Hail Tamaki.  Hitler hated gays as well, whilst Hitler knew his mate Goering liked it up the bum.

Australian gay bashing politicians: an embarrassment that should be culled, but why is Brian “gayslayer” Tamaki, and his criminal ilk allowed to exist?

It is not often that New Zealand is in front of Australia when it comes to the core freedoms of its citizens, but at the moment it appears that Australia has, in its Federal Parliament a majority of gay bashing, or Jesus Christ bullshitting, retards.

The other day the High Court of Australia ruled against the Australian Capital Territory’s legalization of same sex marriage.  The current Federal Act, the Marriage Act 1961, defines “marriage” at section 51 [xxi] as being;

“marriage” means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

That 2004 amendment was voted into law by, none other than homophobe, John Howard’s government, and was one of Howard’s legacy’s of hate.

Similarly Prime Minister Tony Abbott has used his personal stupidity to oppose same sex marriage by getting his equally stupid Federal Attorney General George Brandis to legally challenge the passage of the ground-breaking ACT legislation, and the misguided challenge was successful before a High Court that simply followed its master.

Mate hate personified.  A private prosecution under the Australian “hate” legislation may bring this reprobate back into Australian society.

Mate hate personified. A private prosecution under the Australian “hate” legislation may bring this reprobate back into Australian society.

Abbott’s own sister Christine Forster, is openly gay, and is engaged to her long term partner Virginia Edwards.   The High Court could, and should, have, in invalidating the ACT legislation, gone a lot further than it did in trying to promote the principle of zero tolerance in legislation for discrimination of any kind.  Its opinion merely indicated that there appeared to be no hurdle to the Federal government passing similar legislation to the one it decided to quash.

Whilst the decision did momentarily touch on the fact that it was largely religious beliefs that oppose the inviolable and sacrosanct rights of all Australia natural persons enjoying equal rights in all regards under law it didn’t mention the fact that the Australian Constitution [section 116] prohibits Australia from having a state Religion, and that individual politicians opinions based on “alleged” religious beliefs written by men falsely asserting to be the word of god, amount to the promotion of hate and the persecution of Australian citizens.  The content of the bible is largely fiction, as is GOD being male, or existing.  The bible is no different to Mein Kampf.  Its purpose is to empower, in order to divide and conquer.

ACT [Australian Capital Territory] has been pivotal in redressing wrongs relating to discrimination of gay and transgender natural persons.  The following 6 Acts passed by the previous ACT Stanhope Government are examples;

  • Legislation (Gay, Lesbian and Transgender) Amendment Act 2003
  • Discrimination Amendment Act 2003
  • Parentage Act 2004
  • Sexuality Discrimination Legislation Amendment Act 2004
  • Human Rights Act 2004

Adoption Amendment Act 2004

One important step at a time, but the latest one was a stumble. ACT Previous Chief Minister Jon Stanhope preaching to the converted. A man that Should be Prime Minister

One important step at a time, but the latest one was a stumble. ACT Previous Chief Minister Jon Stanhope preaching to the converted. A man that should be Prime Minister 

Encouragingly, gay marriage has legal recognition in 18 countries as well as 16 US states plus the District of Columbia.   Gay Australians can jump the Tasman, and marry, but cannot do it in their own backyard because of the likes of Tony Abbott.

The Australian decision came a day after India’s Supreme Court struck down a 2009 lower court decision to decriminalize homosexuality, dealing a blow to gay Indian activists who have fought for years for the chance to live openly in India’s deeply conservative society.

But what allows Australian Politicians to ignore their constituent’s clear mandate?  What empowers these pricks to act in this manner is, unbelievably, the word of god, the biggest bullshit book ever written, the Bible.

We at LF find this position farcical given that it is likely that 80% of those that have the irrational religious bent are hardcore homosexuals, and that the Catholic Church has harboured, and hidden paedophiles, [completely different to homosexuals – the same as rapists are different to straight men], since the beginning of Christianity which begun hundreds of years after the death of the bullshit artist previously known as Jesus.

In fact, in having to hide homosexuality, and sexual offending, the Church created an evil that was perpetrated by repression, and denial, two aspects of behavior that never result in kindness and understanding.

However it is only recently that western society has stated clearly in the majority, God is a complete fraud.  So if God is a fraud how come we voted in a fuckwit that believes in the existence of not only God, but a male god?. How fucking ignorant is our Prime Minister?

But would there be a case that the parliamentarians that did not want same sex marriage passed into law could be committing blasphemy, even if they arguably did so without using derogatory words relating to the bible, or God?

Blasphemy has been used to mean “irreverence” in a non-religious context. Modern dictionaries ascribe the following meanings to blaspheme;

a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.

b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

C. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

Great Scholar, Scientist, Politician, Jurist, and philosopher, Sir Francis Bacon uses “blasphemy” in this way in Advancement of Learning, where he speaks of “blasphemy against teaching”.

Although raised in a strict religious house, Bacon according to his personal secretary and chaplain William Rawley, as a judge Bacon was always tender-hearted, looking upon the examples with the eye of severity, but upon the person with the eye of pity and compassion”. And also that “he was free from malice”, “no revenger of injuries”, and “no defamer of any man.”.

Bacon was also against promoting hate of any kind using religion as fuel.  Biographers continue to debate about Bacon’s sexual inclinations and the precise nature of his personal relationships.

Several authors believe that despite his marriage Bacon was primarily attracted to the same sex. Professor Forker, for example, has explored the “historically documentable sexual preferences” of both King James and Bacon – and concluded they were all oriented to “masculine love”, a contemporary term that “seems to have been used exclusively to refer to the sexual preference of men for members of their own gender.”

The Jacobean antiquarian, Sir Simonds D’Ewes implied there had been a question of bringing Bacon to trial for buggery.

Maybe Francis, in porking King James, saved his bacon.

Maybe Francis, in porking King James, saved his bacon.

The only unnatural acts made by man are those that he does on behalf of religion, for religious scripts speak of purity, and time has shown us that the most impure of all, are those that protest that they have attained the impossible, or are on that journey. Purity has nothing scientifically connected to humanity, whereas kindness, understanding, and caring are actions, not ideologies, and are largely maintained as chemical, and not intellectual, responses.

It is quite embarrassing for LF commentators that the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and his inimical ilk in parliament pull out the conscience and religious card when voting on a matter that affects the individual right of the natural person to live as free and happy as he or she can be with another person of their choice for, hopefully, the rest of their life.

It is fact that gay people normally have a higher degree of education, earn more individually, and in relationships, pay more taxes, commit less crimes, are healthier, and if not healthy, have private health insurance, and contribute to the arts and other pleasures of life more than any other segment of society.   In short 99% of gay people are perfect citizens.

In law gays cannot be discriminated against, excepting when it comes to the recognition of their right to have their loving and financial commitment to another recognized in law.   Now mainstream western religion is on the back foot and retreating on the issue, but there are still the hardliners who preach to the ignorant such as the evangelistic churches that exist throughout the western world.   It just seems completely absurd that there should be a dividing line between human beings because they are following their legitimate right to be with whom they love, and for this to be recognized formally.

After all this is not about God as he doesn’t exist.  He is a myth and the perpetuation of the myth a fraud, and thus in reality, a crime.  To rely on that crime in order to stop or impede the proper passage of legislation in line with the absolute right of every individual Australian natural person to not be discriminated against is also, in the view of LF, a crime.  If not a crime, it fucking should be!

New Zealand still has the crime of blasphemy in its Crimes Act.

Crime against religion

123 Blasphemous libel

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who publishes any blasphemous libel.

Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.

It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.

No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks  

Subsection 2 is really badly written, in that it makes a prosecution impossible, as if a prosecution is about matters of “fact”, – well which prosecutor in this day and age is going to stand in front of a jury and say that “god” the high and almighty, exists.  Factually, surely God would smite the culprit down.

That is why, in New Zealand, subsection 4 requires the leave of the Attorney General.

In Australia the state of Victoria is the only place that blasphemy is an offence, and it would appear that the offence is founded in section 17[1](b) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 in that it could be caught by the words;

(b) writes or draws exhibits or displays an indecent or obscene word figure or representation;

Strangely the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 only relates an empowerment of the State to seize blasphemous material and destroy it;


Seizure and destruction of documents containing libel

(1) Upon the conviction of any person for—

(a) publishing a blasphemous libel; or

(b) publishing a seditious libel—

the Court by which such conviction is recorded may order the seizure and destruction of any documents proved to exist and to contain any such libel or to have been written, printed or published in breach of the said section.

(2) Any such order shall be carried into execution not earlier than thirty days from the making thereof or at such time as a court of competent jurisdiction may order.

(3) If the conviction is set aside on appeal, the order for seizure and destruction shall be ipso facto vacated.

Religion has caused more wars, genocides, and immoral acts than anything other kind of ideology.  In short it divides between the insane and the sane, as who goes to war over fiction.  The reason for this insanity is quite simple.  People think that their “God” is going to give them eternal life, and with a prayer, all can be forgiven to enter heaven.  No wonder this shit is easy to sell.  Well religious dickheads we have some news for you.  GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Blasphemy is an offence under the common law in England, R v Lennon [1979] 1 AII ER 898; 68 Cr App R 381 (HL).  The House of Lords stated that it must be able to be demonstrated that an offence of blasphemous libel has been committed, in that the publication was intentional and the material published was blasphemous.   Again come on guys what this bullshit about?

Obtusely the Lords framed the scope of their decision to only operate to protect Christianity. We repeat GOD does not exist.  This decision came about as a result of the private prosecution of Salman Rushdie. The Court stated that it would be virtually impossible for decisions to set sufficient limits to the offence if it was to be extended to other faiths.  So blasphemy cannot relate to other faiths that still believe in the existence of the same GOD, which covers the Muslim and Jewish faiths.

Is blasphemy an offence in Australia?

Australia explored Blasphemy in Archbishop of Melbourne v Council of Trustees of National Gallery [1998] 2 VR 391; (1997) 96 A Crim R 575.  George Pell was the Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

This tosser initiated injunction proceedings against the Council of Trustees of the Gallery of Victoria seeking an order restraining the Gallery from exhibiting a photograph by Andres Serrano entitled, ‘Piss Christ’. The Archbishop claimed that the public display of such work constituted the exhibiting or display of an indecent or obscene figure of representation that is contrary to s 17(1)(b) of Summary Proceedings Act [above]

Harper J in the Supreme Court of Victoria, obviously, unlike Tony Abbott, a sane individual, said in regards to the matter:

“Not only has Victoria never recognised an established church, but now s 116 of the Australian Constitution forbids the Commonwealth making any law for establishing religion.

It may be, as the defendant submits, that the offence of publication of a blasphemous libel has lapsed through desuetude. It does appear that only one prosecution has been instituted in Victoria this century, and that was withdrawn before the trial…Nevertheless, if Lord Scarman is right, there may be a place in a pluralist society for retaining the offence – although if Lord Scarman is right, its rebirth as a law protecting much more than the Christian faith would be a necessary part of the new order.

Not only may there be a place in a multicultural society for the offence of blasphemous libel of any recognised faith, but the ancient misdemeanour of that name may have survived transportation to the colonies. Certainly, there is a body of judicial opinion to the effect that it has…Moreover, by inserting s 469AA into the Crimes Act 1958 (the Act) the Parliament of Victoria recognised the existence, or at least the possibility of the existence, of the offence.”

In plain language “desustude” means “no longer in use”.

So in summary Australia’s Constitution (Section 116) prohibits Australia from having a state religion, and the Crown has rarely acted to protect religion. The Crown has not prosecuted anyone for blasphemy since 1919. In some jurisdictions, such as Tasmania, Queensland, and Victoria, someone who is offended by someone else’s attitude toward religion or toward one religion can seek redress under legislation that prohibits hate speech.  In effect, the modern meaning of blasphemy is that which creates hate.  In line with LF’s interpretation Section 119 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code makes blasphemous libel a crime, but leaves its definition to common law.

A person who is aggrieved because aspersions are cast upon his religious belief or affiliation or religious activity does not need to file a complaint under the Criminal Code. He can seek redress under the Anti-Discrimination Act (1998).

The last successful prosecution for blasphemous libel in New South Wales was place 1871. The case was R. v. William Lorando Jones (unreported, Parramatta Quarter Sessions, Simpson J., 18 February 1871). In that case, the elderly Mr. Jones was found guilty for saying that the Old Testament was immoral and unsuitable for a female readership.

The Court sentenced Mr. Jones to a fine of £100 and two years in jail. However a massive public outcry over the sentence resulted in the release of Mr. Jones four weeks later.  However the offence no longer exists in any Federal recognition, and therefore should be abolished as the hate legislation would be far better to recognize and decide the likely impact.

Queensland’s Criminal Code Act of 1899 abolished blasphemy by repealing the Blasphemy Act of 1697. The Objectionable Literature Act of 1954 allowed the state to prevent the distribution of literature that is blasphemous, but was repealed in 1991.

A person who is aggrieved because aspersions are cast upon his religious belief or affiliation or religious activity can seek redress under the Queenslands Anti-Discrimination Act (1991).

In Western Australia the Criminal Code Compilation Act of 1913 abolished blasphemy by repealing the Blasphemy Act of 1697.

It is unknown whether blasphemy is a crime in Victoria where it might yet exist under common law ; see above.

The Crown last laid a charge of blasphemous libel in 1919. The case concerned socialist journalist Robert Samuel Ross, who had published a satirical piece in which Bolsheviks ransack heaven. The prosecutor dropped the charge but proceeded on a charge of sending blasphemous materials through the mail. The Court convicted Ross, and sentenced him to six months of hard labour.

A person who is aggrieved because someone is engaging in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of him on the ground of his religious belief or activity can seek redress under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.

It is unknown whether blasphemy is a crime in South Australia where it might yet exist under common law.

In 1977, the Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee stated that “today it would seem anachronistic to charge anyone with blasphemous libel.”

It is unknown whether blasphemy is a crime in the Northern Territory where it might yet exist under common law.

A factually baseless and pejorative racist remark is clear about its intent, but a remark stating that religion is a fraud is factually correct, and therefore that allegation of blasphemy as it relates to religion is contraindicative.  A politician not granting a basic right to one of his constituents through the passage of law because of his alleged belief in the Word of God is a hater pure and simple, and should be charged through anti discrimination and hate legislation for any public statements. Would parliamentary privilege protect the criminal statements?  LF does not think so.  A crime is a crime.

Is there a realistic argument that same sex marriages cannot co – exist with two murderers getting married when incarcerated and with no hope of freedom ever. Ask the likes of gay hater Tony Abbott, and his criminal conservative ilk, who support criminals tying the Knot at the states expense, but restricting law abiding, tax paying, contributing citizens.   Marriage is a man made institution merely formalizing certain rights, which historically included that a husband could be not be prosecuted for raping his wife.

In Canada, blasphemous libel is an offence under section 296(1) of the Criminal Code. It is an indictable offence and is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, a maximum term, which outstrips New Zealands evangelistic effort.

Section 296 is subject to section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as read with section 1 of that Charter. Under the heading of “Fundamental Freedoms” the section states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

LF has no issue with fuckwits going to church and ripping it up with singing and praising and handing over money to fraudsters, but our issue is when these fraudsters have a say in the human rights of others that contribute far more meaningfully to Australian Society, and where that hate is hidden in the alleged belief of a bloke that does not exist – GOD.   Our Prime Minister is a hate speaker on the issue of same sex marriage and he bases his beliefs on his acceptance that GOD exists – FUCKWIT.

But having said all of the above Australian authorities would have arrested and incarcerated the likes of Aotearoa’s homo hater Bishop Brian “gayslayer” Tamaki.  LF accepts that we have had our share of nutjob politicians, like Pauline Hanson, but she did not say that God was her reason for her despicable beliefs.

Hail Tamaki.  Hitler hated gays as well, whilst Hitler knew his mate Goering liked it up the bum.

Hail Tamaki. Hitler hated gays as well, whilst Hitler knew his mate Goering liked it up the bum.

Hitler had homosexuals incarcerated and murdered by bullet, gas, or starvation.  But this was against a background that Hitler knew that Hermann Goering was as queer as an Aussie budgie.  Likewise LF feels that the likes of Tamaki, a man that surrounds himself with well-muscled men is probably a closet queen.  We mean, what is it about people that want other people to be unhappy, or deprived of their rights, and pick on a particular group that does them no obvious harm?

Radio Pacific host John Banks aired an interview with Tamaki that attacked a New Zealand AIDS Foundation’s takatāpui (Māori for LGBT-person) HIV-prevention project, in which Tamaki referred to traditional Māori pre-colonial intolerance for male homosexuality, painting a picture of a society which, he claimed, exterminated gay and lesbian people. However, many Māori academic authorities question the basis for this claim.

Tamaki, an anti gay marriage advocate, takes a minimum of 10% of beneficiaries subsistence weekly hand-outs to support his lavish lifestyle.

A bigger fraud than the big JHC?  We think so.

The fucker should be arrested, and ironically he could be arrested under the current New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 for committing blasphemy for “claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of god”, in that the fucker is clearly stating that he is a representative of God, and like Jesus can cure all the “bad shit” in your life.

Bishop “gayslayer” Tamaki surrounded by his “prettyboys” at one of their  poofter parties

Bishop “gayslayer” Tamaki surrounded by his “prettyboys” at one of their
poofter parties

We are not kidding, how is this low life any different from JHC, and the fucking Pope?  All FRAUDSTERS!!!.

LF believes the bullshit artist formerly known as Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus son of a bloke called Joseph, was likely homosexual, and it was likely that his 12 mates, the apostles, were queens as well.

Lets look at the “fairy” tale a little closer.  Jesus had more than 12 man friends that he hung around with except a prostitute allegedly called Mary Magdalene, which again sounds extremely gay.  This bloke Jesus may have been, in fact, a bit ACDC.  Which really camp gay guy hasn’t had a female prossie mate.

This is not to blaspheme, as to blaspheme is to accept that the bullshit artist formerly known as Jesus, was the son of god, rather than a cult leader no different to the cult leaders of today such as Aucklands grand poobah Brian Tamaki.

When prosecuting Tamaki under blasphemy provision the Court would have to look at the full term of what blasphemy means as at today. Clearly the law in virtually all first world western nations accepts that blasphemy is merely another issue of discrimination.  However as stated “the act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God” fits very nicely around the criminal actions of Brian “gayslayer” Tamaki, and you could add the charges of fraud without much difficulty.

Added to this there is fertile ground in meanings “A” and “B” of the common usage of the word blasphemy in that the rights of the individual as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 are considered “inviolable and sacrosanct”.

The difference between the bloke called Jesus and Brian Tamaki is that Brian Tamaki is a gay basher that looks like he takes it up the arse and then shoved down his throat to loosen up the vocals before he goes before his fucktard flock to fuck and defraud them.

LF has had contact from former Destiny Church members whom claim that Tamaki and his gay hating goons wanted families to hand over “love offerings” and other large cash donations above the expected 10% tithe.  One of the campaigns was called “Give it heaps” which asked families to give $2000.00 over six to seven months.

It was the audacity and pressure of this campaign that left the Brisbane Pastor of the Church Andrew Stock to walk away calling Tamaki a con man.  Tamaki’s reply was to send some of his heavies over to fill in for Stock, and who stated to the mostly kiwi membership that they were “robbing God” if they did not meet the deadline.   A large number of these persons felt that they were being intimidated into giving Tamaki what he demanded from them.

Former Destiny Taranaki member Randolph Pratt said members came under pressure to contribute to the fundraising drives above their 10 per cent tithe.

“There’s a lot of people in Destiny Church in low-income families,” …..”How can they afford to give that sort of money?”

Pratt said he left the church after four years because it became too focused on money. He gave $1500 a month above his 10 per cent tithe.

“There are good things happening in Destiny, but just taking money from people all the time is wrong. There’s just no need for it.”

Pratt said he expected “a lot of flak” from Destiny members for speaking out: “I don’t care because it’s the truth, and it’s got to come out.”

Another former member, who did not want to be named, said members were expected to fill in tithe envelopes with their names, how much they were giving and any added donations.

Offerings were used to fund church buildings, even though the buildings were owned by a separate company, which the church paid rent to.  That member said;

“It’s the tithing and offerings that are paying the buildings off, and then they’re paying rent on top of that”.

Another former member said they were told they would be “blessed by God” for giving their pastor extra “love offerings” – a cash donation given directly to the pastor.

In a statement LF has seen, Destiny Church said “Give it Heaps” aimed to raise $3 million for the Destiny School in Auckland. It would also pay for producing and screening the TV programme.

“What members decide to contribute towards this goal and how they wish to contribute is purely their choice.”

In a statement, Destiny said “honorariums” received by pastors were at the discretion of the local church.

In a Close-Up TV interview on the subject of his church being a sociopathic cult, Tamaki denied that his church is a cult claiming that:

“if we are a cult then the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Pentecostals are all cults as well. Because we believe – we have the same actual orthodox tenets of belief.”

Richard Lewis, spokesperson for Destiny, earlier in the same interview deflected the criticism by re-defining the term in a pejorative sense saying “Well a cult is umm some exclusive community out in the backdrops of nowhere, but Destiny is the opposite of that; we’re in the middle of Mt Wellington, our doors are always open, as Bishop says; we broadcast live, we’re an open book”.

Tamaki regards his perceived lack of male leadership in New Zealand, including the leadership over one’s family, as “the work of the devil. He claims that Parliament reflects this alleged lack of male leadership. In his autobiography he defends his attitude towards women by pointing to the role of his wife Pastor Hannah Tamaki in the Destiny Church organisation, and also says “God is very specific about the role and function of men”.

Georgina Beyer confronted Tamaki at the Enough is Enough protest in Wellington in August 2004, charging “Your hatred is totally intolerable”. Beyer also compared Tamaki to despots like Robert Mugabe in a 3 News interview.  And LF agrees with Ms Bayer.  Tamaki is a criminal pure and simple and should be arrested as such.

TV3 defended its decision to allow Destiny to buy a 30-minute segment on Wednesday mornings at 6am when being fully aware of the criminal activity of Tamaki and his gaybasher bodyguards. And that’s how the New Zealand mainstream media work.  If you pay them enough they will look the other way.

In conclusion New Zealand has recognized the right of any person to marry another person in law, whereas Australia still allows the haters like Tony Abbott and “conservative criminal” politicians to speak out against the rights of other Australians in breach Australia’s hate legislation.

A criminal belief, just because it is said to exist in the bible, is not a defence in law, and a prosecution should be brought against Abbott, should he openly state a hateful comment.  Abbott is in a way another Brian Tamaki, a hater, pure and simple. There is not right to hate another in a manner that places them is a poor or less respectful position in out society, and Federal Parliament should pass the change allowing same sex marriage without delay as part of its role to honour Australia’s obligations under international Human Rights conventions.

However the likes of Brian Tamaki is another matter altogether.  That man needs to be arrested, prosecuted and when convicted, the key thrown away.  Why has this not occurred, well a number of his heavies are current, or ex New Zealand, Policemen.  However even these thugs are beginning to leave the flock to begin their own cults, sick and tired of playing second fiddle to the top fiddler, and fraudster.   In short the man has produced evil spawn.  LF hopes that the New Zealand authorities act to charge this moron with fraud, and blackmail as soon as possible.  Tamaki and his evil teachings need to be stopped.

Categorised in: ,


  • WOW only describes the content of this posting. The mainstream media should be embarrassed.

  • Travelling boy says:

    Great article. Well researched and persuasive argument. Great picture of Abbot. I voted for him because their was no real credible alternative. Scary guy this Mr Tamaki!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: