
The real radicalism didn't happen until the second term. And this is the prize that awaits Rudd, if he and Labor don't upset the apple cart too much.
For the Coalition, Australia and the world can and should offer the best wishes to the devotion to Australia shown by John Howard.
Let us hope something exciting and of value awaits him in future, something more worthy of Howard's talents than being a mere backbencher. Something on the world stage, perhaps.
Peter Costello, Howard's anointed successor, faces a tough task ahead as he must rebuild a Liberal party, which doesn't even control any states either.
I am sure Costello is up to the task. But judging by the support won by Malcolm Turnbull, it might well be him who leads the Liberals to future victory.
Finally, as we hope for a new and successful chapter for John Howard, let us leave with the concession speech of Dick Tuck who, upon losing a California state senate primary, said simply, "The people have spoken…the bastards."
I can't see John Howard saying anything like that, can you?
UPDATE: Here's an editorial from the Sunday Star-Times noting the 'tweedledee-tweedledum' nature of Rudd and Howard. And here's David Farrar kicking off the debate at kiwiblog.
UPDATE2: Costello says he's not standing for the leadership or deputy leadership, so a new generation can lead. Looks like Turnbull for leader but like some at kiwiblog, I rate Tony Abbott highly too.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Twice in the last year (with the repeal of S59 and now the EFB), Labour have criminalised a large swathe of the population and fobbed us off with the claim that we can trust the organs of the state to exercise discretion in choosing which of these newly-minted criminals to prosecute. "The Rule of Common Sense will prevail!" cries Annette King. Er, maybe - this week. Who knows what will prevail next week? In any case, wouldn't it be preferable for the Rule of Common Sense to prevail at the point where these grossly-overpaid f*ckwits are drafting the law, as well as when their lowly-paid minions are enforcing it?
Even assuming we really could trust them not to prosecute us for the crimes they just invented, they add insult to injury by throwing into the mix an amendment to the Suppression of Terrorism Act, which secures our freedom by defining a "terrorist" as anyone the govt declares to be one. Unfortunately, the people going on about authoritarianism, creeping fascism and an encroaching Police state now have a very good case.
Sure, I can see plenty of counter-arguments to the above: the guy just convicted of assault on his kid was charged for treating him roughly enough to bruise him, not for smacking him; the EFB is intended to keep rich wankers from making up their parties' lack of popular support with bottomless and anonymous financial support; and above all, there's the fact that giving Labour a savage and merciless electoral beating would essentially put National into power - ie, we'd replace one authoritarian pack of scumbags with a worse one. Nevertheless, I think the Left has to do it to have any self-respect , for this basic reason:
If we're going to suffer creeping authoritarianism, I'd rather the left was opposing it, not writing apologia for it.
Right now, the govt's new laws all seem to amount to a directive to bend over and spread 'em. We can assume the position, or give their arses a thorough kicking. Which one's it to be, Standard?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
$17.14 at today's close on the NYSE
Adolf wonders whether this about turn in editorial policy might have something to do with the steady decline in the paper's share price since in 2003 it mounted its aggressive campaign against the Bush administration and its War Against Terror centred in the Iraq theatre.
Just last week, the share price broke through (downward trend) the $18 barrier and now hovers dangerously close to the $17 mark, after declining steadily from a healthy $47 in April 2003 to a dreadful $19 before last week's plunge. Readers will see the share price was relatively stable up until the April 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The price trend since early 2004 seems more than coincidental.
|Period:||Moving Avg 1:||Moving Avg 2:||Stochastic:||MACD|
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
From the comments it is obviously a lefty and no doubt the real dadforjustice will be displeased.
Apparently this sort of carry on is what passes for wit and flair amongst many of the left.
A few points:
1. We're now losing 40,000 per year. Those socialist Liarbore bastards!!! This figure is the highest in a decade. Er, hang on - a decade? It was this bad 10 years ago? Surely the "socialists" weren't running things back then. Shit, who are we going to blame now?
2. Net loss is 26,500, due to 13,500 immigrants from Aus. Our Aussies tend to be skilled professionals, and the people we're shipping over there tend to be unskilled. Sounds rather like we're making on the deal to me.
3. 53% of NZers would consider a job overseas, according to an international survey. What, only 53%? What's wrong with you people? I've lived overseas twice and both were great experiences. NZ's none too flash on a world scale, certainly not so flash you wouldn't consider living anywhere else.
4. Apparently NZers are moving to Aus for the "lifestyle." Excuse me? I just came back from spending several days there for work - it was unpleasantly hot, swarming with flies, paranoid about where the next litre of water is coming from, and the grocery prices were eye-watering. I'd consider living in quite a few countries, but that one's low on the list.
Putting up an anit-Zionist campaign manager in a significantly Jewish electorate is not a strategy for winning the prize for best bar mitzvah. However, the ALP figures it's a good scheme.
It ain't over til the fat lady sings and the young Kruddy seems unable to stay in tune for the Grande Finale.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
If the Left truly want a 'fair' election in 2008, and beyond, here's how it can happen:
- State fund every political party to the tune of $3,000.000.00 to be used for the 2008 campaign. That amount is each party's cap and covers everything, including broadcasting. No private fundraising is permitted.
- The penalty for exceeding the cap is deregistration of your party, and imprisonment for the party leader and the party secretary.
- Parties have until next Friday, 30 November 2007, to register for the election. This gives the current parties enough time to sort their shit out, and allows legitimate organisations wishing to contest the election just enough time to sort out a name, find 500 members and register. It is also just enough of too short a timeframe so as to prohibit 'wacky' organisations to partake.
- Parties currently in Parliament are allowed no extra funding, whether through Parliamentary Services or their own funds. Current Parliamentary Services funds for parliamentary parties are extinguished six months prior to polling day which is announced on Waitangi day - February 6th.
- The Electoral Finance Act/Bill or any electoral law whatsoever is repealed. There are no election laws for spending, save for the $3,000,00.00 cap.
- I reiterate, the $3,000,000.00 can be spent by the parties as they like.
- The above process would allow parties as even a playing field as you could get and a balanced contest of ideas.
- After the 2008 election, all parties who were successful at the election must partake in multilateral, bipartisan talks to enact electoral laws that are representative and equitable in accordance with the voters choices after the fairest election in monetary terms this country has ever seen.
National is back out to a 14% lead but regrettably the Baubolic Plague has snuck up over 5%.
Just wait until the public realises that the EFB and its sister rort are a devious con job by Labour to steal not $800k but closer to $50 million to deceive and lie their way back into office
A bill board might well read 'This Time They'll Take Eight Million'
I can write the script.
'How the hell do these people think they can run Australia if they can't even manage a piddly little process like selecting their candidates?'
Suddenly those sixteen marginals are looking bloody marginal for the little blonde wax dummy.
There was always going to be a rabbit out of the hat.
|NYT||New York Times Company (the) [NYSE]||19 Nov 2007 12:00|
|Period:||Moving Avg 1:||Moving Avg 2:||Stochastic:||MACD|
|Add this Symbol to a Portfolio:|
Monday, November 19, 2007
Currently if you wish to erect a billboard in Mt Albert, for example, during the 3 month period prior to an election that says “vote Helen Clark”, because that billboard asks for a vote for a candidate it has to be included as an election expense and the cost declared in the candidates return. Moreover, the billboard must carry an authorisation of a name and address.
Clause 5 of the Bill redefines election advertisement (the vote part described above) and now includes in that definition “…words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:” - it then lists the items.
Subclause (i) is not so scary - “encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates”.
So words encouraging a vote for Clark would be prima facie an election advertisment. What Pete over at KiwiBlog has argued is that walking down Mt Albert Rd shouting “VOTE HELEN CLARK” on a megaphone is not an advertisement as it is ordinarily thought of (in fact, some may think you’re a raving nutter if you did that!).
It is always useful to see what the purpose of the Bill is in order to ascertain what the words in the Bill might mean and I don’t have a copy of the Bill so don’t know what the Bill’s stated purpose is.
But if you assume the purpose of the EFB is to restrict *money* speech then unless the nutter mentioned above is paid by the National Party to walk down Mt Albert doing what he is doing I doubt the definition would cover that circumstance. However, don’t be fooled by the words “reasonably regarded”. From the definition above it is only the *words or graphics* themselves that can be reasonably regarded as advertising (by encouraging people to vote Helen Clark), and not the way in which they are spoken or indeed in what manner they are delivered.
But, subclause (ii) of Clause 5 is very scary: “encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated)…”.
This captures the issue position that the previous version of the Bill adopted. Now, let’s say our resident nutter above then went and stood outside Sue Bradford’s electorate office chanting “bring back section 59, smacking is not a crime”. Much would depend on either a liberal or strict interpretation of the Bill. Again, without seeing the purpose I can’t judge but the whole point is that this should never even be debated. Our poor soul above should never be in the position during an election year where he may have broken the law for expressing his views on section 59, for example.
Clause 53 bans election advertisements as defined in Clause 5 unless they meet certain criteria which I will come to. What is interesting is that it starts with a negative “Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless certain conditions met”.
By casting off this way, by importing a negative and prohibitive statement on election advertising, it is basically saying that ranting and raving about s 59 is illegal unless you follow the procedures.
My view is that this should be the opposite: it should positively encourage it rather than actively discourage it. But I think I have found a curious thing.
If we assume the nutter above has published an election advertisement then under Clause 59 he cannot do that unless the name and address of the promoter is mentioned and the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.
Under Clause 5, the promoter is entitled to promote in the usual ways (secretary of political party/candidate etc) but now also includes the financial agent of a third party - let’s say the Exclusive Brethren.
But our resident nutter is none of these: he is just an individual with a bee in his bonnet - much like D4J! So how is he captured then?
To do so he has to be a “promoter who promotes election advertisements during the regulated period…”.
Now put to the side for one moment the $12,000.00 limit, if our nutter is not a “promoter who promotes election advertisements” but is merely Joe Citizen (i.e. not a political operative at all and never has been) then he isn’t captured! He is simply not a promoter. He is just a guy with a loud voice!
I think it’s that easy. I think (pray) the Bill’s intent is geared around the professional political operatives and associates. My feeling then is that the guy in the street has nothing to fear.