Labour’s charity spokeswoman, coat-of-many-colours Louisa Wall, and a member of the Australian Charity Law Association (ACLA), Dr. Michael Gousmett, are complaining that the current law is creating “inequality in our tax system”.
Today’s regulations give tax relief to private schools, fee-charging hospitals, Ngai Tahu’s 38 limited liability companies (including Shotover Jet and Whale Watch Kaikoura) and food giant Sanitarium with no public benefit test holding them to account.
Notwithstanding that Kiwi kids are Weetbix kids, why on earth does a breakfast cereal manufacturer have charitable status? And Ngai Tahu’s tourist attractions? I’m gobsmacked. The other day, I asked a member of the iwi, “How’s Ngai Tahu?”. He replied, “Rich!” No wonder.
As for private schools and private hospitals, it seems that the government concedes charitable status (i.e., tax relief) to private institutions that are still performing those charitable roles that the government, with its state schools and public health system, has long-since tried to usurp.
Merely operating as a hospital or school meets the criteria of charitability as it relieves pressure on the public system, even if the charity is charging fees largely unaffordable to most people.
Wall said charitable trusts that benefit only the wealthy were “creating divisions between the haves and the have-nots”.
“Those who least need charity are benefiting the most. It is helping those who can afford to pay to go to private hospitals and private schools, not those who actually need the help.
“We as a country are giving these organisations up to $600m worth of tax relief under the assumption that $600m should be reinvested back into the community, and if that is not happening we desperately need to change the law.”
Note the standard socialist newspeak. Thieving is now “reinvesting back into the community,” and not thieving is now “giving tax relief.” And the thieves are now “out of pocket.” Poor government! If only there were 54 weeks in the year, then they could just keep borrowing at their current rate of $300 million per week and they wouldn’t be “out of pocket.” Meanwhile, the charities sector is “swallowing” $600 million of its own money every year! Into the giant, gaping maw of charity! The horror!
The Government is $600 million out of pocket each year as the charities sector swallows $400m through income tax exemption and $200m in tax credit refunds, yet Cabinet decided against reviewing charity law last year through “fiscal cost” fears.
Recent calls to urgently review the sector were once again quashed by Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Jo Goodhew yesterday.
Charitable purpose relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion or any other matter beneficial to the community, she said.
The Charities Registration Board determines whether or not an organisation fits within the Charities Act 2005 and the DIA Charities Services monitors charities to ensure they operate for exclusively charitable purposes.
“Irrespective of what a charity looks like, as long as they are operating within the law, that is what we should be assuring ourselves on,” she said.
The Government decided against reviewing the law relating to charities last year through fears more organisations may have expected to be eligible for charitable status which could have “increased fiscal costs”, an Inland Revenue spokeswoman said.
So, the truth outs. It’s the government being uncharitable, not the charities. Allowing people to give their own money directly to those in need is an “increased fiscal cost” to the government? Well, no. It’s actually an “increased fiscal cost” to those doing the giving. That’s how charity works.
Inland Revenue was aware of “the public concerns relating to charities” and would be monitoring them to ensure they were operating exclusively for charitable purposes, she said.
I drafted this letter to Peter Dunne while sitting on the train this afternoon.
Dear Peter,
Re: Psychoactive Substances bill
I understand that your main motivation for promoting this legislation is safety.
I am concerned that the safety testing process for potentially approved psychoactive substances will be unnecessarily long-winded, prohibitively expensive, cruel (if tested on animals) and either too stringent or too lax to be effective. It will not be practically possible to establish likely adverse long-term effects of new psychoactive substances.
Drug users did not ask for this legislation.
Why not legalise substances such as cannabis, methylphenidate, BZP and MDMA?
All these substances have been trialled on humans and have good safety profiles.
Methylphenidate is routinely prescribed to children. Why not legalise it for adult recreational use?
Cannabis has been used safely for millennia. No one has ever died from a cannabis overdose.
If cannabis were already legal, demand for synthetic cannabinoids would be negligible and the proposed legislation would be unnecessary.
There are two kinds of Christians in this world. Those who post tributes to Jeff Hanneman, Slayer’s recently deceased guitarist, on Facebook. And those who post comments like this on said tribute posts.
A sad wasted life. Hell awaits.
I took umbrage at this, and messaged the author. He explained
It was a sad life. I wish he would have turned to Christ, but it didn’t appear that he did.
Fair comment. I, too, am sad that Jeff did not repent before he took his final breath. But a sad, wasted life? And hell awaits? On a tribute thread?
Yes, folks, this is the post on which you get to speculate (in the comments) on Jeff Hanneman’s afterlife destination!
Here’s what I believe.
Hell, or “Hades” in the original Hebrew, is the grave. And that is where Jeff Hanneman will soon be. (After his funeral, but I’ll get to that.) In God’s eyes, we are all sinners, and the wages of sin is death, so (other things being equal) we’re all going to die. It’s a simple enough argument, and even atheists agree with its conclusion. But here is Christ’s promise to mortal man.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Christians live in the hope that one day Jesus will return to fulfill His promise. Then shall be the Resurrection of the Dead and the Final Judgement. After which there is rest for the wicked, who succumb to the Second Death (Satan Laughs As You Eternally Rot) while the redeemed enjoy eternal life.
It’s a simple, stark choice. Do you go to the grave, or do you submit your life to Christ? Doing God’s will is all that’s asked of you. It sure beats pursuing your own pitiful plans!
But the reality is that that’s what Jeff Hanneman did. And he succeeded, by earthly standards. He drank lots of Heineken. Lots. And he screwed lots of hot metal chicks. Lots. As rock stars do. And then he settled down and married his lovely wife, Kathy. (So, this is all speculation, but I bet I’m not wrong.) And, in the meantime, he wrote the best songs for, and played lead guitar for, the greatest heavy metal band of all time. I am in awe. This is not a good Christian life by any reckoning, but a sad, wasted life? I don’t think so.
I am grateful to Jeff Hanneman for his life. He has brought me, and countless other metallers, hour upon hour of listening pleasure. And he’s saved people’s lives. Slayer’s music has given many disaffected, disturbed, depressed young people, on the verge of topping themselves, the strength to carry on. (Again, this is all mostly speculation, but I bet I’m not wrong.)
Thank God for Jeff Hanneman.
That’s my comment on my friend’s Facebook thread, and it leaves the comment at the top of this post for dead. Which brings me to my final point. The commenter’s Christian brothers and sisters will, I hope, at least understand where the commenter was coming from. But non-Christians (as I was, until recently) will not. I took exception to the comment because it was a steady diet of such dismissive, derogatory, judgemental comments from Christians that helped sustain my more than three decades of atheism in adult life.
We are Christ’s representatives on earth, and we should act like we know it. It’s one reason I founded this blog. To reach out to other Slayer fans!
Jeff Hanneman’s afterlife destination is ultimately up to his Maker. May God have mercy on his soul.
The Gun Blog Black list is a blog about Gun blogs.
For 2nd Amendment Patriots and Libertarians.
You can find it here: http://gunblogblacklist.blogspot.co.nz/
Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman died early this morning of liver failure.
He will be remembered as guitarist and song writer for the greatest heavy metal band of all time.
He was 49. He is survived by his wife Kathy, his sister Kathy and his brothers Michael and Larry. And, of course, his fellow band members and a legion of fans.
Hanneman had been off the road since he contracted necrotizing fasciitis—thought to be from a spider bite—in early 2011. It’s not known what role the disease played in Hanneman’s liver failure.
The same thing ought to apply to all those who want to continue the war on drugs, have public health and education, ban guns, impose hate speech laws, , keep prostitution illegal, lock out Mexicans, etc, etc. The only True Americans are the Libertarians… The policies of Dems and Reps are all as bad and as un American as the Sharia Law.
They can make no claim to upholding the Constitution.
They are Hypocrites.
And of course many of the Islamic migrants living in Western democracies migrated to escape the tyranny of Sharia Law… from Afghanistan… from Egypt, etc.
They appreciate freedom, and are productive, tollerant and civilised members of our societies, peacefully practicing their own faith on equal terms with everyone else.
They do not wish to establish Sharia Law.
And it is bigotry to think that all Muslims are religious fanatics who desire to impose their faith on others by force, or to kill Christians…etc.
What is truely sickening are all the so-called Libertarians who wont vote Libertarian!
How sickning it is to watch them waste their votes by voting ‘Republican’… and then hear the excuse that the Libertarians have no hope of getting elected!
What is worse is that the actually elect * Right wing Socialist Republicans!*
(Facepalm)
I admit that Ron Paul was an exceptional Republican, yet what the Republican party did to stop him becomming their candidate for Presedent ought to be evidence enough that the Republican party is hell bent on maintaining the Status quo… it has no agenda of Libertarian reform.
In no way ought Libertarians to be suckered into supporting Rand Paul.
He should have quit the Party after what they did to his old man, yet he has chosen to stick around simply out of personal ambition rather than principle.
“The flu vaccine would not exist if scientists did not have a firm grasp on the facts of evolution. It is updated yearly to keep up with the evolution of the virus, which changes so much and so quickly that the previous year’s vaccine is no longer effective. How do these changes occur? You might think that the answer is mutation, but that’s only a small part of the process. Mutations are random, but the virus keeps growing more drug-resistant. Clearly there’s something else going on here.
When you get a flu shot, your body gains the ability to produce antibodies to the flu virus; if you are exposed to it afterwards, your body fights it off. The antibodies kill most, but not all of the virus particles. Some virions have genetic variations that allow them to survive the onslaught of your antibodies. They aren’t any better or stronger than the others; it’s just genetic randomness.
Eventually these survivor virions will be passed onto someone else whose body will perform the same process, helping to weed the virus population down to only those virions that are completely resistant to the vaccine. The following year when their descendants return, they will be immune to it. They will be genetically different from the ancestor virus. They will have evolved from a previous state.”
^^^^^ There you have the bold claim that *Evolution is an observable Reality*.
Yet I want people to think about this with a bit more depth.
Does the fact that life forms become resistant to chemicals or bugs… or that their genetics can be seen to be in some way different from their parents really mean they are ‘evolving’ ?
I dispute this!
I say when life forms adapt in such ways they are work within the designed parameters of their Species.
They are in no way ‘evolving’.
Thus I say it may be so that a flu virus may ‘change’ so as to become immune to our bodies own artificially enhanced defenses (re via a vaccine) … but it certainly does not *Evolve*….any more than we ‘evolve’ when we get a vaccine and start to manufacture new antibodies.
Let me suggest to you that the shyster Evolutionists have set up a scam.
The scam is they have two definitions for the word evolution… they have legitimized a form of philosophical equivocation and via cunning trickery have managed to deceive people into believing that Evolution is both the Continuity of species… and it’s transmutation.
I am referring to the scam claims of Micro-Evolution.
Real Darwinian Evolution is the claim that species transmutate from one species into a completely *new* and fundamentally *different* species like from Germ to fish. Fish to Mammal, etc.
And while I admit that this is said to be a process which takes place via thousands/ millions of tiny steps, I wish to point out that the so-called evolutionary steps are not like gaining immunity, but are like a flipper slowly turning into a foot via a linear series of fortuitous genetic accidents.
I say this ‘Flu virus argument is completely bogus because it does not involve anything like this linear transition from one specific species into another.
It is completely dishonest to say that when anything becomes immune to something that the thing has evolved.
That is pseudo science and it evidences just how vacuous the theory of evolution is in that they must grasp at straws in attempts to justify their absurd superstition.
So-called Micro-evolution is nothing more than a ruse.
I could say that your nose is turning into beak, or that a birds beak is turning into a nose!
There is *no science* at all in the so-called notion of Micro evolution.
Merely wild conjecture based upon a very doctored and systematically arranged/ cherry picked samples of comparative anatomy… and a heavily ideologically imposed interpretation of everything biological.
*This claim of Flu Virus ‘Evolution’ is a perfect example*
The Virus is not evolving but doing what it has always done… ie it is being a virus!
The reality is that many species have the capacity for a great variation while remaining true to their kinds.
Dogs are a good example.
And this can easily be proven by comparing the so-called ‘latest’ virus with the ‘older one’ and realizing that there is no discernable linear progression from some unknown pre-virus… into some unknown Post-virus life from.
Ask the Evolutionist from what is the virus evolving away from and into what is it transmutating?
The facts are the Virus is going nowhere.
It remains a virus.
It is maintaining it’s ‘Virus-ness’… and this is the exact opposite of evolution… ie it demonstrates a continuity and fundamental integrity of the species.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Update: 17 June 13. Here is a link to an article which validates my asertions above Re: When bugs become resistant to antibiotics and vaccines they are not evolving. This one is about Bacteria… Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?
Read about The Ludicrous claims of Evolution Here:
Read about how Russells Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism here:
^^^^ WoW that was Great to hear Live!
Auckland 22 April. Vector Arena.
Update:
My blogpost generated immediate debate.
In the process of looking for supportive sources for my position I came across several interesting sites…
………………………………………………..
Has the HIV Virus Demonstrated Evolution In Any Way?
No! Many false claims have been made. Here are the facts.
#1 If we had an example of new information being added by a random mutation, by random chance (though we do not have any example of new information being added by random chance, neither in HIV nor anywhere else), we would not have any evidence that evolution ever took place causing one kind of plant or animal to become another kind of plant or animal. If there were such an example, which there is not, in HIV or anywhere, then we would have shown that such addition of new information could possibly happen, (though present observation implies that it is absolutely impossible, but, if an example were to be be found, which it has not, then such an observation (which is only imagined at present) would only show that such a thing would be possible.
“Viruses can have no evolutionary relationship to any other form, and so whatever may have happened to say, the AIDS virus, has no relevance to the supposed history of truly living organisms in any case. An apparently major effect is probably caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity…. Long after this article was published, the PBS/SBS Evolution series used HIV/AIDS as ‘proof’ of evolution. Yet the new data has done nothing to make the principles in this article obsolete. Rather, in one case, HIV resistance to drugs was clearly caused by a deleterious mutation, as shown by their inability to cope with the ‘wild’ type when the drugs were removed; and immunity to AIDS can be conferred by a mutation that causes loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing the HIV from docking on them.” ~ Creation.com
And here is an interesting you tube vid which confirms my point about Evolution’s ‘Equivocation’ and non-falsifiable pseudo scientific nature.
Update 2. 26-4-13
Thinking about this more… the most important aspect of this is Mutation and *the question of new Genetic information* Ie In what way do random mutations bring ‘Change over time’?
And anyone knowledgeable on this subject understands that *Mutation does not add improved codes but destroys portions of code…adds errors etc and I… though no geneticist can easily see how such a random degenerative step caused by an error in replication of a virus could fortuitously render it capable of escaping detection by our immune system… yet in itself clearly not represent any thing that can be described as an evolutionary change.
An example I have used in my arguments is the creation in the Lab of the Wingless fly.
Scientists bombarded flies with radiation and caused various mutations in their young.
One was the Wingless Fly.
Now clearly it’s genetics have been altered and a ‘new’ type of fly created… yet it is still a fly… a grotesquely deformed fly.
Other ‘mutations’ to the genes occurred too that were not as detrimental to the fly as this heinous deformity, yet none can be said to have been the addition/ writing in of ‘advanced’ DNA which can vindicate the claims of the evolutionists that mutation is the mechanism by which Germs became people… the transmutation of species… and lets not forget that that is what the theory of evolution is!
do not be smoked into thinking that ‘any’ change is evidence of evolution… or proof that the theory has merit.
Mutation is in reality a degenerative force, and the Math is so far against the wild conjecture that Mutations can be used to advance Evolution that it ranks up there with the ‘Spontaneous generation of life’ in statistical absurdities.
This is the extreme unscientific basis Atheist Naturalist evolutionist must go to deny Intelligent design and the existence of God!
Life indeed has all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose!
Random accidents cant draw up blueprints… cannot write turn a Model A into a Bugatti Veyron!
Lost in the darkness
I fade from the light
Faith of my father, my brother, my Maker and Savior
Help me make it through the night
Blood on my conscious
And murder in mind
Out of the gloom I rise up from my tomb into impending doom
Now my body is my shrine
The blood runs free
The rain turns red
Give me the wine
You keep the bread
The voices echo in my head
Is God alive or is God dead?
Is God dead?
Rivers of evil
Run through dying land
Swimming in sorrow, they kill, steal, and borrow. There is no tomorrow
For the sinners will be damned
Ashes to ashes
You cannot exhume a soul
Who do you trust when corruption and lust, creed of all the unjust,
Leaves you empty and unwhole?
When will this nightmare be over? Tell me!
When can I empty my head?
Will somebody tell me the answer?
Is God really dead?
Is God really dead?
To safeguard my philosophy
Until my dying breath
I transfer from reality
Into a mental death
I empathize with enemy
Until the timing’s right
With God and Satan at my side
From darkness will come light
I watch the rain
And it turns red
Give me more wine
I don’t need bread
These riddles that live in my head
I don’t believe that God is dead
God is dead
Nowhere to run
Nowhere to hide
Wondering if we will meet again
On the other side
Do you believe a word
what the Good Book said?
Or is it just a holy fairytale
And God is dead?
God is Dead x4
Right!
But still the voices in my head
Are telling me that god is dead
The blood pours down
The rain turns red
I don’t believe that God is dead
God is Dead x4
Here are a couple of Randroid memes seen recently on Facebook. (Here and here.)
Can you spot the obvious absurdity of these statements? Well, as one Facebook commenter explains
Quoting Ayn Rand is pretty absurd for starters, but “reality” and the consequences of ignoring reality are all part of the same set (reality) so it is making a distinction that doesn’t exist… so it really is saying nothing…
In other words, the consequences (of avoiding reality) are themselves part of reality. Therefore, Ayn Rand is saying that you can avoid reality and that you cannot avoid reality. She has arrived at a contradiction!
Ayn Rand’s work is littered with contradictions. They blend in with their context, so that her followers find them hard to spot. Which is why I bother to point them out. It’s a labour of love.
Ayn Rand was not much of a philosopher, but there’s no denying she had a wicked turn of phrase. This one’s my all-time favourite Rand sound-bite.
To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking. To maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Rand has arrived at a contradiction. But we all make errors in our thinking from time to time. So how do I back my claim that Objectivism causes brain damage? Well, to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind … i.e., brain damage. And that’s what Objectivists do. They maintain Rand’s contradiction! You see, Rand never said
You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
And she never said
You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
[Man] is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss [that] he refuses to see.
