Saturday, December 29, 2007

Government-run health system

Here is a RESPONSE to a letter I had published in the BOP Times, concerning the government-run health system, and cancer statistics.

Below this is my response to the man.

I shall go and visit the man to discuss this matter next week!


Graham Clarks letter reveals his ignorance of NZs cancer therapy labelling it as die-while-you-wait appears scaremongering and irresponsible.

He uses cancer numbers to promote his political notions that socialised medicine kills and he claims that healthcare systems will always lack sufficient resources to treat all those seeking care with the result of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

In response: NZ Has wowrld class excellence in cancer treatment, specialists, equipment and skilled caring therapists. Should Mr Clark or his pfamily be unfortunate enough to develop cancer he might be most grateful to be living here and receive prompt, expert, life-saving therapy - at no extra cost to himself.

I invite Mr Clark to visit the BOP Cancer office at 98 14th avenue to discuss the concerns raised in his letter.


I am sorry that Mr Ingram disputes the facts of a recent study on socialised medicine, and the comparisons of cancer survival rates of the British (government-run health system) and the American private systems.

Mr Ingram has taken these facts personally, which is unfortunate, as there is no doubt that the practitioners operating in our die-while-you-wait system are of the highest calibre and aptitude. However the facts of the study remain, regardless of Mr Ingrams thoughts and wishes.

By being forced to pay for the over-worked, under-paid, under-resourced government-run system, New Zealanders are also prevented from purchasing into the superior PRIVATE healthcare system.

ALL Government-run health systems prevent people from receiving the very best medical care available when they want it! They reduce waiting lists by making it harder to qualify for them, instead of by medical procedures and surgery!

Come on Mr Ingram! If there were no benefits to private healthcare why would people pay the expensive premiums? They do it because they get better service, and healthcare when they WANT it, NOT when a government bureaucrat says they can have it!

Mr Ingram does his profession no justice in his attempt to justify the “emperor’s new clothes” theory.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Merry Christmas

Here it is - tIssue 78 of the Free Radical - out just in time for a Festive freedom-fix, and god-knows we need it after the electoral finance bill was passed into law.

I am looking forward to seeing the Winston Peters Billboard up at Mount Maunganui over the holiday period, and will be sending David my donation to keep it up there for as long as possible.

I would like to wish all of you a very merry Christmas and a Happy new year - all of you EXCEPT for those of you who want to tell me how to live my life, what I may or may not enjoy, imbibe, inhale or ingest, How to spend my money, what I should be spending it on, and what is for my own good.

To all those people I have resigned myself to continue fighting you at every opportunity in defence of life, freedom and private property, and I look forward to the day that you see the error of your ways.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Ike Turner (RIP)

Today I am in mourning for one of the unsung GREATS of Rock n Roll.
The much maligned and deamonised pioneer of Rock n Roll music, Mr Ike Turner died recently.

I just finished reading Ike’s autobiography, and all I can say is that I count myself very fortunate not to have experienced some of the racial inequality and hatred that he had to deal with during his career, and if he was bitter towards white people for how he was treated in those days I sympathise, and cannot say that I blame hime for one moment. Ike was certainly no angel, and he never denied having the odd set-to with Mrs Turner, but was nowhere near the ogre as depicted in the movie of Tina’s Life.

Now, I certainly do not condone domestic violence, but those were different times, and things that were acceptable or NORMAL THEN are certainly not acceptable NOW.

Ike was a scrawny whisp if a man in his younger days, and Tina was always a strong, muscular woman, and would have given the man far more than his moneys worth in any altercation, and for this man to be ex-communicated as he was, certainly appears to be no more than a huge media beat-up by Tinas publicity machine of the time as she fought to make a name for herself and stand on her own two feet after having everything previously done for her.

I do not doubt or refute that she may have been in a confrontational situation with her husband, but WHO can honestly say that they have never been in that situation? - not many!
True, they had an “unusual” relationship, but it was carried on just how it began, and they were both comfortable with the arrangements. Ike was not a “front-man’ nor the “star” but Ike was a visionary.

He manufactured Tina Turner!

He recognised her RAW POTENTIAL!

He taught her how to walk - how to dance in her provocative manner, exactly how to sing, how and what to wear.

He designed the stage outfits, choreographed the dance steps, and wrote the songs.

He hired and fired the band members, and ran a “very” tight ship. Musicians that didn’t tow the line, or do the dance etc had a very short career with the Ike and Tina Turner Review, and I am glad that he was finally credited with writing the “first” rock n Roll song, entitled Rocket 88.
A very young Elvis Presley used to sneak across the road into the “black” side, and sit behind Ike’s piano, and this is where he learnt his trade - watching Ike. Ike never sought the limelight, although he was firstly a piano player, and secondly a guitarist with a VERY unique style. Ike had an enormouse appetite for drugs, women and drink, and had far more than his fair share of all of them, and in those early 50s/60s/70s there sure seemed to be an abundance of all of those things in the age of free love and tune in, turn on and drop out.
Ike Turner was far more influential on the beginnings of Rock and Roll than is widely acknowledged, and I would like to thank him from a purely SELFISH point of view for his contribution to it.

Thanks Ike.

Thieves, Bullies, Parasites, and the use of FORCE

Here is an excerpt from a letter in the BOP Times from Mary Brook, accusing me of Slinging mud, and writing poison pen letters.

This is from a woman who clearly REFUSES to acknowledge that their is any other concept apart from socialism!

This person will NEVER understand the immorality of her position or philosophy of how people should be governed.

THIS from Mary Brook
I wonder if your correspondent Graham Clark actually reads the newspaper as hes still whingeing on about a $23 million waterfront museum, which was stopped at the first meeting of the new council.

As for Graham Clarks poison pen, he lumps me in with councillors Dillon and Pankhurst, alleging that people like this should never be allowed to be responsible fo decision making and taxpayers money . . .

So once and for all, I have NEVER supported a WATERFRONT museum - I PREFER ONE ON CLIFF ROAD OR THE OLD POST OFFICE . . So, Mr Clark before you start slinging more mud, just get your facts straight.


I dont know how many letters I have written on this subject, but these people do not get it!

They do not / WILL NOT - understand

They cannot comprehend that somebody is AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE
or that
spending ratepayers money (let alone actually TAKING IT FROM THEM) is the use of force upon others.

As you can see in the letter above, this woman vehemently defends her position of NEVER supporting a WATERFRONT museum, but then in the next paragraph, CLEARLY states that she is happy to RAPE RATEPAYERS to erect a museum at a different location - a location of which SHE approves!

She cannot distinguish a difference

I do not write poison-pen letters indiscriminantly.

My targets are clearly defined!

They ALL put their hand up and say “Pick Me!”

They are would-be thieves, bullies and parasites, who prey upon the minority with the justification of it being for their own good, and I would like to explain WHY Mary-Brook is justifiably a recipient!

I am AGAINST one person using force upon another to get their way!

I am also against individuals using an intermediary to use force on a minority on their behalf - EITHER WAY, the use of force is immoral.

Tarring Mary Brook with the same brush as ex Crs Dillon and Pankhurst is justified by the fact that these two call for the use of force to take money and spend it on a museum ( OR WHATEVER). It’s not that it’s on the waterfront - it could be on the dark-side of the moon for all I care - the issue is the use of force on a minority, and the smallest minority is the individual.

If people like Brooke, Dillon, Pankhurst were to desist in stealing my money/property, I wouldn’t have to defend myself!

Self-defence is not an act of aggression.

Ms Brook would be wise to look to her premise before making assertions.

Brooke and company do not like individuals defending their property, and would steal every last penny of it if they went un-opposed.

They are the aggressors, not I.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Editor shows his True Colours

It’s an over abundance of those who believe their “needs and wants” are enough to justify the theft of other peoples property that truly gets my back up, and the editor smugly entitling my letter “Greed beats Need” is a prime example of this mentality in operation!

If what I say is so wrong, explain why “taking other peoples money by force" (otherwise known as THEFT!!!!) is more moral than a persons property rights!

You wish to attain social benefits through the most immoral action one man can take upon another - the use of FORCE! - Why is this OK?

How is this a MORAL thing to do?

Isn’t stealing BAD?

Why is it different because government or council do it?

Why is trying to PROTECT private property from the grasp of THIEVES called GREED by the editor?

Justifying these actions as “for the benefit of the community” is twisted logic! -

The community is but a collection of individuals - Those whose rights you would deny!

The editor appears to define “greed” as somebody trying to keep hold of their personal property!

I define greed as people who are not happy with just their OWN property, but believe they have a right to other peoples property also!

PROPERTY RIGHTS RULE! - Ask anybody who doesn’t have them, yet all some do is want to abuse them! - CRAZYNESS

To STEAL from 1 person is THEFT
To STEAL from MANY people is TAXATION

Correspondence from Chris Carter

On 05/12/2007, at 8:27 PM, Chris Carter wrote:

Dear Graham

Thanks for your email and bog. I rather enjoyed reading it. Provided a bit of light relief in other wise boring day of National and ACT MPs raving about the Electoral Finance Bill. The poor things seem desperate about not getting the chance to spend the many millions their mates have given them to try and buy the next election. Life can be tough sometimes! Have a great Xmas and keep that humour flowing!

Chris Carter
MP for Te Atatu
(Please note - spelling errors above by Mr Carter)


My reply to Mr Carter

Thank you for taking the time to reply Chris.

I am not surprised that you found it amusing Chris, and do not worry, I shall keep the humour going until your party, and people like yourself, make it illegal for me to do so! - Then I guess I will carry on until you fine me and put me in jail for speaking my mind.

You see - some of us take it quite seriously when the likes of yourself think it is OK to destroy and take away one of our most basic rights.

You may NOT think this issue is serious and that it's OK to attack free speech in this manner, but what is next? Which one of our rights will you be happy to take away next? Where will you DRAW THE LINE in interfering with peoples rights and freedom?

As I mentioned before, you appear to think it is OK for your party to fill its coffers with money taken by FORCE, but it is NOT OK for other parties to accept DONATIONS which are given FREE of compulsion! - You seem to have side-stepped the Pledge card business, not to mention the unions funding the Labour party for years!

I really do not understand how you truly believe it is OK to use force on people to get what YOU want, and NOT OK for people to act of their own free will!

You seem a trifle BITTER about National and ACT BUYING and election with money that is GIVEN to them, yet the Labour Party are happy to STEAL money from people (take it from them against their will I think you will find is the definition of theft) and use it to BRIBE the population, offering benefits, handouts, and all kinds of stuff to them if they tick your box!

Please Chris why do you not see THIS is corrupt?

You wish to gain power, and keep your job, by appealing to to the huge amount of people who want a share of things that do not belong to them and that belong to other people. People who think they have a right to a share of the wealth that is earned by others.

You object to people, who actually earn and have accumulated wealth, from wishing to stop governments from STEALING it from them. Call it an act of self-defence.

You wish to stop them from DEFENDING their private property (with the money they have earned), and make it easier for those who want an unearned share of it to steal it from them!

How can an intelligent man not see that this is WRONG? (I am assuming that he is an intelligent man, when his spelling and grammar say otherwise!)

Anyone want a SHAG?

An attractive girl at work the other day yelled out


Not being of a particularly shy disposition, I kindly volunteered!

She was outside up against a plate glass window, so I came up on her from behind.

She struggled a bit at first, but I gently put my hands around her and held her until she calmed down.

Talk about beautiful! I was fascinated, and I couldn't take my eyes off her for ages.

She was a lot softer and smoother than I imagined her to be.

She made quite a racket initially, and thought perhaps I was being a bit rough, but she quietened down after I whispered sweet nothings in her ear.

Now, I have held a few birds in my time, but this one took the biscuit, and was quite a humbling experience, and as strange as it may seem, it was probably the first time for her, AND for me!

As the saying goes, "seize the day" or as the old Australian song goes "don't you ever let a chance go by" I saw the opportunity and grabbed it - to hell with the consequences - I mean what was the worst thing that could happen?

She may bite or kick or scratch me, but what the hell - I was willing to take that risk for a few joyous moments!

We then came inside and I showed her off to all my workmates, who had a bit of a laugh at my expense, so I took her back outside, where I said my goodbyes and released my grip on her . . .

It wasnt until then that I realised I had been tricked!

I thought I had a shag -

but in fact was really a HERON!
(that flew into a plate glass window at the rooftop premises where I work, and could not find how to get away.)

and then she FLEW AWAY and I haven't seen her since!


But I have long been a practitioner of the TAG AND RELEASE PROGRAMME!

WHY The Electoral Finances Bill SUCKS

The idea behind the Electoral Finances Bill is supposedly to level the playing field, but this evil piece of legislation due to become law very soon will have exactly the opposite effect.
The Labour Party want it introduced so as
to STOP those with money, from supporting a political group who share the same ideas, philosophy as they do. It is specifically designed to STOP people spending their OWN money on things they want to spend it on. In doing so it effectively PREVENTS THEM from PROTECTING their own interests or their property or income from the looters, highwaymen and other lowlifes that would wrestle and steal it from them, and that does not sound right to me! Not PC explains it PERFECTLY in the simple statement here:
"If you are offended by people donating to parties who support their views, then get over it, and get some better ideas yourself."
This is how I see it - This is a little simplistic, but I am trying to find a way to explain how it works, and why it is unjust: So, For example: The BLUE Political group is made up of people who wish to work hard, earn their own money, and spend it on their business to expand it and make it more successful, in order to spend it on anything they want. (Better health care, education, lifestyle, food, recreation - you name it)
They also want to retain the right to VOICE their disagreement with those who would steal their rights and their property.
The RED Political Group is made up of people who do not wish to work hard, but wish to obtain benefit from the money and benefits that are earned by those who DO wish to work hard. They want to STOP people from screaming whilst they violate their rights and property!

They wish to GAG them, so they cannot defend their property.
The RED group are allowed to spend $100 on advertising.

To convince the public to vote for THEM, They PROMISE that they will GIVE to anybody that votes for them, a whole bunch of money and things that they did not EARN! - call it a BRIBE!
Of course, that means that the RED GROUP will have to TAKE IT - STEAL IT - TAX IT - from those who HAVE EARNED IT (The BLUE Group)! in order to then hand it out. Human nature being what it is - everybody wants something for nothing - this is a VERY attractive concept to some - to those with a less moral conscience about where that money comes from. The BLUE GROUP also have $100 to spend on advertising.

Unfortunately, the things they have to offer are a lot less attractive.

What they have to offer is only attractive to those with a more MORAL or PRINCIPLED view of property rights.
They offer the ability to WORK (no incentive to those who do NOT want to work!) and to keep what you earn!

This is hardly as attractive a proposition as to NOT WORK, but get something for nothing is it?
The Red political party wish to stay in power, and continue stealing from the group who EARN MONEY, and giving it to a group who DO NOT earn it. They do not wish to do it by persuassion, or by choice, they intend to do it by FORCE and COMPULSION. To ensure they stay in power, they wish to introduce the ELECTORAL FINANCES BILL, which as I say, removes the ability of people to PROTECT their own private property Because the BLUE group do not agree with this concept, they have been protesting! The RED group do not like this - they do not see WHY they should speak up for their property rights, for their morals and principles. Well, to THEM I repeat: "If you are offended by people donating to parties who support their views, then get over it, and get some better ideas yourself."

Come early next year, my blog The Tomahawk Kid will be ILLEGAL!

Come early next year, it will be ILLEGAL for me to voice my opinion like this.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Making Tauranga a better place to live - NOT

No doubt Dave Ludlow of Drug-Arm has the best intentions, however, I question his solution to making Tauranga a better place to live by doubling the cost of alchohol!

This is the same scenario as cigarettes and tobacco.

Making them more expensive has its greatest impact on those who can least afford to pay the higher prices - it does not alter their want or need to partake in them.

The first thing that will happen will be an increase in robberies of shops, dairies, clubs and pubs.

Next will be a lucrative black market run by crooks and gangs, selling stolen goods and home-made products of dubious and uncontrolled contents.

The more expensive and illegal you make these things, the more potent and dangerous they become as “dealers” find ways to make them smaller and easier to conceal to hide them from the law.

Next will come home invasions fuelled by people desperate to get hold of expensive, artificially-inflated alchohol.

All of these things impact DIRECTLY upon innocent people - Joe public, shop-keepers etc.

I recommend reading some of the amazing stuff writen by Milton Friedman on drugs and prohibition - It would certainly give you a fresh perspective in your work, and less interference in the rights and lives of those who do NOT have drug and alchohol issues.

Your solution is equivalent to cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer.

Chris Carter - What a Disgrace

I am myself unfortunately a victim of the government run education system.

Taught by the likes of ex school teacher Mr Carter, it is a wonder I can string a sentence together at all, but I do at least make a conscious effort not to disgrace myself with basic spelling and sloppy punctuation!

This man is a disgrace, and how he can hold his position as Minister of Education, and still look people in the eye is beyond comprehension - much like the content of his letter above!

He says "After all, surely you believe in open honest government where cash isn't used to buy elections by secret lobby groups like the Brethren . . ."

Not only does he have trouble spelling at an elementary level, but he has a short memory as well!

Do I need to remind him of the PLEDGE CARD FIASCO earlier this year?

OK the money wasn't donated by anyone as such - they just STOLE IT instead!

Labour PURCHASE their popularity by offering more and more handouts to those who are unwilling to earn them! How many on the receiving end of a handout of ANY description (including stuff like NZ on Air etc) are going to vote for a political party who will put an end to this type of theft.

Not to mention for years Labour governments making it COMPULSORY for ALL workers to be in the UNION - Who needs money from the Brethren etc when you can fill your coffers like this?

What I do with my money Mr Carter is absolutely NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS - or anybody elses for that matter

Why should ANYBODY take any notice of ANYTHING you say when it is expressed so thoughtlessly - and not to mention crudely - as in the correspondence above.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Tony Ryall - National Party Questionnaire

I received in the post a questionnaire from National Party MP, Tony Ryall.

The following are some of the questions, which were to be answered with a yes or no:

I believe they deserve MORE than that, so read on to see what I said to Mr Ryall.

Q: Should we make our Doctors and Nurses stay in the country for a certain time after we have trained them!

A: WHAT? - If they decide they want to leave, how do you suggest we do that Mr Ryall? - Put them in prison? - Chain them to the operating table?

What kind of question is this from a political party whose principles state it stands for
Individual freedom and choice?

Q: Should it be compulsory to take DNA samples from anybody that is arrested - the same as fingerprints?
A: Why dont you just Micro chip us all instead and get it over and done with Mr Ryall

Q: Should there be more trade training in schools?
A: Remove the government from the school system.
Let schools specialise in trade training if they wish.
Let parents chose which schools they wish to send their children to.

All the above questions are MULTIPLE CHOICE - ie YES or NO

I bet 9 out of 10 people getting this questionnaire, will just tick a box, so that the feedback they get is: YES force people to stay here against their will (without even THINKING about it)

or YES lets teach the TRADES in schools

No wonder the party is so pathetic when the questions they are asking call for for such MINDLESS ANSWERS


These people really have lost their way haven't they!

This is the party whose principles state they stand for:

LIMITED GOVERNMENT (do those questions above look like they are looking to interfere in LESS?)



National party principles are great - only NONE of the National party Mps know what they are, let alone know what the words actually mean.

They sure do deserve the current title

Monday, December 03, 2007

Parking Wardens are SCUM

There is nothing that really makes my skin crawl more than the sight of a parking warden, frothing at the bung in a frenzy of activity on a sunny, summer, sunday morning outside a church, school fete or market.

What kind of a person does one have to be to get up that early on a Sunday, and head off to some destination out of the city where people are gathering for a peaceful morning of worship or jumble rummaging, to issue parking infringement notices.

On the weekend I stood watching one such council employed lowlife alpha-numerically and systematically spoil the day for numerous unsuspecting victims out for a pleasant morning at the local market.

One person, actually parked with wheels inside the parking zone, but with boot hanging outside the area - still leaving the driveway behind him clear ,was mercilessly given a ticket, while another, parked on a wide grass verge, not obstructing man or beast felt the wrath of the wardens savage pen.

Some young guy - not as opposed to vociferously sharing his view of the lineage of the wardens parents as some of the other more compliant sheeple - became quite aggressive both verbally and visually, and I thought I was going to witness an assault right there and then on this lovely morning. Fortunately he just informed the warden that he would find out where he lived, and would sort him out on some other occasion, which I thought was quite considerate of him seeing as it was the sabbath and all.

So, what kind of person actually volunteers to do this kind of dirty work on behalf of the local councils around the country.

I mean forgive me if I am incorrect, but are these people not like those who appeased Hitler or Stalin? The old excuse of " But they are just doing their job" doesn't work for me! Thats what the guys running the gas chambers said!

Appeasers are the worst kind of scum I reckon because they KNOW what they are doing is Wrong, or Bad or questionable, but go ahead and do it anyway.

********* STOP PRESS:
Heres the rub - the Coup de grace, the Icing on the cake or even Karma if you will

Whilst on my lunchbreak today, I followed the very same lowlife I was talking about in the article above, approach my car I asked him if he was going to write me a ticket, and he said welly, you have been here for an awfully long time.

I said I had moved my car in that time - I had been out (of the car park) and came back
He said my chalk mark says you have not.

He THEN walked to the back of my car to check for a chalk mark which was almost under the tyre
I said I reversed out of the space, and had driven back in. He said "you are not allowed to do that - you have to DRIVE AROUND THE BLOCK and give somebody else the chance to park there." I asked him where it said this in the parking rules, to which he would not answer

He said the chalk mark would have worn off EVEN IF I DID JUST BACK OUT AND COME BACK IN"
So, I did this - reversing to the other side of the road and back - just as I had done earlier, while he stood and watched.

The Parking attendant WITNESSED that THE MARK WAS IN THE SAME POSITION, AND AS CLEAR AS HE HAD MARKED IT - He stood and witnessed me do so!

While I did this, he started writing me a parking ticket.
Even After I had moved OUT of the space and then back in again! I aked questions to the warden in a friendly, and non-confrontational manner, but he continued to write my ticket - handed it to me and walked off. So now I have a REALLY PERSONAL Dislike of parking scum, and have to pay $30 for the privilege.

I shall write and contest the ticket, but dont hold much hope of winning. - worth a crack though

What kind of physical traits would be ideal to complete a satisfactory days work as a parking warden?

Here are a few suggestions of my own

Being Deaf wouldnt hurt.

6ft 8in and built like Arnie

Sexy female wearing a bikini? :-)

or even a Hairy MALE in a bikini :-(

A Monobrow

An AK47

Terets Syndrome

A Jehovas Witness