Warning--any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government, New Zealand Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/ or the comments made about my photo's or any other "picture" art, or comments and opinions posted on my profile or my comments in the forums. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law.
It is recommended that other members post a similar notice to this or you may copy and paste this one. THANK YOU**
The 3 basic rules of human kind are LIFE, LIBERTY & PROPERTY! Least I add a 4th one, the RIGHT to be left alone!!! These basic un-alienable RIGHTS predate any government and Constitution! The only legitimate government is one who protects these basic fundamental RIGHTS and nothing more.
THE FUNDAMENTAL BASICS OF WHAT FREEDOM IS:
Zero Protection by Michael Badnarik http://www.ConstitutionPreservation.org
I'm very grateful to RepublicMagazine.com for giving me this opportunity to share what I've learned about the Constitution over the last twenty-five years. I hope this column will help restore the principles that led to the Constitution, a document which has been ignored, abandoned, and violated for too long.
You may be shocked to discover that I absolutely hate the phrase "Constitutional rights". That's because neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights has anything at all to do with your rights. If they burn the First Amendment, are you going to give up your freedom of religion? I don't think so. If they shred the Second Amendment, are you going to voluntarily turn in your guns, and risk being slaughtered en masse like the victims of the Holocaust? I certainly hope not. Please disabuse yourself of the habit of using that nasty, misleading phrase.
While I'm at it, I want you to stop pretending that the Constitution even protects your rights. It does no such thing! Imagine standing on a railroad track in the path of an oncoming locomotive, holding up a copy of the Constitution for "protection". That's how much protection the Constitution gives you. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
You think I'm kidding?! I am not using hyperbole to emphasize a point. How much protection did the Constitution give us against FDR's socialist New Deal? None. How much protection has it given you against the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or the Real ID Act? Zero. What will the Second Amendment do to prevent ATF agents from kicking down your door to confiscate your firearms? Zip. Nada. Nothing at all.
Do I have your attention, yet?
The reason we are standing chest deep in the septic tank of today's political process is because we've lost sight of the fact that "We the People" are supposed to be protecting the Constitution, not the other way around. We complain about the problems in Washington D.C. without facing up to the fact that Congress is only the symptom. We the People are the source of the problem. That is going to change. Right here. Right now.
All of our political problems can be traced back to a single, simple, misunderstanding. Americans have forgotten (or never knew) the difference between RIGHTS and Privileges.
(PLEASE READ THIS): http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf
A RIGHT is something that you can do without asking for permission, such as walking back and forth on your property. A privilege is something you require permission to do, such as walking back and forth across my property. I may grant you the privilege of walking across my property - BUT - I can revoke that privilege any time I wish. Rights and privileges are opposites! Either you need permission - or you don't. You can't lose "some" of your virginity, or be "a little bit" pregnant. You either are or you're not. There's no middle ground. WATCH THIS SHORT 9min VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei0ch-y7r5c&feature=related
REPUBLIC vs Democracy
These succinct definitions of what is Democracy and what is a Republic was produced by the US Army in 1928, These definitions have been quietly withdrawn since, soon after.
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences
c: Where 51% can take or (vote) away the RIGHTS of the 49%.
d: Where 2 wolves and one sheep decide on who to have for lunch!
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.
READ this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral andcivilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the onlypersonal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity inphysical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitutelethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation. and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Kia ora, Hello, G'day! My name's Dion, that's Dion Wood. I'm orig from Auckland, N.Z. and moved here to America landing in Honolulu on Halloween 1990, my new home for 8ths. As of Dec 1998 I got my American Citizenship which means I have dual Citizenship (N.Z. & American). I now live and have for a long time in Chicago. Planning to move to UTAH soon and set down my roots. I am very close, loyal and passionate toward the people who matter the most and the things that matter the most. My Father in heaven and my Savior Jesus Christ and His Gospel, my family, friends, other people and my passion for LIBERTY, FREEDOM & un-alienable RIGHTS! I'm pretty sincere and honest. Practical, kind, loving, down to earth and understanding. I am tender and know how to feel how the other person would feel and am sensitive to their feelings and emotions (not common) to most guys I've learned from girls who know me, that honest and sincere communication, hugging, cuddling and sharing much affection and intimacy are most enjoyable as well as important! They are the most desireable and important things I would crave too in marriage! I am pretty good at communication and really enjoy deep, interesting, intelligent conversation and just being silly sometimes. Most of all, I am loyal and can be trusted! I want my companion to be my best friend that I give my all to on every level imaginable.
Who I'd like to meet:
A beautiful "wahine" who loves her Savior Jesus Christ and loves LIBERTY. A woman who is kind, loving, loyal, interesting, conversational and educated. Fascinating, humorous, funloving and sensitive, who loves children. Somewhat athletic female, fit, active, does not matter if taller than me (I am confident and not awkward at all) with taller women. Age approx 25 to 39 in age. I am looking for a wonderful friend first, a woman to hold me in her arms like an anaconda and squeeze the hell out of me. When i do or say something really dumb, to strangle the life out of me too!
ADD FRIEND ME ON http://www.FaceBook.com/NewZealandAmerican TYPE "OCDO" in the message