About Me

My Photo
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

Thursday, 30 October 2014

ISIS in a suburb near you.

It must be slowly dawning on the politicians of Australia, that some of their Muslim community represents more than a ‘passing threat’ to their way of life.  This channel 7 video shows children in Sydney as young as six years of age being indoctrinated into the joys of Islamic supremacy.

This toxic ideology is being taught to children and replicated in mosques and madras’s the world over.  Wherever you find Islam.

These Sydney children are not being ‘radicalized’ by Internet ‘hate preachers’, but by their parents, their brothers, uncles imams and family friends.  Bomb ISIS in Iraq all you want, it makes no difference if they are deeply imbedded in your suburbs.

Australia says ‘no’ to Ebola.

Australia takes the logical step of suspending entry visas for people from Ebola affected countries in West Africa, and are accused of being ‘discriminatory’.

However, that is what sensible people and Governments do every day when assessing personal or national risk.  They discriminate.

To discriminate is simply to ‘differentiate’ but for some reason when people behave this way towards others it is considered ‘discriminatory’ which carries connotations of an unjust or prejudicial nature.

Australia is behaving in a historically rational and considered way; that is ensuring that the safety and wellbeing of its own citizens are its first priority.

Unsurprisingly, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and others from the UK and Europe despise this approach; they ceased to place the interests of their own citizens first a long time ago.  They live in a ‘trans-national’ world as global citizens where national boundaries are historical constructs without relevance or meaning.

If one country has Ebola, then we all have it.  Seeking to first protect your own citizens is clearly discriminatory, an archaic practice that has no meaning in their brave new world.

John Key has taken this thinking one step further in cancelling the New Zealand passports of Muslims passionate for Jihad.  We are ‘global citizens’ he says, and therefore have a responsibility to keep our ideological Ebola at home, with all the risks that represents for New Zealanders.

For John Key, being a ‘global citizen’ does not mean sharing our ideological Ebola in the Ban Ki-moon sense, but rather everyone else must be protected at New Zealand’s expense. 

Tony Abbot’s Government has learned to discriminate in order to protect their citizens from the threat of Ebola, and good for them.  Who knows, but that this thinking may eventually be applied in future when considering other risks to the lives and wellbeing of their citizens? 

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Open letter to Prime Minister John Key

Dear Prime Minister, John Key

You were quoted today in the Herald as saying:

[Mr Key said he understood argument that people who wanted to fight in Iraq and Syria should be allowed to go but not come back, but he said that was not a responsible position to take.

"On the other side of the coin, you're then saying that they're going to potentially undertake those terrorist acts on civilians in other countries and surely we have a responsibility to be a good global citizen."]

If these potentially violent individuals were New Zealand citizens in the traditional sense of the word, then it would certainly be irresponsible for us to ‘export’ them to foreign communities and place those populations at risk. 

They would legitimately be our problem.

However, these individuals have made it clear that their first allegiance is to Islam, or the Islamic Caliphate, or ISIS which ever you prefer.  As homegrown jihadists in London, Australia, Ottawa, NYC, Fort Hood and New Zealand, they are best described as enemy combatants.

They are soldiers of Allah who are prepared to kill on home soil.

They view our Police and our Military personnel as legitimate targets.  You could possibly have been excused from grasping this fact several weeks ago, but not any more.

This raises a number of very real security questions.

First, if these individuals represent a significant risk to citizens overseas, such that you deem it necessary to cancel their passports, what assurance can we have that our police and military personnel are not going to be murdered in the same way as those killed by jihadists in Canada, London or Fort Hood?

Second, as homegrown jihadists demonstrably represent a serious risk to New Zealanders, why are they allowed to remain free in our communities?  Why do we not intern them as enemy combatants if we are not allowing them to leave?

Third, why have you placed the safety of those in Syria and Iraq above the safety of New Zealand citizens here at home?

When is your government going to begin holding the Imam’s and Islamic leadership in New Zealand responsible for the nurture of jihadists in our midst?  It is beyond belief that all of these individuals are the product of Internet preachers alone.

What is the Islamic leadership doing by way of countering ‘radical’ Islamic doctrine? Are there any ‘anti-radicalization’ programs running in New Zealand Mosques? 

Mr. Prime Minister, we understand that not all Muslims are willing jihadists, and that a good many oppose what is happening in Iraq and Syria, but that doesn’t change the fact that ISIS is still one legitimate expression of Islam. It is no different to that exampled by the prophet Mohammed who waged war, slaughtered prisoners and took sex slaves.

We will not defeat this extremist ideology until we acknowledge that its roots are deep within Islam, going all the way back to the 7th century.  We cannot bomb it out of existence, and we cannot win this war by attempting to redefine Islam for the worlds 1.6 Billion Muslims.

We need to begin with an honest assessment of the ideological battle we are engaged in, and deal appropriately with those who are hostile to our civilization and liberal democratic way of life here in New Zealand.

I wish you well in this difficult task.

Brendan McNeill 

You know we have lost when the greatest threat to our security is airport security.

A 75 year old British pensioner Paul Griffith who, when asked to remove his shoes at airport security quipped ‘I’m not a Muslim am I?’ spent six months facing racism charges before they were finally dropped through lack of evidence.

When recently opining on the subject of Islam and the attack in Ottawa by a Muslim jihadist, Mark Steyn wrote:

I do not want a world that is built to accommodate these people. In other words, I don't want us to change to deal with the fact that we have lunatics who have got this kind of ideological Ebola in their bloodstream, and who want to pump bullets into a corporal from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, because he's standing in front of the Canadian War Memorial, and they want to destroy all that that represents. 

The price we're being asked to pay is too high. I want to kill that ideology. It is an ideological Ebola, and we have got to eradicate it. And I'm not interested in more detectors and more rules and taking my shoes off and taking my underwear off and taking everything off and shuffling like a zombie through ever-longer security lines because we don't have the guts to deal with it.

True enough.

You know we have lost when the greatest threat to our security is airport security.

Monday, 27 October 2014

Promoting ‘British values’ now requires Christian schools to invite Imam’s to lead assembly.

A Christian school, which claims it could face closure for failing to invite imams and other religious leaders to take assemblies, has urged the government to revise controversial ‘British values’ rules.

Ofsted has told Trinity Christian School it is not adequately meeting the ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural development’ of pupils. This is because it is not ‘actively’ promoting other faiths in the wake of the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal in Birmingham, by asking different religious representatives to lead lessons and assemblies.

Last November, Ofsted inspectors described the school’s provision for pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development as ‘excellent’. They said pupils were ‘well prepared for life in modern, multicultural, democratic British society through the teaching of the Christian principle to 'love thy neighbour'’.

However, this summer, the school applied to the Department for Education to extend its age range to include pupils from nine to 11. As a result, it was re-inspected by Ofsted in October. 

The inspection focused predominantly on revised Independent School Standards regarding spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. This included whether the school could demonstrate evidence of actively promoting ‘the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs’.

John Charles, chairman of governors at Trinity Christian School said: ‘We understand that the revised standards only came into force on 29 September and are held out as the Government’s response to radicalism and extremism.’

This issue ‘dominated’ the inspector’s questions and ‘at no point were any questions asked about other aspects of the curriculum or the quality of teaching assessed through lesson observations’.

Mr Charles continued: ‘In expressing doubt over the school’s continued existence, the inspector stated: that representatives of other faiths should be invited to lead assemblies and lessons in order for the school to demonstrate compliance with the Standards.’

The school was also told, that in order to comply with the new regulations, it should ‘actively’ promote other faiths, and the principles of the Equality Act 2010. This meant not stating ‘certain lifestyles are wrong’ or promoting a ‘particular lifestyle’.


And so the rapid decline of what formally passed for civilization in once Great Britain continues apace. 

In a bizarre twist it now appears that in an attempt to reduce Islamic radicalization a Christian school is being forced by the State to invite Imam’s to lead their school assemblies.

As long as our secular leadership views all religions as ‘essentially the same’ then Islam will get a ‘free pass’ on the back of Christianity and this nonsense will continue.  It will be interesting to see how well the Islamic schools in Britain “‘actively’ promote other faiths, and the principles of the Equality Act 2010; not stating ‘certain lifestyles are wrong’ or promoting a ‘particular lifestyle’.”

They won’t do this of course, but which politician would be prepared to oversee the closure of Islamic schools in Britain?

Sunday, 26 October 2014

To all western Military personnel: ‘avoid wearing your uniform in public’

From the ‘Gates oVienna’ blog:

After two uniformed Canadian soldiers were killed this past week in separate jihad attacks in Montreal and Ottawa, Rear Admiral John Newton, the commander of Canada’s Maritime Forces Atlantic, advised soldiers under his command to avoid wearing their uniforms in public. His directive took the form of an urgent recommendation, and not an actual order, but was nonetheless quite disturbing — so appalling, in fact, that I had to resort to satire as a means of dealing with it.

Similar orders/recommendations have been issued by military authorities in other Western countries, including Australia, Britain, and the Netherlands. Uniformed members of these countries’ armed services are now at risk within their own borders, but rather than confront this emergency head-on and recognize it for what it is, they have chosen the cowardly route instead. They have asked soldiers to conceal their identities, as if they were guerilla forces behind enemy lines.

Admiral Newton’s directive will have the paradoxical effect of making all Canadian citizens less safe.

Why do I say this?

Read the whole article, it’s worth it, and his satire piece here:

Saturday, 25 October 2014

The deadly consequence of Political failure.

Islamic jihadist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau who recently shot the Canadian solder, had previously planned to travel to the Middle East in to join fellow jihadists, but the Canadian authorities had revoked his passport.

Similarly, fellow Canadian jihadist Martin Couture-Rouleau who drove a car into two soldiers the previous day, killing one of them, also had his passport revoked by the Canadian Government.

Other countries along with Canada who have revoked the passports of its ‘citizens’ who are hot for jihad include Australia, and New Zealand.

Perhaps it's time for western nations including New Zealand to revisit this policy.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that both of the murdered Canadian soldiers would still be alive if their killers had been allowed to leave the country, and take their hatred back to the killing fields of Syria and Iraq.

Today there would be two less families grieving over the deaths of their loved ones.  

Furthermore, the remaining citizens of all three countries would be considerably safer given that ‘travel banned’ Islamic jihadists are still roaming the streets of our cities presumably looking for similar opportunities to strike against the hated infidel.

The present policy exists because our politicians naively believed that these men would be radicalized in Syria and Iraq, and become a danger when they returned home.  Everyone else has always known that the reason these men wanted to travel to Islamic war zones was because they were already radicalized.  If these two soldiers deaths are to count for anything, our politicians will realize their mistake, and now deport these jihadists with the cancelled passports to the Middle East, and all others who share their aspirations.

Unfortunately, the reluctance of our Political elite to accept that Islamic ideology is the motivation for these atrocities has hindered them from taking necessary action.  The same politicians who rush to quarantine those infected with Ebola, choose instead to leave violent jihadists at liberty in our communities. 

We have twice witnessed the deadly consequences of their failure.  Is that enough to instigate a change of policy?

Friday, 24 October 2014

To draw hasty conclusions would be "Islamophobic"

We appear to live in a planet over populated with lone wolves.  You know, the type that roam mindlessly around in the streets of London, Boston, Ottawa and New York murdering a trouper here, axing a policeman there.

If you listen to the mainstream media, the only thing connecting these wolves is a history of criminality and presumed mental illness.  I mean why else would you murder innocent soldiers and attack police with a machete?

Mark Steyn on yesterday’s Canadian killing…

So the guy who attacked the NYC police with a machete today just happened to be a Muslim, so what?

As did the Canadian killer who murdered the guardsman yesterday.

As did the Canadian who ran down two soldiers earlier this week, killing one of them.

Strangely, our political elite has ceased the obligatory "This has nothing to do with Islam" public statement following these atrocities.  Perhaps word has got back to them just how foolish they look uttering these empty phrases in the face of jihadist violence and the shouts of 'allahu akbar' still ringing in our ears.

Thursday, 23 October 2014

The end of innocence for Canada

Following a second attack against Canadian military personnel in the space of two days, both resulting in deaths and injury, the first at the hands of an Islamic convert, the second by an individual named by Canadian official identifies as ‘Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’, the Herald leads with the headline ‘The Gunman’s Motive is Unclear’.

Well, strictly speaking that’s true.  The gunman is now dead, so perhaps we will never know the real motive for his attack on the military personnel, and then a subsequent attempt to cause mayhem and death in the Canadian Parliament before a security guard shot him dead.

It is probable that an investigation will reveal something in his background that would have lead him, and possibly his colleagues to carry out this attack.

Which begs the question as to why the Herald would bother making a statement like this.  It echo’s President Obama post the Boston Bombings, warning that we should not ‘jump to conclusions’ as to the bombers motives. 

As if we had any reasonable cause to do so.

And so along with the Herald, we reserve judgement until the background facts are revealed.

If other suspects are captured, it will be interesting to see if Canada treats this as a civil crime, as military personnel were specifically targeted.  This has been Obama and Cameron’s response to Jihadist based atrocities committed on their soil, where military personnel were killed.

It is clear that in recent weeks the Islamic State in Iraq has been inciting their followers in the West to commit such atrocities.  They view themselves to be at war with the West.  Who can blame them when Western powers are busy bombing them; that is when they are not mistakenly re-arming them with airdrops intended for the Kurds?

If someone like the Islamic State declares war upon you, and you are bombing them, and just say for arguments sake, that one or more of their domestic followers kills military personnel in your homeland, is that a treasonous act or a civil crime?

To call it a civil crime is to make the pretence that these actions are unrelated to what is happening in the world of Islam.  That somehow ‘we are not at war with Islam’ or its followers, no matter how many times the perpetrator shouts ‘allahu akbah’ while hacking off your soldiers head, or quotes from the Quarn after the killing, or belongs to ISIS, or some other radical Islamic group.

It’s one thing to have a conflicted foreign policy such as we have seen the USA exhibit in the Middle East, but quite another to resile from a coherent domestic terrorism policy at home, all for the sake of political correctness.

How long before we admit that while ISIS is not the only legitimate expression of Islam, it is at least one legitimate expression.  We will never begin to hold the Islamic community to account for the jihadists in their midst until we are honest about the fact that at least one valid interpretation of Islam is motivating violent jihad at home and abroad.

Today it has been Canada and its people who have become victims of the West’s wilful blindness over Islam.  How many more of these attacks do we have to endure before our political leaders engage with reality? 


The man behind the Ottawa shootings is a Canadian convert to Islam whose passport had been seized by authorities, federal sources say. 

Perhaps it is time to question the policy that prevents young men like this from leaving Western nations to fight Islamic Jihad overseas?  Prevent them from returning by all means, but from leaving?

Especially when it is now clear that some will express their violence and hatred against local citizens.   Isn’t it the first duty of the state to protect its citizens, not ensure that its cities remain havens for violent Jihadists whose passports have been cancelled to prevent them leaving?

Monday, 20 October 2014

LGBT issues and the Christian church - more.

The conversation in the Christian church around the practice of homosexuality, is gaining momentum.  First the Pope sought to open the door to homosexuals but his Synod vetoed the initiative.

Then we have Hillsong mega church pastor Brian Huston recently unwilling to affirm the orthodox theological position on homosexuality, again wanting to take a more pastoral approach to ‘keep the conversation going’ with the gay community. 

New York City Hillsong Pastor Carl Lentz said:

Hillsong in New York City has “a lot of gay men and women” and he hopes it stays that way. But he declines to address the matter in public because, in part, Jesus never did.

“Jesus was in the thick of an era where homosexuality, just like it is today, was widely prevalent,” Lentz told CNN. “And I’m still waiting for someone to show me the quote where Jesus addressed it on the record in front of people.  You won’t find it because he never did.”

To be fair, one might also observe that Jesus didn’t speak publically about pedophilia either, but it would be an improbable stretch to take his silence as endorsement.

In order to best understand this issue in the light of Jesus teaching, it is important to provide some historical context.  The Jews amongst whom he lived and ministered were very familiar with the Old Testament.  They knew very well that the book of Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 condemned homosexual practice.  For this reason Jesus did not need to restate the condemnation – it was widely understood.  However Jesus did quote from other passages of Leviticus thereby confirming the books Scriptural authority.

Besides, as John 3:17 tells us For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

Jesus ministry was entirely focused upon attracting sinners to the light of life, not driving them into the darkness of condemnation and despair.

The Apostle John tells us that Jesus was ‘full of grace and truth’.  – (John 1:14).  Grace, in so far that he extended to each of us the undeserved favour and mercy of God, and Truth in that repentance is a prerequisite to receiving anything from God.

In other words, you cannot cling to your adultery, promiscuity or homosexuality with one hand, and hope to grasp hold of God’s grace with the other.  It is true that pastorally we must leave the door open for every sinner, straight, gay, bisexual and transgender alike.  However it is equally true that we must call sin for what it is, and not offer false hope to anyone.

I wrote an extended article on this subject some time ago, for those who are interested.

Gay sex is testing our ability to demonstrate both orthodoxy and love to the homosexual community.  We desperately need to share both in a spirit of humility, aware of our own failings and shortcomings, and our common need of God’s mercy and grace.

It's the culture, stupid.

We are familiar with President Clinton’s famous saying “It’s the economy stupid” when determining the outcome of political elections.  Commentator and Author Mark Steyn has a different view saying in his new book. ‘The [un]-Documented Mark Steyn’, “You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture.”

Which is another way of saying ‘it’s the culture stupid’.

This is why the ‘conservative’ National Government of John Key has retained the entire liberal and socially ‘progressive’ policy platform of the former Clark Labour Government, including interest free student loans and middle class welfare ‘Working for Families’ legislation.  

While Kiwi’s wanted a change of face, they didn’t want to change the social direction.

This explains why John Key wants to make the alleviation of ‘child poverty’ a feature of his government this term.  He knows very well that the only structural issues keeping children in homes characterized by poverty are the entitlement welfare programs his Government supports, but perhaps if he provides ‘free’ school lunches as well as the ‘free’ school breakfasts, the problem might be solved?

So how did we arrive at a situation where our ‘conservative’ party has become the new progressives, embracing big welfare? 

The NYPost reviewed Styens new book today, and included this extract:

The most consequential act of state ownership in the 20th century western world was not the nationalization of airlines or the nationalization of railways or the nationalization of health care, but the nationalization of the family.

It’s the defining fact about the decline of the West: Once upon a time, in Canada, Britain, Europe and beyond, ambitious leftists nationalized industries — steel, coal, planes, cars, banks — but it was such a self-evident disaster that it’s been more or less abandoned, at least by those who wish to remain electorally viable.

On the other hand, the nationalization of the family proceeds apace, and America is as well advanced on that path as anywhere else. “The West has nationalized families over the last 60 years,” writes Vaidyanathan. “Old age, ill health, single motherhood — everything is the responsibility of the state.”

When I was a kid and watched sci-fi movies set in a futuristic dystopia where individuals are mere chattels of an unseen all-powerful government and enduring human relationships are banned and the progeny of transient sexual encounters are the property of the state, I always found the caper less interesting than the unseen backstory: How did they get there from here?

From free western societies to a bunch of glassy-eyed drones wandering around in identikit variety-show catsuits in a land where technology has advanced but liberty has retreated: How’d that happen?

I’d say “the nationalization of the family” is how it happens. That’s how you get there from here.”

Sixty years ago, you couldn’t have nationalized the family in the way Steyn suggests is happening today.  But then sixty years ago, we didn’t have a population clamoring for the Government to fix every social ill, support every family, feed every child, and eliminate poverty.  It took cultural change over the space of one generation to get here from there. 

As we have witnessed in New Zealand over the last six years, electing a ‘conservative’ Government changes nothing.  When the people prefer paternalistic state dependency to the economic risks of self-reliance and liberty, you know that culture trumps politics every day of the week.

Thursday, 16 October 2014

God is dead for the Girl Guide movement in New Zealand - and who gives a damn.

It’s official – God is dead for the Girl Guide movement in New Zealand.

God has been removed from the promise recited by all members of Girl Guiding New Zealand, after more than a century of being mentioned.

The move, which took place in April this year, has raised barely a ripple of dissent. "A couple of people have said they liked the old one better, but there's been very little comment," Girl Guiding NZ president Sonia Faulkner said.

Quite so.

Culture triumphs politics and religion, and sociologically speaking, God has not been part of political discourse or polite company in New Zealand now since the 1960’s.

I have a grand daughter who is an enthusiastic member of the Guiding movement.  For her God is still very much alive and part of her personal and family narrative.  In her life, and her parent’s life, God is not dead but rather one who is both a friend, saviour and Lord.

However apostasy is the new cultural norm, and in public life God cannot be mentioned, acknowledged or revered.  We are reduced to becoming the product of time plus chance in a random and dispassionate universe.  No longer can we argue ‘that’s not fair’ because that would be to call upon a universal standard of justice that stands outside of human experience.  All we are left with is ‘that’s not fair to me’ and well, frankly who gives a damn.

Not the guiding movement anyway.

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Is that too much freedom for you?

The Pope’s recent outreach to the gay community not withstanding, the problem with Christians is that we are not sufficiently diverse in our attitudes towards the LGBT community in general.

According to ‘theblaze’ A civil rights commissioner has found that a Kentucky T-shirt company that refused to print shirts for a gay pride parade is guilty of discrimination, calling for its employees to attend diversity training.”

Company owner Blaine Adamson argued that Hands on Originals is a Christian business and that the views espoused by the T-shirt — which advertised a gay pride festival violated his religious beliefs.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, has defended Adamson throughout the two-year legal process.

I used to think that the lengthy legal ‘process’ was the punishment; living for all that time incurring costs and under a cloud of possible sanction, however the threat of ‘diversity training’ is surely enough to make the strongest Christian go weak at the knees.

Not that anyone cares if the owner or employees in the business change their beliefs, they just want them to go through the process, and conform to the Commissioner’s mandate.

Blaine Adamson is not the first Christian businessman to find himself in the cross hairs of the diversity Mullah’s big guns.  Jack Phillips from Lakewood Colorado faces a prison term (yes you read that correctly) for refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding.  This is despite the fact that the Colorado State Constitution defines marriage as ‘between only one man and one woman’.

Jack Phillips is currently under a court order to bake same-sex wedding cakes if asked to do so. Under a Colorado law in effect in 2012, Phillips could be sent to jail for up to 12 months for his decision. Although that law has been repealed, it is possible that he could still be criminally prosecuted.

Ensuring that everyone conforms to diversity is taken very seriously in the USA.

I’m sure there are plenty of gay T-shirt printing companies in Kentucky and gay bakeries in Colorado, or at the very least companies that are willing to do business with the LGBT community.   So, why go out of your way to approach companies whom you suspect would rather not do business with you?

Well, to make your point of course – to rub the bigots noses in diversity until they bleed tolerance from every pore. 

And here was me thinking that only one religion mandated the submission of believers and unbelievers alike.  While imprisonment is a distinct possibility, for the moment they have stopped short of beheading.  Perhaps we should be grateful.

Personally I’d bake a cake for anyone, and probably print T-shirts as well, provided the subject matter was not pornographic or materially offensive (pardon the pun).  I have turned down customers who wanted to host websites for legal products and services that may not have directly breached our terms and conditions, but did not conform with my own views of what was acceptable.  One was selling sex toys and the other wanted to post pictures of their nudist colony.  While these were both legal activities I felt they stepped over the line of what we once called ‘modesty’.

On the other hand, we did host websites for the AIDS Foundation that gave quite explicit descriptions about how to conduct ‘safe sex’.

Business owners should be free to refuse business from a customer that breaches their personal ethical or moral standards, just as customers are free to boycott business that breach theirs.

Is that too much freedom?