JABLUNDER ALLSPIN

What the country needs in a Prime Minister is a manager, not a sweet-talking mangler. Especially in a crisis, which is what New Zealand faced when the Wuhan virus began sweeping the world.

How hard was it to keep it out? New Zealand is surrounded by thousands of kilometres of salt water. We have a bit moat all round us. So all PM Jablunder had to do was make sure the virus could not get past the border.

She failed. After we had all gone through the turmoil and upset of the weeks of lockdown, and were rewarded with zero cases for three months, we then discovered that there were gaping holes in the border-wall--that there was scant testing, that quarantine facilities were hit-and-miss and easily breached--and we were fed lots of sweet talk from the PM and her bureaucratic side-kick in an attempt to fool us back into thinking all was well. It wasn't. The truth is that the Wuhan virus was here to an unknown extent, and spreading. Does Jablunder really think people are so stupid that we cannot see through her (excluding, of course, the die-hard Jablunder-maniacs, who would still think the sun shone out of her if she set off nuclear weapons in kindergartens).

Now, in September 2020, months after the crisis began, we are told that border staff will be tested once a week. But we are also told that that means laboratory testing and that the turnaround five days. So tests only show what the situation was five days earlier. And it takes days for symptoms to show, and all the while an infected person is contagious...

For months the Americans have had a machine made by Abbot Laboratories that produces a result in 5-15 minutes. Jablunder's government should have bought a heap of them, and they should be being used on everyone at the border. Everyone who works there, every day, twice a day, at the start of the shift and the end. And everyone who comes from overseas. And constantly in the quarantine facilities.

And the dumb-as-a-brick, Jablunder-worshipping media should stop using that stupid term 'managed isolation'. It sounds so benign, and thus fools people away from thinking how serious things are. Also stop using the even less threatening, every-more-stupid term MIQ, which is far worse than 'managed isolation.' The word 'quarantine' has been in English for over four hundred years. Use it. (And, by the way, it means forty days--our forebears obviously had far more sense than we have). 

The words we choose and use change our thinking. Especially in a crisis it is vital that we use words that accurately and bluntly tell the truth. It's quarantine. And it should have 'strict' in front of it. No one gets out with reliable testing.

Jablunder failed at every point. So everything she does now is only pretence. Pretending to shut the stable door after horse has bolted. She gives us mime not management: Jablunder Allspin.

Bill English would have managed. He is a farmer, a hands-on, practical man, not a sociologist. He is used to getting down to the back paddock and getting his hands dirty to repair a fence. But he was beaten by the feminazis, who wanted someone to their tastes, someone who said loudly that she would give us 'generational change.' Which means 'social engineering', in feminist form. What damned arrogance! To think that she knows better than centuries of history. Her feet of clay are showing and crumbling.

But the fools who are easily led, the sheeple who follow any nonsense, have given us this outrageous joke.

ABSOLUTE DISCRETION IS EVIL

Long ago there was a King of England who thought he could do as he pleased, that he had absolute discretion. We, the common people, led by fifty barons, taught him in no uncertain terms that he did  not. We sat him down in a field on the edge of the River Thames one summer's day in June 1215 and forced him to affix his royal seal to Magna Carta, which spelt out in detail that he only had the discretion set down and allowed by the rule of law, and nothing else. That was bad King John.

Then in the early seventeenth century another king, King Charles I, thought he had absolute discretion, that he could do as he pleased. We the common people said no, you do not, sign this, the 1627 Petition of Rights. He refused, and went to war against us. We defeated him, and in 1649 chopped off his head. That ended his arrogant thinking.

No one has absolute discretion. And in New Zealand law, there is a vital fragment of Magna Carta, enshrined in the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, in which Chapter 29 of Magna Carta is featured as the second of our great Constitutional Enactments. It ends with an immutable promise: 'We will not deny or defer, to any man, either justice or right.' Not deny, not even put off.

That, and the other great rights enshrined in the seven general Constitutional Enactments in the Imperial Laws Application Act, set the fundamental limits of power and discretion under our rule of law. Which includes, as the sixth Constitutional Enactment, the 1627 Petition of Rights, and the 1688 Bill of Rights, to which Parliament added in 1990 the New Zealand Bill of Rights which says in section 27 that everyone has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice, which the Privy Council ruled means fairness writ large.

Therefore no one has absolute discretion, and for Parliament to use that phrase in the Immigration Act 2009 is a gross evil, it is a betrayal of the rule of law, it is a gross betrayal of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people.

In everyday speech that phrase means what it says: you can decide what you please, and no one may gainsay you, you are answerable only to yourself.

It is no relief to the evil that Parliament did the country in using it to point out that its definition in section 11 of the Immigration Act, to paraphrase it, only means that in that Act something cannot be applied for, that the decision-maker decides independent of any application. For that is doubly iniquitous, because the law should be understandable, it should use English as we all understand it, it should not used it in a way that means something different to common usage, because what will then happen is what happened in the Sroubek case--that people, including officials and the Minister and the media, will take the common meaning, and think that the decision-maker can decide what he pleases.

That phrase should be expunged from law. It militates against over eight centuries of fundamental rights and freedoms. It wars against the people.

For the Department of Immigration, that is only one of the long catalogue of evils that lie at its door.

THE MANIFOLD SINS OF INZ

THE MANIFOLD SINS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION: THE SINS OF INZ

This 55-page paper, written after three years of wide-ranging experience and searching analysis, shows point-by-point with considerable evidence the chronic egregious wrongdoings of New Zealand's Department of Immigration, the entity that stands at the door of the country. Its arrogant sins of omission and commission range from blatantly lying to foreigners and lying about them, to manipulating statutes and rules to suit its bureaucratic wickedness, to ignoring the great founding principles of justice and law, to being guilty of misdirecting/misspending vast sums of public money.

It is years past the time that this evil entity was brought to the heel of truth and good law, purged of its rottenness from top to bottom, and thus remade into an organisation that represents New Zealanders as they truly want to be seen--an organisation that they can be proud of, not one that keeps manifesting bureaucratic thuggery all over the world.

('Thug' was originally a Hindi word, meaning 'deceiver'. The bureaucratic thugs in the Department of Immigration deceive themselves, they deceive the state because they do not serve it, they deceive foreigners with presumptuous exercises of power that they do not possess.)

Here is the URL of the paper to copy and paste in case clicking on the link fails to work:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Xvz_kXF71vVPD_If9VIGGiixx2lLwXDO

Now that the case of the Czech criminal has avalanched across the news, the fact that the Department has been conning Ministers of Immigration for years is biting them back, and hard. They deserve everything they get; they are the authors of their own discomfiture. The poor Minister is getting it in the neck, but it is the bureaucrats in the Department that are to blame. They are the ones who should be sacked, not him.

MAL-SPEAK

So the new Speaker, Trevor Mallard, thinks he has the unilateral right to cut God and Jesus Christ and the Queen out of Parliament by cutting them out of the prayer that has righteously and righfully opened each Sitting Day for many decades.

He is wrong. Was that an election-plank? Did people vote for that? Does he have permission from anyone but himself for that? No, no, no. Did he make that change for truth? No.

First, he is a hyprocrite. In his oaths of office he has sworn allegiance to New Zealand's Head of State, Queen Elizabeth the Second. Now he cuts her out of Parliament.

Second, he is a fool. Any nation that ceases to honour God and his Son will suffer the consequences. Turning our backs on the Creator of all things, pretending he does not exist, is as blind and stupid as pretending that the sun does not shine.

Third, he is not the people, he is only one person. In doing what he has done he is guilty of the abuse of rank, so he has revealed himself as is yet another of the grey hordes guilty of that corruption. He is meant to be a public servant; he is not master of anything.

It is not for him to make his will or opinion ride rough-shod over the wisdom of our forebears or the will of a  very large number of New Zealanders who want to see this country keep the faith, and who sing sincerely our national prayer: 'God of nations at thy feet, in the bonds of love we meet; hear our voices we entreat--God defend New Zealand....'

Malignant Mallard cannot expect God to defend New Zealand if its Parliament does not defend God.

JOHN KEY IS A CRIMINAL

What John Key did to that waitress is a crime. It is common assault under both the Summary Offences Act 1981 and the Crimes Act 1961. So lying prat's true nature has been revealed. By him. He is a thug: a thug against the truth, a thug against what Churchill called 'the folk who toil and moil', a thug against anything and anyone that does not fit his tiny mind or his love of money or his mates who have the same characteristics.

This is yet another in the avalanche of reports and videos (this one showing him doing it in a street) in the saga of 'pin the ponytail on the JohnKey', while the PM--aka Ponytail Manipulator or Puller Man--makes an ass of himself by laughing off his assaults as just a bit of fun, despite New Zealand law classifying them all as common assault. What pulling power will he have at the polls now? And why does he always pick on females?

CORRUPT COPS NO SURPRISE

So some cops have been caught lying in court to get a conviction. The surprise is that so few are ever put under investigation. But the focus in the cop shops is always on getting the result they want, and 'evidence' is whatever you make it to get that result. In this case they were caught  with their panties on the floor by the camera in their taser, and therefore there could be no continuation of their perjury. Usually they can carry on colluding in their lies to hammer any protest into oblivion. Even worse, in this case, the Assistant Police Commissioner says the reasons why they might have done that are 'endless.' That shows how corrupt his thinking is. There is no reason for lying in court.

Get honest police officers, not lying cops.

LYING JOURNALISTS

I am sick to the core of screaming headlines not connected with the stories below them, screaming-out stories not connected with reality, screaming-out words that have no connection with a good English dictionary and have been divorced from their true meanings. I am sick to the core of a plethora of dishonest journalists screaming for attention rather than focusing intently on conveying the truth to the public without colouring, without activist bias, without deviation and dictatorial perversion.

Bluntly, they are liars.

They are small-minded prats; nothing but legends in their own lynchtimes.

They are liars who live in yesterday, because they are overlooking the fact that thanks to the Internet we can easily discover what knaves they are.

The other extreme--good journalists--are honest, passionate about the truth, they are the fourth estate not a rabid fifth column, they serve their country conscientiously, they are linguistic craftsmen and their use of English is a joy to read; they never try to ram their opinions down your throat, they are never manipulative. The liar are the opposite.

TRUTH WILL OUT

'Truth will out' is an old saying and a true one. NewZealand has just seen more proof of it. A door set high and proud, a door with magnificent promise, a door with a polished, well-crafted veneer was hacked through--to reveal a great pile of rotten wood artfully stacked on muck. When the rotten heap was kicked into the open a big fat slater, notable for being a legend in its own lynchtime, reared up on its cloven hooves, hissed at the world and scuttled for invented cover; then a crushing heel kicked back hard, but only exposed yet more warts; then the key to the promissory door fell into the muck, and we saw that its bright shiny chrome was nothing but dripping slime and deep rust. It was no key, it was no radar, it was no compass; it could never open a worthy door or find its way to one.

An honest Prime Minister confronted with the allegations made in Dirty Politics would instantly have said, 'I will order a thorough investigation, and if what my staff and ministers are accused of is shown to be true they will be sacked.' But he did not do that. Instead he attacked the messenger over and over and over again, at the same time as admitting that he had not read the message, but still asserting that it was nothing but smear. And when a journalist asked him why emails sent to newspapers were discoverable under the Official Information Act but not ones sent to bloggers, instead of replying, 'We want to be open, we want to show you that we have nothing untoward to hide, and therefore we will release to you whatever you ask for,' he shut the questioner down by saying repeatedly, 'We observe the law'--meaning that the Act does not cover bloggers so there's nothing in law that makes openness obligatory (from 02:15 on this video). His guilty guns are smoking like overwrought volcanoes and his counterattack guns are spiked. He has a lot to answer for but is answering none of it.

As the Southland Times remarked, 'If those persistently high polls have been giving the impression that John Key can walk on water, the first post-Hager poll will show whether he can walk on sewage.'

Key's strident ploy on the 18th of August defied the smallest semblance of credibility was to say that Hager's claims are dissolving before his eyes. That was the same day that the original emails were being released, and which proved the claims were rock-solid. The Prime Minister obviously does not know the difference between solidity and dissolution.

Then his arrogantly asserted 'solidity' began to dissolve.

THE PLAGUE OF OUR TIME

Shakespeare perfectly summed up the present time in King Lear (Act 4, Scene 1):

'Tis the times' plague, when madmen lead the blind.

BUREAUCRATS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS

Bureaucrats are self-serving, they do not care about people, they use dubious process to beat them. Public servants serve their community faithfully and well, they care about people, they use due process to help them.

Politicians are bureaucrats who make speeches. Statesmen are public servants who make speeches.

SHELL-SHOCK KILLS

Oh, goody, goody, goody! Shell has announced that it will be spending $200 million drilling a test-well to look for natural gas in the Great South Basin--thus prolonging our murderous addiction to messing up the planet by burning folly fuels (read 'the only planet we can live on in the entire universe').

It would be far better and infinitely wiser to spend that amount on switching the country to sustainable fuels, such as solar power and fuel-cells (batteries that run on hydrogen, made by splitting water with sunlight). We could build thousands of fuel-cell cars, switch tens of thousands of homes to solar power, and be changing the world for the better...

But why let sense get in the way of blind addiction? Why let reality get in the way of anachronistic corporate greed? Why let wisdom get in the way of infernal stupidity? So why not let the grubbymint of Enzed carry on selling drilling licences to shell-shocked madmen?

After all, the consequence will only be a few million deaths caused by climate-change and pollution. Or, if they are really lucky, a few billion. What a bite-'em line that will be!

UNFORTUNATE RHYMES AND BREEDING

Len Brown
Pants Down
Tup Town

It sounds like horse-breeding: TupTown out of SuperCity by PantsDown.

LANGWEDGE

There is language and langwedge. Language is talking to people or with them. Talking to them is good; talking with them is best. Making wedges between them is bad. Driving foul wedges into them is worst.

Talking with people not only strives to communicate--to be heard and listened to and understood--it also strives to please. It strives to use language in a way that gives pleasure, and therefore uses it with care, and
thus shows that the speaker cares about the listener.

That is the heights. The worst depths are what Tolkien called Black Speech. English is the greatest language that has ever existed on Earth. It has hundreds of thousands of good words. Filling one's mouth and other people's ears with constant repetitions of a few foul ones says to the hearers, 'I care nothing for you, you are only a toilet, I want to fill you with verbal sewage. You are only worth being psychologically abused, I am the one to do it, and I shall do it. For I am superior to you, I am worth more than you, I have the right to make a toilet of you, I have the right to violate you with my excrement, and you have no right to deny me.'

It is regrettable that although using such language in or within hearing of a public place has long been illegal in New Zealand, it is a law hardly ever invoked, and that the abuse remains rampant. Most of it is psychological sexual abuse, because the words are black words for the parts of our bodies that make us male and female and and mark us such. Denigrating them in the most vile way is the same under the heading of gender as calling an African a nigger under the heading of race. 'Nigger' is psychological racial abuse; four-letter words are psychological sexual abuse.

Unfortunately most of that abuse is hurled at men. Even the word that on the surface applies only to women is usually used of men by men; for it is the ultimate abuse: it says that a man does not have the mark of manhood. When used of a woman it says that that is all she is, that it is has only the value of abuse, and that she should be treated accordingly.

'Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.' Small wonder that there is so much retaliatory abuse in visual and physical forms.

ROAST-BUSTERS NEW ZEALAND

Although, rightly, there has been an outcry against the wicked, sexually-abusive boys who call themselves Roast-Busters, their existence should surprise no one, because sexual abuse is deeply entrenched in New Zealand. Many, perhaps most, of those who are condemning them are guilty of it every day and all day.

For a start, sexually-abusive language is part of their speech. They might be able to see that calling a black man a nigger is racial abuse, but they cannot see that using the so-called four-letter words is sexual abuse. For them that vile form of speech is so normal that they have rendered themselves incapable of hearing what it really is. The Roast-Busters are only expressing physically what most people are constantly expressing verbally.

Even when their language is not drenched in four-letter words they speak and act in ways that manifest an abusive attitude to the human body, in particular to the parts that are the emblems and the very essence of manhood and boyhood, girlhood and womanhood. They mock them, they belittle them, they denigrate them, they regard them as a filthy joke, they think of them as filthy and treat them as filthy, they use the vile words that mean them to hurl abuse at anything they loathe. Then they wonder why people treat men and women badly. They do it in speech all the time, so they should not be surprised when so many do it in practice, and that a few openly boast about it on Facebook. That same boasting is part of their speech and their thinking.

Worse, many, perhaps most nowadays, are not bothered by, indeed practise as a 'normal' part of their daily lives casual sex, flitting from bed to bed, temporary sexual liasons, practices that dishonour their bodies, or to use precise English: fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc. In daily practice they are reducing what should only be one of the finest aspects of humanity--the expression of true love--to careless gratification, to superficial entertainment, to abuse of others, to abuse of self.

'Abuse' is bad usage. Sexual abuse is bad usage--physical bad usage and verbal bad usage--of the parts of the body that make us and mark us as male and female. Everyone who manifests any form of abuse toward them is part of Roast-Busters Incorporated. In short, part of everyday New Zealand.

TUNNEL VISION

What would Sigmund Freud have to say about Len Brown's obsession with underground tunnels?

THIEVES OF LIFE

There is no replay button in life. We live each second, each minute, each hour, each day, each week, each month, each year only once. Once. Therefore the people who 'design' systems that waste people's time are stealing part of their lives. I am weary of systems designed by bureaucratic prats who cannot design their way out a wet paper bag, even with the help of nuclear weapons, and a squadron of bulldozers. Their bad systems waste time. They are thieves of life.

It is the corruption of incompetence, the corruption carelessness, the corruption of overweening vanity and the inability to admit shortcomings, it is the corruption of stupidity, it is the corruption of appointing second- and third-rate people to jobs that need first-rate performance.

BOTULISM IN THE PIPE

Fonterra's discovery and admission that tonnes of its products were contaminated by the bacteria that causes botulism, due to a dirty pipe in one of its factories, is a perfect metaphor for the undeniable fact that the '100% pure' and 'one of the least corrupt countries in the world' labels are lies. The truth is that there are dirty pipes oozing the botulism of corruption all over the place in New Zealand.

Even though the bacterium turned out to be another, similar one, because the testing had not differentiated them as it should have, the point, like the dirty pipe, remains. Indeed it is underlined by the fact that the initial tests did not know the difference between great harm and harmless, that the lab that did them did not have the necessary accreditation, and that the Hautapu factory had to closed down and cleansed before normal production could resume.

The New Zealand system is riddled with multiple watchdogs who have the same incompetence. For example, we have a plethora of incompetent judges (and cops), but the judicial watchdog, the Judicial Conduct Commission, is incompetent and grossly biased in favour of those he is meant to be exposing. Incompetence set to watch for incompetence is a species of corruption.

There are two kinds of corruption. Deliberate and accidental. But at base it is all the same. It is vanity. It can be the love of titles, seats of honour, official baubles--the corruption of greedy pomposity. It can be a taste for personal power--the corruption of overweening self-importance. It can be acting for a friend or someone with a title instead of democratic law--the corruption of influence. It can be making a decision for bureaucratic convenience, not true public service--the corruption of process over humanity. It can be not bothering to do your job properly--the corruption of irresponsible carelessness. It can be not bothering to do the job at all--the corruption of laziness and pretence. It can be not being up to the job--the corruption of incompetence. It can be the corruption of appointing people to positions for the wrong reasons, positions for which they do not have the ability or are disqualified by psychological shortcomings or psychopathic tendencies--the corruption of positions. It can be not bothering with the law or researching the facts--the corruption of wilful lawlessness and ignorance. It can refusing to admit a mistake in the face of the facts and the law--the corruption of wilful blindness. It can be not understanding simple words--the corruption of ignorant stupidity. It can be forcing people to comply with your dictates to satisfy pride, bureaucratic arrogance, or sloth--the corruption of petty oppression. It can be refusing to give a straight answer to a valid question--the corruption of the silent lie. It can be presenting false or misleading information and pretending it is true, or falsifying the law and the meaning of words--the corruption of outright lies, of deliberate evil. It can be offering a position for a vote or a wad of money˜the corruption of bribery. It can be acting out of hatred, malice or the desire for revenge--the corruption of wanting to do harm. It can be acting on shonky official advice--the corruption of careless and uninformed decisions. It can be political interference in due process, such as misusing a statutory authority--the corruption of abusing political position. It can be conducting a hearing with a closed mind, with the verdict politically dictated in advance--the corruption of prejudice. It can be unfairness--the corruption of denying natural justice, which we all have the right to under the Bill of Rights Act.

HYPOCRISY, EVIL AND PUNISHMENT

This hypocritical, godless nation, sings 'God defend New Zealand', then does not believe that God exists, thumbs its nose at him, mocks him and rejects him. This hypocritical, godless nation is presided over by the most corrupt Parliament in its history. This hyprocritical, godless nation, has rejected God and his love, and therefore has chosen his wrath.

New Zealand should therefore not be surprised that a city called Christchurch, a city named after the Son of God and his church, was firstly shaken hard. But it ignored the warning, it even held a 'religious service' to which every godless, idolatrous, false, Satanic 'religion' was invited. It failed to worship God alone, it failed to give him alone the glory, it failed to slough off its foul idolatry and hypocrisy. Even weak and foolish churches joined in that godless 'service', although they know that lukewarmness and hyprocrisy are loathed by God and condemned by him and will bring punishment.

Therefore the hard warning shake in which no one died was followed by a much harder one that flattened the city, killed people, and reduced its godless cathedral to ruin. Its pride was in the building, not in the reason for it. Its pride was reduced to rubble.

But, heedless of those warnings, this foolish, godless nation then began to pass a law that would call homosexuality equal to marriage. The dictionary cannot stomach that, thousands of years of history cannot stomach that, logic cannot stomach that, mathematics cannot stomach that. Marriage is the physical, sexual, mental, emotional and spiritual joining of a man and a woman, ordained by God, and it cannot be anything else, no matter what hordes of godless fools might say in defiance. Even kindergarten mathematics says that an apple and an orange is not equal to two apples or two oranges, yet this godless, illogical nation said it could define a word as anything it pleased.

It cannot. God will not accept that evil. So he delivered a severe warning against that by visiting upon this nation the worst drought we have had for seventy years. But he was mocked, in Parliament, by a foolish godless man who does not know what a rainbow is and what it means, or care, and thus he mocked God Almighty.

So then Wellington was given a warning, on a Sunday, on the Lord's Day. A hard, sharp warning. And the building called Public Trust was badly damaged, as were the upper floors of the Bank of New Zealand building. Two idols were singled out: trusting in public opinion and trusting in the worship of money.

Yet still this godless, hypocritical nation ignores God, ignores his love, ignores the truth, worships gods of its own imaginings. It ignores the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the evils that it now calls good, in law.

The Bible says God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7), and that we reap what we sow, and it warns again and again that when a nation turns against him it will be punished. God will punish it. He will turn nature against it till it repents of its evil and turns back to him.

God loves us and wants the best for us. Satan hates us and wants the worst. When we reject the love of God we choose the hatred of Satan, and by aligning ourselves with Satan we make ourselves enemies of God. When we reject God's love we have chosen his wrath, and we must accept the consequences.

NZ MORE CORRUPT GLOBAL SURVEY FINDS

'Corruption and bribery are perceived to be getting worse in many countries, and trust in governments is falling worldwide, according to a survey by the group Transparency International.'

''The Global Corruption Barometer 2013 paints a bleak picture. One in every four people paid a bribe in the last 12 months when accessing public institutions and services, according to Transparency International's report.'

New Zealand, along with most other countries, is perceived by the majority of its citizens as being more corrupt than it was.

Shall we act surprised? We have the most corrupt Parliament in New Zealand's history, we have officials being prosecuted for criminal and losing standards-accreditation, we have a steady stream of 'businessmen' (read crooks) being found guilty of fraud and stealing millions, we have cheats and liars, rogues and knaves, thieves, abusers and murderers and  oozing out of the rotten woodwork everywhere we look.

HYPER-CORRUPTION ON STEROIDS

This careless arrogant corruption, riding roughshod over any semblance of the rule of law and human rights, deserves to be condemned before the whole world. The Supreme Court made a judgement in accordance with law and human rights, the government didn't like it, so it rammed 'legislation' through to trash it, and trashed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act along with it. More corruption from the most corrupt Parliament in New Zealand's history--a most unrepresentative House of Representatives.

Serious concerns over carer's legislation

Backlash grows over disabled carers bill

SUPER PAYDAYS ARE UNFAIR NOT SUPER

Many superannuitants are living payday to payday, and finding it difficult to manage. But if they were paid weekly instead of fortnightly they would find it much easier. And they would be getting paid more for nine months of the year.

Household bills arrive monthly and must be paid by certain dates, especially when there are discount-dates, and supermarket specials are issued weekly. But because New Zealand Superannuation is paid fortnightly there is a constant mismatch between income and expenditure.

If superannuitants work out what your monthly average is by dividing your annual total by twelve, you find that with fortnightly payments you are being paid below that monthly average for nine months of the year, and above it for only three--and those three good months are always a long way apart. This year, for example, the above-average months, the good months, are January, July and December. So there's five-month stretch to endure where you are below your monthly average. That situation is unfair and unjust because it makes it more difficult to manage--all because because the government and its bureaucracy cannot be bothered taking real human-beings and real life into account.

If superannuitants were paid weekly instead of fortnightly they would have a better, more even income, and there would be twice as many months in which their income was higher than their monthly average. For example, someone being paid $700 a fortnight would be getting a monthly average of $1517, if you divide the total for the year by twelve, but the actual monthly payments are $1400 for nine months of the year and $2100 for three of them. In 2013 those high months are only January, July and December. Therefore in
February, March, April, May, June, August, September, October and November the payments are $117 below the average, so there are long below-average stretches. But if that same person was paid weekly, the monthly income for January, April, July, October and December would be $1750, and the other months would be $1400, so there would be more above-average months and they would be closer together.

It would be much easier for elderly people to manage. But the Minister for Old Guys, Ancient Monuments, Greyheads and Other Advanced Specimens of Humanity (Hon. Jo Goodhew) and the CEO for the Ministry of Social Development claim that it would cost a fortune to change from paying superannuation fortnightly to weekly. But a brain-damaged earthworm with flat batteries and a spade through its gizzard could work out that it wouldn't cost anything to tell the super computer program to run twice as often. It runs weekly for the dole, so there's no reason it cannot do it for super. Or are unemployed bods worthy of the best treatment but wrinkly bods aren't?

If you agree, and want to put pressure on the government to do the right thing by superannuitants, please sign the petition

( http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/new-zealand-government-pay-superannuitants
-weekly-not-fortnightly-to-make-budgeting-easier ... is the address to cut and paste if the link doesn't work for some reason)

MAD DOGS

This truly is a man of quality, of wisdom, of probity, of profound morality, of superlative powers of reason--a great and true statesman!!! How admirable he is!!! After millions of years of evolution, after ten thousand years of civilisation, after at least ten years in the Kiwi education system, we have produced... this godless fool.

When the New Zealand Parliament began to consider whether it would change the law to redefine homosexuality as equal to marriage, Maurice Williamson, an MP for the National Party, said he would vote for it, because he is a libertarian and doesn't care what people do. 'If people want to marry their dog, they can do that, as long as the dog stays off my lawn,' he said ( link to news report ).

ANZAC SACRIFICE IS RUBBISH

So much for our forebears who sacrificed to make New Zealand what it is! What they did was obviously rubbish, so it has been well and truly rubbished. Piece by piece, item by item, it's all gone. About the only thing left to rubbish was Anzac Day. Now that too has gone the way of corrupt thinking--trashed by superficial fools in the most corrupt Parliament in our history. Not even Australians could bowl underarm at that one...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/what-does-anzac-day-mean-to-you/8590816/Anzac-not-just-a-day-off-work

DROUGHT AND WICKEDNESS

God makes it very plain in many passages of Scripture that when a nation turns to wickedness it will get drought. Leviticus 26:18-20, Deuteronomy 11:16-17, I Kings 8:35, II Chronicles 6:26 and 7:13-14, Jeremiah 3:2-3 and 14:4-7 are just some.

New Zealand is turning blatantly to wickedness, wickedness that God specifically forbids, as it prepares to equate sodomy and lesbianism with marriage in its laws. Therefore severe drought is upon us, with some parts experiencing the driest January-February since records began.

We had the earthquakes in Christchurch. In the first, no one was killed and the cathedral was left standing. But the warning was not heeded, even to the extent that in the aftermath the bishop presided over a 'service' that included worship of a multitude of false gods. So the next earthquake shattered the cathedral. The city and its cathedral were of Christ only in name, but they had turned their backs on him and God.

New Zealand failed to take any notice, so now we are in drought. The Bible says in Galatians 6:7, 'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.' No one, no community, no nation can turn away from God to gods of their own making and not suffer the consequences. God loves us and wants the best for us. When we reject him his love seeks to drive us back.

When some rain fell on Auckland on Sunday the 17th of March, albeit not enough to break the drought, that city was given further warnings in the form of two earthquakes in quick succession. Earthquakes too are shown in the Bible to be one of the ways that God shows his power, his will, and gives warnings to the wicked (including as Isaiah 2:19 & 21, Isaiah13:13, Isaiah 24:18, Joel 4:16, Haggai 2:6 & 21, Haggai12:26, Matthew 24:7, Matthew 27:54, Matthew 28:2, Mark 13:8, Luke 21:11, Acts 126:26, Revelation 6:12, 8:5, 11:13, 11:19).   

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Now that once-great Britain has chosen in law to falsify and corrupt the word 'marriage'--to legalise Sodom and Gomorrah--New Zealand will surely do the same. Official US figures show that even in that population only 1.7% is homosexual, so the normal lives of 98.3% or more of the population and the truth enshrined in English are to be turned on their heads to pander to a tiny minority. For no good reason at all. The abnormal lust to make a normal word abnormal so that they can call themselves normal, but they are wilfully blind to the fact that that it will not change their abnormality in the slightest.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their godless iniquity. New Zealand had a divine warning sternly laid upon it in Christchurch. The first warning was ignored, so the second was far more damaging. It too was ignored.

Singing 'God Defend New Zealand' then disobeying him will not come to good. When a nation turns to iniquity good is never the result. 'All who hate wisdom are in love with death,' God says Proverbs 8:6, and death--spiritual and literal--is what we will get. II Peter 2:6 lays it out plainly: 'God reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, condemning them to total ruin as an object-lesson for the ungodly in future days.'

God loves us and wants us to love him back, because he wants the best for us, and that is found only in him, in his love, in faith in his Son Jesus Christ. But when we return him hate for his love he will seek to bring us back to that love, for in that alone is life and life truly abundant. The nation that ceases to trust in God, that turns its back on God and instead turns to wickedness, and even writes it into its laws, will be punished--to turn it back to love. We ignore him at our peril.

ROYAL MARRIAGE AND BABY

As the most corrupt parliament in the history of New Zealand goes through the motions of public submissions while it prepares to do great evil to marriage, it is a most refreshing contrast to see at the other end of the world a royal marriage rejoicing at the blessing of conception and pregnancy and looking forward to giving birth.

Down under, abnormality, vile corruption and anti-social wickedness. At the top of the world, normality, pure joy and the great common good in which society is founded and made secure.

UNEQUAL CANNOT IN TRUTH BE EQUAL

CORRUPTED EQUALITY

Calling equal what is not equal and never can be is not equality. It is corruption. Corruption of language, corruption of truth, corruption of reality.

The literal joining of a man and a woman in marriage--the sexual, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and legal union of a man and a woman--is unique. It is not equal to anything else, it cannot be equal to anything else. To pretend that a partnership of two men or two women is equal to it and to pretend that it is inequality if we do not call it equal defy logic, language, truth and reality.

In marriage 1+1=1. In all other forms of partnership, whatever their basis might be, 1+1=2.

1 is not equal to 2 and never can be. Saying that if we do not pretend that 1=2 is discrimination is stupid, and degrades fundamental values. Whenever we do that, whenever we disregard reality, we pay a price. Corrupting the word marriage for the sake of vociferous minority who can never in truth be married will further corrupt marriage. The more marriage is corrupted the more society is corrupted, and social problems will multiply.

There is no doubt that the corrupters will have their way, because they have played the long game and have stacked the Parliamentary deck. But ''If you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.' They have the puffery so they will sow the wind. But they will have to answer for the whirlwind that New Zealand will reap.

CORRUPTED TELECOMS AND CORRUPT CHORUS

Corruption is not just being on the take. It includes corrupted thinking. In an entity that is meant to be providing a service fundamental to the functioning of society, namely communications, corruption is not caring about human-beings, not being interested in their interaction, not being interested in their well-being, not being interested in providing the fundamental service that is its fundamental duty.

The sprawling mess that is now New Zealand's telecommunication sector--which includes the ludicrous shemozzle of having <i>sixty</i> ISPs in this city-sized country--has handed Chorus a stranglehold. And it is answerable to no one--certainly not to people, or to Parliament, or to any MP. It arrogantly thumbs its uppity nose at customers, at Telecom NZ, at MPs, at everyone.

When pressure was put on Chorus to provide broadband to eight waiting customers in my small area, and my street has fibre running under one edge--a request that could easily be fulfilled by putting another 8-port block in the nearest street-cabinet--it thumbed its nose at everyone and rudely handed out a written form-letter response that would have made Goebbels proud. 2016, perhaps, is the unofficial prediction from Telecom, made more in optimism than reality, but Chorus says there are 'no plans' to upgrade that cabinet.

To rub a bag of salt in the wound the secretary of the MP (Nikki Kaye) who made the request lives in an area where there are a hundred households waiting for broadband. But even from her position nothing can be done to get Chorus halfway honest.

There is only one way to get telecommunications right in this country, but it is so politically incorrect amongst those of the blue- and red-flag 1% that they would never do it. Re-nationalise the whole shebang. Give the sixty a year to wind down and take their last profits, then make the whole industry an SOE, answerable to Parliament, with someone of the calibre of Peter Troughton running it (when he ran Telecom NZ as an SOE he made it sing).

Only then would it be what it should be: a public entity, providing a vital public service, answerable to the people through Parliament and their MPs.

And the foul corruption now oozing from the Choruses of this world would be cleaned out forever. We would no longer have to listen to the vile, anti-human, antisocial noise that Chorus thinks is sweet telecoms music.

VOTING AFTER THE MONEY

The Auckland Energy Consumer Trust, which owns 75.4% of the energy-and-infrastructure company Vector, and therefore gets a large chunk of the dividend that Vector pays every year, which it pays out to consumers. Good.

The AECT Board is a democratically elected body, elected every three years. Good.

But one has to wonder greatly at the timing of the dividend payment this year, election year. It was given out only a couple of weeks before the voting papers. We must assume that the money will make us feel so warm and fuzzy towards the present incumbents that we will vote them back in, for fear of not getting so much lovely money every year. That is bribing us with our own money.

There should be a very large separation between the two events so that there can be no accusation of using our money to influence voting.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MARRIAGE

Those who want to interfere with the definition of marriage say they are being falsely and unfairly discriminated against by normal people.

That is not true. What normal people are doing is upholding and defending the truth of what marriage is, and refusing to have it discriminated against with falsehoods.

The real discrimination is being perpetrated the other way, for in denying the truth of what all married people are, the others are fiercely discriminating against them.

False discrimination is discrimination founded on a lies. Those who are denying the truth of what marriage is are pushing a lie.

I someone said, 'I want to be a lawyer; everyone has the right to be a lawyer; everyone should have that right equally; and by having a narrow definition of "lawyer" society is discriminating against me--so change the definition, Parliament', that would actually be discrimination against real lawyers, because it would destroy their profession, it would remove their unique situation and status. It would therefore be discrimination against them, it would be discrimination against what they are, using a lie.

Trumpeting 'lawyer equality' would just be putting the lie in fancy dress--making it appear valid with claptrap, with a meaningless slogan. It never can be valid, it never can have a true meaning, because lawyer is lawyer is lawyer is lawyer is lawyer. Changing the meaning of the word to mean anyone who is in a range of unlawerly situations only destroys a word; it achieves nothing in the real world except confusion.

Only those who qualify to be called lawyers may be called lawyers, and only those who have qualified have the right to a licence to practise as lawyers. To insist on that is not discrimination against non-lawyers. It is reality.

It is not a 'right' to be defined as something you are not and never can be. It is not a 'right' to have a legal licence to call yourself something you are not and never can be.

EUTHENASIA IS CORRUPTION OF LIFE

Regardless of how much pain or distress there may be, life must always be valued more. Otherwise pain and distress will be valued more than life. Life must always have by far the highest value.

GOLD AND PINK

Most people are gold. A small minority are pink, but they want to be called gold, so they are screaming for 'gold equality', which is impossible, because pink is not gold and never can be, but they intend 'getting' it by changing the legal definition of pink to gold. But they will still be pink, no matter what they are called.

But, sadly, all the gold people will then have nothing to call themselves because 'gold' will have been destroyed and made meaningless. And their unique equality will have been destroyed with it.

DEMOCRACY AND TYRANNY

When laws are changed for a manipulative minority rather than for the true good and desire of the majority, that is tyranny not democracy.

Everything enshrined in law should benefit society. There is no benefit to New Zealand society if to satisfy its lust for money a small minority owns even a part of the means of supplying electrical energy to the rest. And there is no benefit to society if to satisfy abnormal lusts a tiny minority changes in law the meaning of marriage so that they can pretend to be what is sexually, spiritually and logically impossible.

On the contrary. In both cases New Zealand society will be harmed.

DEJA VU, THEY DID YOU TOO

In the nineteenth century in the United States the government confiscated and sold off large chunks of the assets of the native Americans against their will--to satisfy greed. Now, in the 21st century, the New Zealand government is about to confiscate and sell off large chunks of the assets of native New Zealanders, Pakeha and Maori, against the will of the majority--to satisfy greed.

Progress!

EQUAL IS NOT UNEQUAL

Those who want to change the definition of 'marriage' by dictate of statute say they want 'marriage equality'--they want to have what truly married people have. But forcibly changing the meaning of the word will not give them that; it will only give them 'equality' with something different, something that is no longer truly marriage. They will have 'equality' with nothing, they will have won nothing. They will have destroyed marriage in order to claim it. They will have only its ashes.

As Shakespeare said: 'Tis won as towns with fire: so won, so lost.'

It will also have been destroyed for everyone else.

It is not 'marriage equality' if the State forces upon all married couples a fundamentally different definition of their state of being (particularly when that is done at the behest of an unrepresentative minority). For the State to say to married couples, 'Your situation is no longer unique to you and all the couples like you, it is no longer what all of you committed to for life, it is now just one of many situations, including many that are fundamentally unlike yours', that is forcing inequality upon them. At present all married people are equal, all over the world. If they are made equal to something else their equality will have been destroyed, and because to achieve that the definition of marriage will have been destroyed it will not have created equality for anyone.

CORRUPTING COMMUNICATION

When the meaning of a word is wilfully changed to mean something it does not mean, cannot mean and has never meant, when its meaning is corrupted, communication with it is also corrupted. Language exists for communication, it exist to enable communication: efficient, direct, simple, straightforward communication. When a word is corrupted it can longer be used to represent the idea or state that it once represented, so communication with it becomes so corrupted that it becomes impossible.

At the moment if a man says, 'I am married' we know instantly without any explanation that he is talking about a state in which he is the husband and a woman is his wife. If a woman says, 'I am married', we know instantly without any explanation that she is talking about a state in which she is the wife and a man is her husband. And if we read the same phrases in a book written hundreds of years ago or thousands, or hear it in old film, we have the same instant knowledge. All the explanation needed is in the meaning of the word. Communication is direct, efficient, instant, simple.

But if the corrupters of marriage, both the state and the word, have their way, it will no longer be possible to communicate about marriage directly and efficiently. And communication with the past will be lost. For then when people say 'I am married' it will be necessary to go into a long-winded explanation, because they may mean what marriage has always meant and truly means, or they mean that they using it to describe the so-called 'sexual' cohabitation of two men, or two women, or five men and three women, or sixteen women and two men, or one man and five women, etc., etc. Communication with the word will be so corrupted that it will be impossible. The word will no longer have a useful meaning, it will be useless. It will have to be replaced by sentences and paragraphs.

There is some irony in that. People who want to be able to call themselves married--to be 'equal' with truly married people--can do so only by changing the word for the state. If they succeed they will only be applying a changed word to themselves, they will not be applying the reality of what it once meant. The reality cannot change, regardless of what they do to the word. Homosexuals cannot have sexual union; therefore they cannot be married. If they call something else marriage they will still not have the sexual-physical-mental-emotional-and-spiritual union that is what marriage is, they will have only the word for it, but it will be a word stripped of meaning, a useless collection of letters.

Yes, words change over time, and may acquire new meanings. Take 'mouse'. It no longer means only a small rodent, or someone who is as timid as one. It also means a device for controlling a computer. That is fine. But the new meaning has not replaced and destroyed the original meanings. So we can still communicate efficiently, using a single word, about rodents and timid people. We can communicate with people in the present day, and with all the people in the past who have used that word in books, other writings and other media. But if the new computer meaning was suddenly written into the law as the only meaning, then communicating about rodents and timid people would no longer be possible with a single word. There would always have to be an explanation to avoid confusion. Simple, direct, efficient communication about rodents and mouse-like timidity would be lost for ever.

'Mouse' is not one of the most important words in the dictionary or in society, but even so its destruction would not be insignificant because it is a word in common use and there is no other word that means the same thing.

And take this sentence: 'He bought a rose for his beloved.' The creates a mental image of man buying a rose, probably red, to give the woman he loves. But if the meaning of 'rose' was changed to mean any plant, to mean whatever you wanted it to mean, to mean something different to everyone, that poetic sentence would become a meaningless, grey, dead thing. And if the sentence was 'He bought a rose to give his beloved on the day they were married', and 'rose', 'beloved' and 'married' have been deprived of their meanings, that
sentence would no longer mean anything.

The Prime Minister has said that if the law is changed it will not affect his marriage. He is wrong. For when the word 'marriage' is corrupted in law, by having its meaning forcibly changed in statute, every true marriage will be corrupted, because in law it will no longer be what it really is--the only true possibility meant by that word. It will be made just one of countless possibilities, and therefore its true state will be made meaningless. No longer will it be a rose, unique and special; it will have been turned into just another weed amongst countless weeds. Including his marriage.

When 'marriage' no longer has a specific meaning that is universally understood, when it is by force of law given a meaning that is different for everyone, it can no longer be used to transmit thoughts from one mind to another. It is socially useless. Language is vital in society; without it there is no society. When we corrupt it we corrupt society. Humpty Dumpty said, 'Words mean whatever I say they mean.' That was in a story, where it was amusing although it was also obvious that it was very stupid--and we all know what happened
to Humpty Dumpty. He fell off the wall and was smashed beyond repair. But if his foolish notion is taken out of the story world into the real world, and is set in the concrete of the law, communication will be corrupted. And when the word legislated into oblivion is one at the very heart of the social fabric and the long history of the world its loss will not be just the corruption of language it will also be the corruption of society. And it will
lead to even worse corruption. The 'What does it matter?', 'Anything goes', 'Why make a fuss?', 'Who cares?' attitude, and the nonsensical notion that such questions are a valid argument, will continue their corrupting, cancerous spread into countless aspects of social functioning. As Shakespeare said, 'It is not and it cannot come to good.'