Obituary: Stephen Neitzke.

I'd been wondering for some time why I hadn't seen any more posts on Stephen's blog site. I knew he wasn't well and did not expect to live long so I expected that I would eventually find he had died. Well, I did so today, and here's the link to the brief obituary for Stephen at the funeral home in Tulsa, Oklahoma where his body was cremated:

http://www.heathgriffithfuneralhome.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=2347174&fh_id=11789

Stephen's blog-site lives on here: http://ddrevival.blogspot.co.nz/

R.I.P.

What the hux marriage campaign is really about.

In an article on why same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, the African-American Shelby Steele writes: “In the gay marriage movement, marriage is more a means than an end, a weapon against stigma. That the movement talks very little about the actual institution of marriage suggests that it is driven more by this longing to normalize homosexuality itself than by something compelling in marriage.” And Stanley Kurtz observes: “Ultimately, it may be that what lies behind the demand for same-sex marriage, whether couched in conservative or in ‘civil-rights’ terms, is a bid to erase entirely the stigma of homosexuality. That bid is Utopian, as radical homosexuals like Michael Bronski acknowledge, the stigma arises from the fundamental separation between homosexuality and reproduction, which is to say from the fundamental fact that the world is, for the overwhelming part, heterosexual. Nevertheless, in pursuit of this Utopian end, we are being asked to transform, at unknown cost to ourselves and to future generations, the central institution of our society.” Or as family researcher Peter Sprigg has said, “The logical answer would seem to be that this campaign is not really about marriage at all. Instead, it is about the desperate desire of homosexuals for society at large to affirm that homosexuality (not just homosexual individuals, but homosexual sex acts) is the full equivalent of heterosexuality in every way – morally, socially, and legally.” Reason tells us quite clearly that this can never be because homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically biologically illogical, futile, and sterile. Which is why children, with the clear-sighted logic of the playground, now use the word “gay” despectively.

The Bradford 'demons'

La Bradford would now have us believe that at least half the NZ electorate are raving sadists raging to bash their children. Well, MS Bradford has expressed extremist views before, and, for all we know she may still be a “Das Kapital”-bashing Marxist fundamentalist.

One cannot help but reflect that her obsession with “violence” (and by the way, notice how she pronounces the word ‘violence’ with her mouth almost contorted to make the sound thick and coarse…) could be an externalisation of some personal demons lurking in the dark, dank depths of her soul… That’s if she accept that she may have one, of course.

Obey the referendum: return Section 59 to what it was before the Bradford folly!

To all of you in your 'parliament':

The People of New Zealand have spoken. Now is the time for all of you to show us that you have the grace and humility to accept that you were wrong. To quote the phrase: “What part of the word 'No' do you not understand?”

Every opinion poll showed 80% of us opposed the change. Yet you stupidly went ahead and ignored us. Opinion polls typically sample 1000 to 1500 people, with a margin of error of 3% to 4% . Over 1.6 million New Zealanders voted in the referendum. That is a figure that is 1000 times more representative than mere opinion polls.

You, Ms Bradford, have the insolence to dismiss the 54% participation as unrepresentative. Let's see, you and your 119 comrade mps are 0.007% of that 54%. Who is kidding whom in terms of representativity? You then try to claim that the 46% of the electorate who did not take part chose not to do so because, in your opinion, they were “confused” by a “flawed” question. Pull the other one! The question was clear cut, and the whole debate was simply about whether your proposed new 'law' should stand or be rejected. But of course, comrade Key did his bit to deliberately discourage participation by saying in advance that he comrade Key would simply dis-regard the result because under the rules set up by your 'parliament' referendums are non-binding.

Well, I've got news for you: your new 'law' is now null and void. It is non-law, it is anti-law, it is merely an expression of your contempt for the people of New Zealand. The advice from the people to the police could not be clearer: do not attempt to enforce what the people have clearly and firmly rejected. The People are the law.

A referendum is true, real democracy in action. By dismissing it and disobeying the command of the people you are courting disaster, because, in effect, you will be rebelling against us.

Sincerely,

Dominic Baron.

Our very own petty "Putin" of the South Pacific.

Hello to my Blog. I haven't written to you since last November because I've spent a lot of energy writing on Steve Baron's Blog: Better Democracy. So it's time I came back here, and what I want to say is just how depressed I am by the attitude of Mr John Key, our 'prime' 'minister' refusing, in advance, to obey the instruction of the referendum now under way by postal ballot.

John Key has the insolent effrontery to say that "he" will "change the law" only if he sees fit. To me it is just unbelievable that this little man can utter such crass stupidity. To put it as bluntly as I can: Who does he think he is??!! The People make the law. The People *are* the law, not one paltry politician, nor even a paltry "parliament" of politicians. Only the people can make and unmake laws. Only the people are sovereign. No single person or group of people can usurp the sovereignty of the people.

When John Key says that he will ignore the referendum result and only "change the law" on his own whim, he joins that lovely bunch of creeps such as the vain and corrupt Berlusconi, the gross bully Chavez, and thst serious thug Putin.

When John Key utters his mealy-mouthed platitudes about "restoring democracy" to Fiji, he is so deeply steeped in the soup of his own hypocrisy that he doesn't realize just how undemocratic and fascist his own political outlook is. Sadly the antiquated political system imposed upon us by force of arms so long ago lets him get away with his diktats... just like his predecessors...

Referendums inoculate societies against extremists.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.
[Margaret Mead]

My comment on that:

Yes, and that is precisely the trouble. Think how "committed" the Bolsheviks were to destroying Russia's fledgling democratic institutions. Think how "committed" the Nazis were to destroying Germany's fledgling democratic institutions. Think how "committed" those 'Generals' are to destroying Burma's fledgling democratic institutions.

And think how various tiny ideological groups in our own societies are "committed" to imposing their prejudices upon the majority by pushing their control over so many of our institutions.

That's why we need the antidote of the citizens' referendums to ward off the viral infections of the lobby groups of whatever ilk: business, ideological, political.

TweedleClark and TweedleKey

TweedleClark and TweedleKey

Frankly, I can’t really spot any real differences between their political platforms. Their most significant agreement is in their contempt for the people. Nothing has exemplified this more than their grim determination to ignore the groundswell of public condemnation of their joint support for the Sue Bradford bill that has criminalized normal parents.

Worst of all has been their public commitment to ignoring the result of the forthcoming referendums on the twin issues of parental responsibility for discipline and on investigating the real causes of child abuse.

Given that at least 75% of the people have made it clear that they opposed the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, it is very likely that these referendums will be massively approved by the people.

With the “leaders” of the two major parties absolutely united in their determination to trample over the only bit of true democracy available to the people of New Zealand, what can the response of the people be other than withering contempt for the pair of them, for their sycophantic parties, and for all their dismal works in and out of “parliament”?