NZ Single Parents Trust

Dangerous sex as state enters bedroom

Janet Albrechtsen
April 30, 2008

IF you are a man, sex got a whole lot more dangerous. Consider this scenario.
A woman meets a man in a bar or at a party. She likes the man. He likes the woman. She may not normally be a sex on the first night kind of girl. But they have a number of drinks. Fuelled by alcohol, they put aside their inhibitions. The woman goes home with the man. She says yes to sex. In the morning, the man makes it clear it was a one-night stand. The woman is deeply offended and regrets her drunken decision. She claims rape. Under new rape laws introduced in NSW this year, that man is likely to be convicted as a rapist. He is likely to go to prison.

Rape reform in NSW means that post-coital regrets can now be refashioned into rape claims that send innocent men to prison. That’s why Gold Coast Titans footballer Anthony Laffranchi is a fortunate man. He walked free from a rape charge last week after the prosecution failed to establish lack of consent. He and his then Wests Tigers NRL teammates met a woman at the Sapphire Club in Kings Cross in September 2006 and continued to party at a teammate’s apartment. The footballer said he had consensual sex. The woman, who was “significantly affected” by alcohol, claimed she was raped. Had Laffranchi met the woman after January this year, he would probably be a convicted rapist facing a long stint in prison.

Let us be clear. Rape is wrong. It is a crime that calls for imprisonment. It can destroy a victim’s life. But let us be clear about something else. Wrongful claims of rape are made. And they can destroy a man’s life. No one knows whether a rape occurred that night when Laffranchi had sex with the woman. But under the old laws of rape, the defendant’s actual state of mind was critical. If the accused had an honest belief that sex was consensual, the rape charge failed. And when the evidence became a simple contest between “he said, she said”, a reasonable doubt would lead to an acquittal. Criminal law says that is as it should be; we are talking about a serious crime and imprisonment.

Not anymore. Now the rules have changed. Now, in a contest between he said it was consensual and she said it was rape, a jury may be forced to convict the man of rape without any further corroborating evidence.

The new laws say that if a woman is “substantially affected” by alcohol, she may lack the capacity to consent to sex even if she says “yes” to sex. More disturbing, even if a man honestly believes consent was given, his state of mind is now irrelevant. Now, the man is effectively deemed to have knowledge of lack of consent if there are no reasonable grounds for believing consent was given. And it gets worse. When asked to determine whether the man had no reasonable grounds for believing the woman gave consent, the jury must ignore the fact that the man was drunk.

In other words, the fact that the woman who says “yes” to sex is drunk is highly relevant: it may vitiate her consent. But the man’s intoxication must be ignored when working out whether he had “reasonable grounds” for believing consent was given. It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women.

These new rape laws degrade women. They treat them as helpless victims, stripping them of the power to make decisions about sex after consuming alcohol. Down a few too many Bacardi Breezers, and the law says you are no longer responsible for your actions. Is this really the message we want to send to young women?

And for men, it’s even more serious. As the President of the NSW Bar Association, Anna Katzmann SC, has pointed out, these new laws mean that the intoxicated man will be treated just like “the true rapist, the aggressor who inflicts himself on his victim, knowing they do not consent”. There is no gradation of penalties.

Why is this happening? Lawyers point to the perfect storm. The intoxicated man is trapped between a strident but misguided feminist agenda and the law and order lobby driven by perceptions that rape conviction rates are too low.

In reality, the low conviction rates reflect nothing more than the reasonable doubt that arises when, absent other evidence about an alleged crime in private, a woman claims rape and a man claims sex was consensual.

Stephen Odgers, a senior Sydney silk who chairs the Criminal Law Committee of the Bar Association, told The Australian that, while we all want a civilised world where people treat each other with mutual respect in all walks of life, including sexual interactions, the new rape laws are a “very blunt and brutal instrument” to educate and civilise us about sexual relations. He fears that the new rape laws, in effect, can be used to criminalise those who merely treat others with disrespect after a night of sex. “And people will end up going to jail for long periods as a result.” That is why his committee, made up of almost equal numbers of prosecutors and defence lawyers opposed the reforms.

So how does a man navigate the consent nightmare? Bring a witness into the bedroom? Perhaps bring along a lawyer to guide him through every stage of consensual sex from foreplay to orgasm to ensure that the final, breathless and drunken “yes, yes, yes” is genuine consent? Similar rape reforms in South Australia led independent MP Ann Bressington to suggest earlier this month that perhaps “parliament could devise a sex contract which men could carry around in their pocket, next to their condoms”. Bressington is concerned that otherwise sensible rape reform has gone too far, leaving “very little room for a decent defence of a man who has been falsely accused”.

False accusations are helped along, says Heather MacDonald in the winter edition of City Journal, by feminist victimology and rape industrialists intent on redefining drunken sex where a bloke wants to get inside a girl’s knickers in terms of the classic case of domination rape by power-hungry men.

If you are a man, you are entitled to be frightened by the new order. While society is still committed to a 1960s model of sexual liberation, encouraging men and women to explore their sexual desires, the state is also entering the bedroom trying to educate us about appropriate sexual conduct. Unfortunately, we may discover that civility cannot be legislated by criminal sanction without innocent men going to prison.

janeta@bigpond.net.au

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
FEDERAL LEVEL:

1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.

2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.

3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.

4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.
Read the rest of this entry »

We all know what a pain viruses, worms, trojan horses (to name a few) can be when we get them on our computer. It can cause you to lose everything and the only way you can get past them is either formatting your hard drive (starting all over again from scratch) or protecting you computer with Anti Virus software.

I have tried AVG, AntiVir, Spydoctor and many other free downloads. In the end I preferred to pay Telecom $7 a month for their brand. But now I have found Anti Virus software that is free only for private and non-commercial use.

And it is good.

ANTIVIRUS KERNEL

* Almost 100% detection
* Outstanding performance
* Reasonable memory requirements
* ICSA certified

USER INTERFACE

* Memory test during the program startup
* Very intuitive Simple User Interface
* Testing whole disks or selected folders
* Working with the scan results - actions with infected files
* Virus encyclopaedia
* Log Viewer
* Various appearances - skin support
* Running from Explorer context menu
* Antivirus screen-saver

UPDATES

* The system of incremental updates guarantees low traffic
* The updates can be completely automatic

RESIDENT PROTECTION

* Standard Shield protects the file system
* Generic SMTP/POP3/IMAP4 scanner
* Specific MS Outlook plugin
* Heuristic analysis in e-mail modules

REPAIRING

* Limited capability of direct repair (especially macroviruses)
* Repairing files using automatically generated Virus Recovery Database (VRDB)

PLATFORMS

* Windows 95
* Windows 98
* Windows Me
* Windows NT 4 (No Server)
* Windows 2000 (No Server)
* Windows XP (No Server)
* Windows Vista

Free antivirus - avast! 4 Home Edition dowload

Cleaner Free Download anti virus

Key for Avastavast! Virus

If you are a bit lost on these pages, you can download from here. DOWNLOAD

Daily Telegraph (Australia) April 17, 2008
Teachers are being urged to stop using terms such as husband and wife when addressing students or families under a major anti-homophobia push in schools. The terms boyfriend, girlfriend and spouse are also on the banned list - to be replaced by the generic “partner” - in changes sought by the gay lobby aimed at reducing discrimination in classrooms. Schools are coming under pressure to provide lessons for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and stack their libraries with books and videos covering their issues. Among the demands are the outlawing of homophobic comments by teachers or students in the playground and a requirement for teachers to receive “diversity training”.

Education Director-General Michael Coutts-Trotter emerged as a leader of the school anti-homophobia campaign, opening a Government-backed conference on sexual diversity - That’s So Gay. The Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations also weighed into the debate calling for “appropriate literacy materials promoting diversity in families”. The radical shake-up means that families with two mums or two dads are set to be accepted as a normal part of school communities.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23551033-5001021,00.html
Family First Comment : part of a disturbing international trend
California - Mom and Dad” as well as “husband and wife” have been banned from California schools READ MORE
Scotland - Use of ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ Too “Homophobic”, Scottish Nurses Told READ MORE
New Zealand - Human Rights Commission (supported by the teachers’ union PPTA!!) says schools should let children change gender, allow kids to choose which uniform they wish to wear (boys or girls), and decide which changing room they want to change in!!! READ MORE
UK - Government advisory group says don’t say mum and dad… teachers told not to assume pupils have heterosexual parents. At the same time, schools should encourage gay role models among staff, parents and governors. Homosexual staff should be able to discuss their private lives after the consultation with the head teacher. READ MORE

There’s perfectionist mothers, unpredictable mothers, “me first” mothers and “complete” mothers but family experts say the fastest growing group of mothers is the “best-friend mother” - and it can only end badly.

Clinical psychologist Stephan Poulter, who works with family relationships, has come up with five categories that he finds fit most mothers. He finds the group that is on the rise is mothers who want to be best friends with their children.

But he said going partying with your children, wearing the same clothes as them, trying to keep up with their youth with breast implants and surgery, erodes all boundaries - and leaves the children without a mother who can guide them.

“You see this all over the media with a lot of the actresses in Hollywood - their mothers are their friends,” said Los Angeles-based Poulter in a telephone interview.

“One tragic one is Lindsay Lohan. Her mother is out drinking with her. Now she’s been in and out of rehab and arrested twice. What kind of role model is she getting? Look at Paris Hilton too. Same story.”

He said Anna Nicole Smith, the former Playboy model, was another prime example. She died of an accidental prescription drug overdose in Florida in February 2007 - just five months after her 20-year-old son Daniel died of a drug overdose.

Poulter, who has just released a book called “The Mother Factor,” said this style of mothering had been on the rise for about 15 years but now accounted for 30-40 percent of mothers.

EPIDEMIC

“This really is an epidemic. Because of unresolved issues with their parents, some parents today don’t want to be so hard and just want their children to like them. At the end of a long working day they don’t want conflict,” he said.

“But kids need a parent, not another friend, and this leaves them motherless. This can create a lot of rage in boys, and daughters who are drug-orientated and out of control tend to be motherless daughters of this type.”

Rose Rock, the mother of U.S. comedian Chris Rock, who has raised 10 children of her own and looked after 17 foster children, has also warned about this shift in parenting.

She has laid down the 10 commandments of parenting in a new book, “Mama Rock’s Rules: Ten Lessons for Raising a Houseful of Successful Children,” and No. 1 is to be a child’s mama, not their friend — and to have rules in your house.

“At no time should you let your children think they can disrespect you or treat you like a buddy,” Rock told Reuters.

She attributed the rise in the number of mothers wanting to be their children’s best friend to a lack of time and to parents finding it is easier to let children lay down their own rules.

“It is a new thing that everyone wants their children to like them but parenting is not a popularity contest,” she said.

“I don’t need to be a 12-year-old’s friend but I do need to be their protector, guide and warden. This is just a cop out.”

Poulter says he tries to make families realize that they need to take back the traditional roles.

“I need the parents to recognize that they are not their child’s friend and get their kids’ respect and then the kids can separate from their mother and move forward in their life and not feel they are responsible for their mother,” he said.

“For the kids this can work. But I think it is very hard for the mother to shift and to become the parent.”

Being a New Zealander is about driving in a European car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, whilst travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.

And the most NZ thing of all? Suspicion of all things foreign!

Only in NZ can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.

Only in NZ do supermarkets make sick people walk all the way to the back of the shop to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.

Only in NZ do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries and a DIET coke

Only in NZ do banks leave both doors open and chain the pens to the counters

Only in NZ do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars on the drive and lock our junk and cheap lawn mower in the garage.

Only in NZ do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won’t miss a call from someone we didn’t want to talk to in the first place.

Only in NZ are there disabled parking places in front of a skating rink.

NOT TO MENTION…

1 New Zealander dies each year testing if a 9v battery works on their tongue.

42 New Zealanders were injured in 1999 by not removing all pins from new shirts.

22 New Zealanders are injured each year by using sharp knives instead of screwdrivers.

5 New Zealanders have died since 1994 by watering their Christmas tree while the fairy lights were plugged in.

New Zealand Hospitals reported 2 broken or dislocated arms last year after Xmas cracker-pulling accidents.

Around 50 New Zealanders are burnt each year ironing their clothes while still wearing them.

9 New Zealanders had serious burns in 2000 trying on a new tops with a lit cigarette in their mouth.

A massive 143 New Zealanders were admitted to A&E in the last two years after trying to open bottles of beer with their teeth

And finally…

In 2003—14 New Zealanders were admitted to hospital with fractured skulls incurred whilst throwing up into the toilet.

I have most of life thought about getting ahead in life. Of being financially secure.

And it is becoming a priority for me at the moment. It had been a priority when the children were little because my ex husband and I were starting out and when the children are little it is easier to do extra things. A bit harder as they get older and you have more resources going out than you have coming in. And even harder in a single income family.

When you work a nine to five job as a single person you can afford to put aside 10% of your earnings each week. This is not always an easy task when you have a family to take care of. BTW, 10% being put aside is something taught by successful people and something very important to pass down to your children. Yet it is not going to be enough for the most of us.

At the moment we have a left wing Government which continually rises taxes and soon we will be paying extra for ‘Environmental Issues‘ whether they are truly due to man/woman or due to the sun itself and a normal circle of life.

Plus we have the high prices in petrol which always happens when a war is on but will continue to happen as supplies run short. This in turn has and will put up all other resources we need as suppliers use petrol themselves and the cost is always passed on to the consumer.

So besides all hopes of our living standards improving through Government assistance or through increase in wages, we live by our means. We often use our wages to survive and we are left with little money on the side to save for our future.

We are going to need to have that extra money. Even if it is for our retirement. Things are not going to get better, not for some time. And those on pensions around the country are finding it very hard to survive themselves let alone have a comfortable life style after all the years of labour they have done.

We need to add something extra in our lives right now and for the future.

Investment is a way forward. You can have your money earning interest for you. You can put it into a savings account which gives low interest because you have the guarantee of your money being safe or you could play the stock market by buying shares in a company who will invest it elsewhere or use it to make a corporate profit which in turn will earn your money higher interest due to the extend of the risk you take.

We have heard of ‘Blue Chip’ where a lot of investors are going to lose their money as well as some are going to lose their homes and other assets and we are hearing of The ‘Auckland Airport’ where the shareholders are hoping to sell some of their shares to the Canadian Pension Plan. This will add value to their shares. Thus their money earns interest. Thus shareholders make profit.

People who are wealthy earn lots of money through investments because they can put lots of money into investments and can often take bigger risks with their money because they have plenty.

But what about the working class men and women? How are they meant to climb their way to a comfortable financial secure position? Well, the answer is pretty simple. They work. They have 3 choices when working.

• Take a second job which pays even higher taxes than the one they already have or
• Overtime which can put them in a higher tax bracket which will be higher taxes or
• They invest in their own labour.

The first 2 are pretty obvious. This will increase your income. The third, however, is an actual investment in yourself. In yourself as a business.

There are 2 ways that you can make money on your labour;

• Offer a service to the public or
• Make or buy something and then sell it to make a profit.

The service one is pretty straight forward. You train in something, you become an educated expert or at least qualified on a topic or service and then you get paid to act the service out.

Now, it just so happens that we as a trust can do that. We have the opportunity to be trained in an area of conflict resolution (work shops to help men and women in relationships or in broken relationships to work together) and we have the opportunity to provide this service for a fee which gives us extra income and qualifies us as somewhat of an expert in this field. Enough of an expert to charge a fee for our services and our services can be used by other groups or we can continue to be trained/educated and hire ourselves out at a price we are worth to all interested parties.

This is an opportunity that will require working in the evenings for some and for others during the day.

But then of course you may already have something up your sleeve. You may have a skill that you need to market.

As for selling products. I can think of 2 easy ways to make an extra income from a low financial contribution. It has been done successfully many times and has created very reasonable to high income wealth for others.

Making products is very simple. You need to decide what you want to make and then you need to find buyers. Maybe you are interested in making clothing, cakes, dining tables and chairs, and so on.

Being the middle man/woman is another way to sell products.

Buying products from overseas and then selling them here is popular. This is something we can all invest in together. For instance, one lady bought a container load of toilet paper from Malaysia. She then proceeded to sell it at the Market place. Now she owns 5 homes and provides not only the toilet paper to the prisons but she is the middle person for their track suits too.

Others have brought in things like pencil cases from Japan (a friend of mine) and provides places like, Kmart, The Warehouse and many other venues with their merchandise. My friend as have others has increased his merchandise along the way and travels 3 times a year to Japan to look for more. He is putting his money to work at the same time as his own physical labour.

Some people buy and sell on Trade me. One father gave his children each a $100 account and told them to buy and sell to make a profit and as long as they kept $100 in the kitty, they could spend the profit which is their earnings. These children are making a well worth profit for themselves and learning about making money work for them at the same time.

Anyhow, I have some other friends chipping in and buying a container load of small household merchandise and was wondering if any others are interested like me to look into something similar (we are all going to put in so it will be a small amount) and to invest your time by selling cheaper products for higher amount so to make a profit. We are keen to keep this as a legal entity so that you are not being taxed high by the Government or paying unnecessary child support payments. Plus it is a team effort so no-one is going to be left holding merchandise and we can include the children to help if they are of age.

This is open for discussion of course and feel free to ask any questions. You may want to wait and see what happens for others before you leap in or you may think this an opportunity too good to pass up. Either way, it has you thinking about your finances and your future.

Just for that, my work is helpful.

List member Heather Roy from the Act Party has written a nice piece on the plight of single parent fathers.

This week saw the issue of Child Support raised in Parliament, with National MP Judith Collins using the term ‘deadbeat dads’ to describe those fathers who fail - or refuse - to fulfil their obligation to contribute financially to the raising of their children.

On the whole, New Zealand is a ‘can do’ nation with ‘can do’ people: we can, and do, fulfil our responsibilities; we can, and do, pay our own way; we can, and do, stand up for fairness over discrimination. With such a pervading and upstanding social view, New Zealanders on the whole have no time for ‘deadbeat dads’.

So why, then, do we allow the odds to be stacked against fathers who are at the opposite end of the scale - who want nothing more than to play an equal or larger part in the lives of their children?

In 2006 the Care of Children Act came into effect, designed in part to shake up the Family Court and to dispel the ‘myth’ that the Court was biased against men and preferred sole maternal custody as the outcome of its hearings. Under the Act, ‘Custody and Access’ were replaced by ‘Shared Parenting’ - meaning that, ideally, both parents share equally the responsibility and joy of their child’s day-to-day care; neither parent has full control and neither parent can be left out of their child’s life. On paper, it seems wonderfully fair.

Changing legal terms, however, is a far cry from changing attitudes and it is the same judges making the final decision - often with the same gender bias they used before. An example of this lingering attitude can be seen in the case of one father who, having been left with sole care of his child for several months following the breakdown of his relationship with the mother, filed proceedings in the Family Court for an Interim Parenting Order.

Now, one might say that - as it were he who initiated proceedings - the father cannot complain about the treatment he received from the Family Court. However, this man went to the Court after indications that his former partner was about to take the child to live with her in an unstable environment. There were also indications that his former partner would not be keeping to the equal care arrangement they had previously agreed on as she required Majority Care of the child in order to qualify for the DPB. His fears were:

* That his child’s living arrangements while with her mother were far from settled - ie the child’s mother had no fixed abode and was relying on the generosity of friends to provide a roof over her head on a day-to-day basis.
* The mother would not make the effort to keep the child in Early Childhood Education
* With an informal agreement, the mother would use the child as a weapon or leverage whenever she wanted/needed something (as had happened on at least one occasion)

He also suspected that, once in receipt of the DPB for having Majority Care of their child, it would be HE who had the child for the bulk of the time - while having to pay Child Support to the mother.
Having remained in the family home, and having kept to the stable routine his child was used to, this father felt it best for his child’s wellbeing that the child remained with him in the interim until such time as his former partner was in a more suitable situation. He also assumed that the Family Court would feel the same way.

He was wrong. Within minutes of the preliminary hearing, this father realised he was quite possibly on a hiding to nothing. His former partner accused him of keeping their child from her for months, labelled him controlling and domineering, accused him of prolonged domestic abuse and insinuated that he put his career ahead of all else - all without a single shred of evidence.

The judge responded by suggesting to the mother that she had grounds to limit the father’s time with the child to Supervised Access, and accepted that the child had been withheld from her mother for months - despite the father providing written proof of dates and times that his former partner had refused to see the child due to social engagements.

Both parties were then given time to come to some kind of access agreement; once this was done and ratified the judge recommended that the father attend a parenting education course - a suggestion that was not made to the mother, whom he thanked for coming along.

And, so, the bias against fathers continues.

The fact is that politicians are right: ‘deadbeat dads’ DO need to lift their game and be more responsible for the welfare of their children. But at the same time there needs to be more equality for those fathers who truly want to be involved and are doing all they can - spending thousands upon thousands of dollars in lawyer fees - to do just that.

It is time for some real change. Politicians - indeed, New Zealand society as a whole - must take a closer look at the plight of these fathers. Perhaps if we improve the incentives for estranged fathers - and take away the unfair challenges that leave many left out of their children’s lives - we would see a drastic reduction in the number of fathers who are so beaten down by the system that they give up completely and play no part in their children’s lives.

I was asked about this test and what it means. I thought I would explain here because many of us are unsure how politics work. And our vote is going to be important this year.

The test has 6 pagers of questions which are about issues today from the left of politics and the right of politics and the authoritarian and the libertarian stand. Yet this test will not give you an accurate picture of what you believe in. It will not tell you who to vote for. You must decide that yourself.

The left is Labor in NZ. The right is National. These are the 2 main parties. We have other smaller parties which tend to lean left or right over issues and are mostly there so to put their views and wants forward that are unique and may not be included with the left and right parties policies. These small parties make deals with the bigger parties by giving their support for the bigger parties to make changes and gain a move they wanted. Winston Peters wanted extra money for the pensioners so he bargained with Labour. He gave his support to them to pass something and his party got what they wanted.

United future did the same. They wanted a families commission so they bargained with Labor the same way. The Maori party has done the same and so has the Greens.

The talk of politics is full of talk of the left and the right, but what exactly is the difference between the two?

How To Tell Left Wing From Right Wing In Politics

Well, the right wing tends to be associated more with ‘conservative’ values (with a small ‘c’)… the status quo and tradition. They tend to be more tougher on law and order than the left, and emphasise the importance of free trade and low taxation policies, often cutting tax when in power. A welfare state may be seen as important, but not the extent as for a more left wing society.

The right essentially plays up the role of the individual, and in an extreme right wing view, like atomism, there may be no society, but only a collection of individuals. Extreme right wing views are those such as fascism. Most governments these days move away from the right to the centre.

The left wing, on the other hand, is associated much more with what may be termed more liberal values, the role of society, and the community as a whole. Law and order policies tend to be more relaxed, taxation is increased by large amounts as they look to create a safety net and look after the poorer members of society through a more robust healthcare system etc.

The autonomy and role of the individual is undermined much more in such a system, and the state plays a larger role in people’s lives. Many governments of today occupy a centre-left position. These governments are more likely to experience poor law and order records, and declining success of businesses, due to the taxation policies and more relaxed approach to law and order.

An extreme left wing view is something like communism, which looks exclusively at the community as a whole, to the detriment of the individuals that constitute that community. Both extremes lead to very unpleasant systems under which to live.

We in NZ are on the left at the moment and we have very extreme left wing people running the show. Many of these people are behind the scenes and are known to be associated with communism back in Russia. In fact Helen Clarke (our Prime Minister) herself attended a course at a communist school in Russia.

But don’t let that be a reason not to lean to the left. You need to use your vote carefully and think what is best for you as a parent and for your children because you are raising children. They are your concern. Labor is not just socialists but very strong feminists. And feminists do stand up for women and for children. Yet they are biased to men and boys.

If you are a working mother or father who is paying taxes you may want to vote for National to get a tax break. And if you are in business for yourself you will find National gives the best deal for business. The left tends to take from the well off to give to the poorer community. And they are prone to put more pressure and laws on business.

What is an
Authoritarian?

Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterised by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organisation, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measure. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.

In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom.There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security. Usually, an authoritarian government is undemocratic and has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.

This is the type of Government form we have now. Labor does not listen to the people but pushes laws onto them against their will. We have had the ‘No smacking bill’ this year with much protest from parents and the ‘Electoral Finance bill’ which has stopped free speech and soon we will be under the “No hate laws” and many others to follow an ideology that is socialism through the Western countries.

Other laws have come through the Human Rights Commission such as children being able to choose their own sex at school and free choice in religion and other non discriminative laws.

All this is the state being the parent to the people and telling them how to live.

What is a libertarian?

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realise his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don’t harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defence), and tolerance (honouring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

This type of life style follows that people are paid for their value and not the same as every one else. It allows people the chance to better themselves and gain from being better. It is like being able to be competitive. The best person for the job. And not a quota of 50% women and so much % of each ethnic group. It means that what you own belongs to you and not the community. People who are well off would want to be libertarians while those on benefits would want to receive the same as the one who puts the effort in to make their life style better.

These people do not want to be told how to be parents. They want the right to decide for themsleves. They want the right to have their children follow their traditions and not be educated to be like everyone else. Today they would be the parents who don’t want their children being taught homosexuality and trans-gender sexuality at school. They would also be the parents who do not want the state running their lives.

You can be a left libertarian also and you can be a right authoritarian.

I am hoping this has been helpful.

Grab a coffee for this one.

It is a little long but well worth the read. Every part of it is an eye opener.

It discusses Eastern women’s plight for freedom and equality and asks and answers why feminists are not caring about these women.

Be aware there are some brutal things to read.

But what astounded me the most is that brown men are not bad men. Only white men. You see, if brown men beat their women it is because white men oppressed brown men.

It doesn’t say this part but I bet feminists agree with it …. if brown men beat white men then that is fair. That is for past grievances.

Go figure!!! I guess, brown women have a free pass to beat me too because I am a white woman.

stand your ground

Oh, and it describes the UN utopia and the genders feminists and much more.