John Key’s damaging leadership – Elton John – gay “rights’ to marriage?
Commentary by Amy Brooke
What has happened to this country under the soft tyranny of groupthink? And is it time to acknowledge that never were individuals of courage more needed?
Few would disagree with Peter Drucker’s statement that: “Management is about doing things right; leadership is about doing the right things.” On both counts we can legitimately maintain that the present Prime Minister John Key has been as damaging in his domination of his colleagues and in setting the directions for this country as the self-willed Helen Clark was before him.
An extreme statement? Not when we know that a score or so National Party MPs, individually asked privately if they supported the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation – (what became The Marine and Coastal Area Act, giving special rights to opportunistic iwi with no genuine claim to these under the Treaty of Waitangi) – admitted that they didn’t. These National MPs were not in favour of it. They knew very well that the majority of New Zealanders had good reason to regard this claim as a rort – and that it would open a whole new can of worms, compounding the damage already done to this country with divisive, preferential iwi legislation.
So they were then asked if they would vote against it. No. Not one said they would. Each gave the same excuse… that they did not want to lose ministerial salaries, cars, perks and privileges within the National Party – which they regarded would undoubtedly the case if they stood up publicly against their party leader.
John Key rules, OK? But why? Isn’t this supposed to be a democracy?
John Key opposed 85% of the country who rightly viewed with alarm the proposal to criminalise parents who smack a naughty child.
John Key must be right? – although, as we would expect, uneasy National Party MPs didn’t want to vote for this either. And right across this country today, demoralised parents are now fearful, too intimidated to properly control their children, to even administer a well-deserved smack to a naughty child who couldn’t care less about time-out – lest well-programmed teachers at school ask the kind of questions children were asked to report on their parents in Nazi Germany.
An exaggeration? No – it’s happening.
What when John Key was complicit in Peter Sharples sneaking off to New York without the country being informed – or having any say in this hugely important issue – to sign the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples…opening yet another can of worms as it recognises “the rights of indigenous people to self-determination… and to manage their own affairs”? Regardless of the fact that an increasing body of evidence shows that Maori were not the indigenous people of this country, and that early Maori recognised those who had gone before them as “the tangata whenua”…regardless of the fact that Key has taken it upon himself to allow the contentious Maori self-determination flag to be flown from Auckland Harbour Bridge and public buildings on Waitangi Day – the Prime Minister assures us that signing this Declaration is merely “aspirational”.
Aspirational of what?
This Declaration specifically mentioned “water rights”. And what are we now faced with? Spurious claims to water rights.
How many National MPs crossed the floor to represent their electorates on this issue?
The Emissions and Trading Scheme? There are National MPs who did not want to vote for this either, knowing full well the cost to the country, and that the whole theory of global warming has not only never been proved – but that the actual evidence is strongly against it.
They did as they were told.
One of the most damaging proposals ever to come before the country, potentially immensely damaging to the fabric of our society, is the proposal, in the name of a spurious “equality”, to legislate for an agreement between same-sex individuals to be regarded as a genuine marriage.
Deep down most New Zealanders well know that marriage has nothing to do with any relationship between individuals of the same sex. But so well have gay rights activists managed to portray themselves as victims, while unfairly demonising concerned individuals as “homophobic” and “intolerant” – (even while they themselves have shown a complete lack of tolerance for others’ point of view – extending to unfairly pillorying them, mounting vendettas, and attacking websites) – that the liberal Left has fallen hook, line and sinker for their pressing the “intolerance” button. And what they have been well concealing is that there is a great deal more at stake than simply seeking an “equality” which has nothing whatever to do with marriage.
Should we be surprised that this basically aggressive campaign has the Prime Minister’s approval – apparently because he doesn’t think it will make any difference to his and his wife’s marriage? But are we entitled to expect more than this sort of superficial thinking with which we have become so familiar from the leader of the country? Contrast this with Justice Minister Judith Collins, announcing the restructuring of access to the Family Court, saying that this body must “put the needs of children first, rather than those of private couples with relationship issues. “
The needs of children? Apparently, in the midst of the current practice of the commodification of children, bringing them into the world to satisfy the demands of self focusing “elites”, Elton John acknowledges that his son is getting a raw deal. “It will break my son’s heart to realise he hasn’t got a mother.” The extremely brave Australian commentator Bill Muehlenberg whose book on the attack launched by militant gays against Western society has achieved record sales, previously wrote about how Elton and his “husband” ordered a baby boy, conceived by an anonymous surrogate mother from California and a separate egg donor, much like one would put in a demand for a made-to-order sports car. This rock star reveals that he’d like his son Zachary, who now calls him Daddy (what does he call Elton’s partner? Mummy?) to have a sibling.
Muehlenberg, with the kind of courage which has brought him under quite vicious attack by the militant gay movement – including the usual nasty name-calling, and extending to death threats , emphasises – “We can stop right there for a moment. Did you get that? He actually admits that he is depriving his child of one of the two most important persons in his life – his own mother – and yet he wants to do it again to another poor kid. And of course young Zachary does not even have the same biological father either. All he has is some spoiled rotten senior citizen rocker and his male lover. “John will shortly be 67 years, his partner 51.