Why one woman voted for Trump instead of Hillary

Hillary and her supporters assumed that the women’s vote belonged to her because she had a vagina which is a very sexist assumption. They assumed that American women would want the glass ceiling broken so badly that they would vote for a woman no matter what the content of her character was.They assumed that all women were pro-abortion and that they didn’t care about things like national security or national debt .They thought that American women would believe that the only way to protect the LGBT community and to take care of the black community and minorities was to vote democrat.

…I?m sick and tired of it. I?m sick and tired of these uninformed jackholes telling me that I?m racist, sexist, Islamophobic and homophobic.?They have no basis for those claims. They?re consumed by their emotions. ?Do they?honestly believe Hillary Clinton lost solely because she?s a woman? It?couldn?t?possibly have anything with her being a pathological liar who?s spent her entire life pursuing political power? It had nothing?to do with the fact that America?s?not satisfied with her vision for America? an America with open borders, higher taxes and?more bureaucratic scumbags in D.C. telling us?how to run our lives?

We?re not racist. We?re not sexist. We want people to come into this country legally. That?s not racist.?Progressive leadership in the big, urban cities hasn?t pulled the black community out of poverty. It?s worsened it. Liberalism has failed them. We acknowledge that. We want them to prosper. That?s not racist.?And as for being sexist? All issues are women?s issues. I have no idea why liberals continue to separate them. Do they really believe we only care about vaginas, boobs and killing our offspring? Liberals assumed we (women) would vote for Hillary based on those reasons alone. THAT?S sexist, if you ask me. Women care about the economy. We care about national security. We care about the?almost $20 trillion national debt. We care about the erosion of our freedoms. We care about the future of the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on and on.

Read more »

Muslim sense of humor

Some of you will recall a post I did about a website called Happy Muslim families. Since I visited it and downloaded some Pdfs containing tips to help husbands and wives have a happy marriage I have been receiving regular newsletters in my in box.

My latest newsletter is too good not to share. It provides we infidels with an insight into this chaps sense of humor and the reality of how easy it is for a Muslim man to divorce his wife or control and cower her by threatening divorce.I wonder if the female New Zealand converts to Islam featured in the Herald on Sunday are aware of their new diminished rights and status under Islam?

Screen shot 2015-02-23 at 10.04.56 AM

Irfan Ullah Khan Co-Founder Happy Muslim Family


This is one of the funniest and rare stories about the people
who threaten with divorce.

In one of their conversations, a man told Khaleefah Ar-Rasheed: “I was informed that an Arab had divorced five women in one day.”


Read more »

Guest Post – State housing bliss or simply valium induced happy memories?


An article in the paper yesterday sings the praises of State Houses in the past.

They were joyous places it says, and children were even named ?Joy? as a response to the pleasure of the parents who had gained their first house, thanks to the state.

Perhaps they were.? Or perhaps the memory of those housing estates has retrospective pink icing.

Yes the houses were good and solid, although surprisingly small by today?s standards.? And they had big sections.

There is a ?but? creeping in here! ? Read more »

The Evolution of Marriage


When Gay marriage was being debated marriage itself came under the spotlight. All of a sudden we were asking ourselves..

What is marriage?

Is marriage about children?

Is marriage a religious institution or a secular one?

I wondered about the origins of marriage, the purpose of marriage and how it has evolved from the past to what we recognise as marriage now.

Read more »

Gang Bang, Gang Rape, Gang Dad?

Skip Taitapanui, Gang Dad.

Skip Taitapanui, Gang Dad.


A Whakatane gang member is upset he has been told by his son’s school he can no longer be a parent helper at his son’s school camp.

Skip Taitapanui said he was told by James Street School he could no longer go to the camp because he was an active gang member.

James Street School principal Norah Schreiber said Mr Taitapanui could complain through the school’s processes if he was unhappy, but she would not comment any further about the school’s decision.

Mr Taitapanui said he did his best to be a good father and made no bones about parts of his own childhood spent in Child, Youth and Family care after his father died when he was 12.

It is good that he is there for his son after having experienced the loss of his own father at a young age.

He is also open when speaking about his gravitation towards a gang at a young age.

“I looked at the gang as a family,” Mr Taitapanui said.

“I still do close to three decades later.”

Now here is where it gets tricky. If he sees the Gang as a family then he is part of a family that uses violence, that sells drugs, that breaks the law to gain entry to ‘ the family ‘ and that has an extremely negative association in the public’s minds.

When I ask you to say the very next word that pops into your mind after I say the word Gang. I bet it is the word rape or bang. It is very unlikely indeed to be Dad.

But it is his gang involvement that has seen his exclusion from his son’s Term 4 camp this year.

In March this year Mr Taitapanui helped at his son’s James Street School overnight marae stay.

Following the camp, he was “rapt” to be asked by his son’s teacher to be parent help at Camp Hamilton later this year.

After he agreed, a letter was sent home to parents on May 28 announcing Mr Taitapanui and others as camp parents.

Not long after when picking up his son from school, he was called into the principal’s office and told he couldn’t go to camp because he was an active gang member.

The schools real problem is that they have already allowed him previously as parent help. If it wasn’t for the fact that his son’s teacher asked him to be parent help again I would assume that the real reason for telling him no, the second time was because of how he may have behaved the first time. However that does not appear to be the case so perhaps some other parents complained later?

“Removing my beanie, I asked her if it was because of the tattoo on my forehead or because of the colours I wear.

“I told her the tattoo is always covered and I would not be taking any coloured clothing with me, but she still said no. She repeated it was because I am an active gang member.

“I even asked if my son’s mother could go instead of me and was told no again.”

Now that part is very strange. If the Mother is not in the gang then why would the school say no to her? I don’t think the journalist has asked the right questions. The school would not say no lightly. Has he or his partner dealt drugs in the past? Why are the school wary of having them as parent help?

Gutted, Mr Taitapanui then had to explain to his son why he wasn’t going to camp.

“As a dad I want the best for my son and I want to be able to support him in everything he does.

“I also want to take a stand for other dads who are part of gangs and might come up against something like this.”


Mr? Taitapanui, no matter how loving a Dad you are this ‘ family ‘ you are exposing your son to is bad. Very bad. You and your Partner are his family. You need to make a choice. Your fake ‘family’ or your real family.

Actions have consequences. You have turned yourself into a scary character by being an active member of a scary organisation. Why would other parents want someone like you around their children?

Happy Fathers Day

To all the Fathers out there, Happy Fathers Day.

Special Fathers Day thoughts to my Dad.

My favourite song about fathers is Cat Stevens singing Father and Son.

Read more »

Warning over cousin marriages


Bad news for those who marry their first cousins.

The high level of marriage between blood relatives within the Pakistani community accounts for nearly a third of birth defects in babies of Pakistani origin, a study shows.

Cousins who marry run double the risk of birth defects in their children, says the largest study of its kind in the Asian community. ? Read more »

Procreative Rationale

Many of the opponents of marriage equality cite that the basis of marriage is for procreation. Yet when asked to explain how marriage is allowed for infertile couple or for senior citizens and they can’t procreate, they then resort to discussion over having the necessary equipment…and other useless arguments.

The Supreme Court in the US looked as precisely this issue…and finds the arguments of the opponents wanting.

The central criticism of same-sex marriage revolved around procreation; that the purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. These critics faltered when asked about infertile couples or senior citizens who get married. If this were a serious basis for policy, the best enforcement mechanism would be fertility tests before granting marriage licenses.

Justice?Samuel Alito?worried that the question is just too new, that mobile phones and the Internet have been around longer. Same-sex marriages have only been legal anywhere for less than a decade, though gay and lesbian couples have been living together, some with adopted children, for ages. The woman who brought the case against the federal law had been with her now-deceased female spouse since 1967.

Chief Justice?John Roberts?said proponents were showing inconsistency with their dual claims that children of same-sex marriages fare as well as others and that legal recognition is necessary for the welfare of these kids.? Read more »

The Sanctity of Logic or the Logic of the Bigots

Yesterday in Open Mic I posted a response by Kevin Hague to the mis-information of Family First over the marriage equality bill currently before parliament.

Predictably we had the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to bang on about “the gays”. The funny thing was, as is often the way with blogging the exact same issues that we were debating are also being debated elsewhere and the exact same results are happening.

Glenn Fleishmann encountered a person much like Andrei or Lucia in their world view. He wrote a post called the Sanctity of Logic about his encounter. It is very enlightening…though perhaps not for Whaleoil readers as we have seen the exact same tactics and arguments deployed here.

I got into a long debate a couple of nights ago with a self-identified Catholic pro-lifer, Suzanne Fortin (@Roseblue), who has an answer for every question as to why same-sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed. None of them rely precisely on legal precedent; rather, they seem to stem from a specific set of historical values, a reading of what “natural” means, and an insistence on a property that only a pair of men and women can share.

I spent hours engaged with this woman partly because I wanted to know exactly what people who maintain this line of reasoning are really espousing. Here’s what I came away with.? Read more »

Gareth Morgan should focus on the human tom cats


One teenage tomcat has sprayed his seed around plenty plus, knocking up women 13 times.

One rogue 19-year-old is a liable father to 13 kids to different mums.

A source has confirmed the man is named on the birth certificates of 13 children, and is liable to pay child support for them.

Figures released by the Inland Revenue Department show 943 teenage fathers were liable to pay child support at the end of last year. Some were just 15 years old, and already liable for two children.

A study for Inland Revenue estimates the “average” cost of raising a child to the age of 18 as $250,000. It does not count stay-at-home parents’ loss of incomes or childcare costs. The weekly cost for a low-income parent raising a child is $150 – or $140,000 by the time the child reaches 18.

The circumstances of the mothers of the 13 children are unknown, but any of them who are on the domestic purpose benefit are entitled to upward of $293 a week, as well as an accommodation supplement and other top-ups. So benefits to support those 13 babies could be costing the taxpayer more than $200,000 a year.

Family First should be more concerned about this behaviour than whether or not two blokes can marry.? Read more »