Time to Choose…. Storm Clouds Gathering. God given Rights vs Tyranny

liberty girl


Judge Napolitano: The Right to shoot Tyrants, not Deer.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/#ixzz2JWu8eli4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

State of Confusion. The Rule of Law vs The Mandate of the Majority. New Zealand’s Constitutional Crisis.

NZHerald letter-to-the-editor 31/1/13 posted to the facebook page ‘Constitutional Reveiw’ for discussion.

My reply….

This letter displays many ‘all too common’ errors in that it starts off quite well, yet by the time it finishes, it has undone itself.
By this I mean that the writer is correct when they say that a constitution which embodies the false (separatist) treaty principles would exacerbate our already intolerable system of inequality, yet the writer fails to appreciate that the “Government interventions via regulation” as the solution to inequality… is in fact a continuation of the status quo!… ie these interventions and regulations are fundamentally the politics of favoritism, and oppression!

The purpose of a constitution is not to empower the state or parliament to pass any legislation it deems advantageous to achieving it’s political agenda, but to limit the powers of parliament to upholding the Principles of justice while protecting individuals and minorities from Mob rule, and arbitrary power.

Lady Justice is blind to Race, Creed, sex, Wealth, etc.
She holds the balances which are true. Ie the fulcrum is so positioned as not to flavor anyone.
These are principles of justise and they determine what it means to be governed by the rule of Law as opposed to the rule of whim.
Governments which write laws in contravention of these principles are establishing injustice!
A proper Constitution forbids the generation such unjust legislation.

So many people have been duped by years of socialist democracy into mistaking the mandate of the majority as being the rule of Law.
It is no such thing. Without constitutional restraints which embody universal principles of justice (such as equality before the Law), the mandate of the majority is purely arbitrary and oboundless…. only dependent upon the whims of the biggest Mob.

It is surprising to me that so many people whom are actively attempting to End treaty separatism fail to understand that we got into the current Apartheid mess because of the unchecked mandate of the majority… not because of the treaty.

It was not the minority of Maori radicals whom created the current apartheid state, but the Predominantly/ majority Pakeha parties…. Full of socialists whom believe all the anti-western, and anti-capitalist doctrines of intervention and indigenous rights.
Having swallowed all the anti-British colonization Myths and doctrines which teach Maori suffered a holocaust at the hands of invaders and were cheated and dispossessed of their lands in violation of the treaty… They began to dance to the Beat of the Maori Radicals.
Being free to simply Ignore the principles of Equality before the Law, It was the Majority parties, National and Labour whom perpetuated the lies of the treaty principles which sever our Nation racially in twain… all in the face of the fact that the treaty granted all the peoples of New Zealand equal rights as Brittish subjects, and that Hobson declared to each chief upon signing the treaty “He Iwi’ Tahi Tatou”… “We are now one people”.

This institutionalized racism demonstrates the evils of not having an ironclad constitution which would nullify any and all laws which are unequal … even if it is the will the majority to create them!
It was New Zealand shamefully childlike refusal to cut the final cords from Mother England and establish ourselves as a republic, in spite of the fact that England had granted us self government many generations ago!
Foolishly many believed remaining in the commonwealth was a form of protection, when in reality it left us exposed to popular Machiavellianism.

It’s true to say that the separate electorol rolls have proved the evils of Racist institutions… though like their modern ‘closing the gaps’ counterparts were created by ‘socialists’ seeking to improve justice, yet ultimately it was the ‘liberty’ to ‘wheel and deal’… which allowed the Majority to pander to the separatists whom held the ballance of power.
Yet so many whom oppose the treaty graveytrain which resulted, actually fear shacking parliament… you hear them talk of ‘activist judges’. Yet Activist judges are a consequence of the status quo. ie of not having clearly defined principles enshrined in a constitution.
Those whom propagate such fears are slippery devils whom covet political power and dont want limits set for parliamentary power and the gullible and fearful believe their ruse..

I could go on to talk about why the separatists are now busy seeking to dominate all discussions about forming a New Constitution, yet I will leave that for another time.
It is suffice to say that the majority of people involved in this constitutional review… on both sides of the treaty debate, don’t understand what the Rule of Law really is, or how to differentiate it from social arbitrary power.

I support those people whom have actively spoken out about the injustice of Waitangi racism, yet there has been no real discussion of any caliber in the public arena, in respect to what is necessary to remedy it, or what a Constitution needs to embody to function as a defense against unjust law and Government power.

I mean no offence. This issue is far too important for pettiness. I offer my services to the people of New Zealand to see that this most vital of subjects get proper debate and the real issues are presented to the public mind.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

In on the Con(stitutional Advisory Panel)

There’s another Treaty Debate on tonight at Te Papa.

Treaty Debate Series 2013 – My Voice Counts

This year, we focus on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Participants include two prominent lawyers and a panel of young people.

Kim Hill, 2012 International Radio Personality of the Year, chairs the second Treaty Debate of 2013. This year, we invite a panel of young people to discuss the Constitutional Review, which wraps up in late 2013. They answer the question: What are the issues you care about?

The event is introduced by Claudia Orange, Te Papa’s Treaty of Waitangi scholar, and Carwyn Jones, from the New Zealand Centre for Public Law.

The Treaty Debates are organised by Te Papa in partnership with the New Zealand Centre for Public Law at Victoria University of Wellington

I plan to go along to give John Ansell some moral support, perhaps I’ll assist by holding one end of his protest banner, which reads, “Enough Treaty Treachery – Treatygate – The Conning of a Country”.

The rigged panel of Griever Maori and Appeaser Pakeha charged by the National-Maori alliance with misrepresenting your desire for a Treatyfied constitution.

Ansell is right. The country is being conned.

There are no Treaty principles. There is no Treaty partnership. At least, not in the original Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The third article of the Treaty guaranteed to all Māori the same rights as all other British subjects. This meant one law for all.


But there is at least one member of the Constitutional Advisory Panel who (last time I checked) doesn’t understand what “one law for all” means. She says

One-law-for-all is emotive nonsense. We have all sorts of varied laws for different categories of the population, age being the best example. Will Act, under Brash, get rid of the legal age for drinking, voting and obtaining a driver’s licence?

A libertarian friend tries to correct her woolly thinking. He says

You’re not comparing like with like. The drinking age is not a violation of one law for all. It applies equally to everyone. If there were an exemption for Maori, that would violate one law for all.

and goes on to ask

Is your article intended as an apologia for preferential treatment for Maori?

Perhaps it was intended as a job application?

A few brief words on why ageism is acceptable (in the cases to which Deborah Coddington refers) and racism is not. Law is all about discrimination. Morality is all about discrimination. We treat a man who has been found guilty of murder differently from a man who has been charged with murder and acquitted. We discriminate between the two cases. As we should. Legally (and morally), the difference between a Guilty verdict and a Not Guilty verdict is relevant to how people should be treated. In the case of age vs. race, a person’s age is morally relevant (they are deemed to be too young to give informed consent) to how they should be treated. A person’s skin colour is not.

It beggars belief that Coddington was once the Deputy Leader of the Libertarianz Party.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

Boogie Monsters. The Myth of the Internet Troll.


“A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, troll may have been a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings…”
From Here>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

Trolling. (fishing)

“Trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or Bait fish, are drawn through the water. This may be behind a moving boat, or by slowly winding the line in when fishing from a static position, or even sweeping the line from side-to-side…”
From Here>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)


Troll (internet)
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted.”
From Here>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

As you folks may have divined, I have another bee under my bonnet… a sense of injustice, and fowl play.
I would like to discuss a modern trend.
On the Net it has become fashionable to label people of dissenting veiws ‘Trolls’.

This Internet definition of the term appears to combine the two other definitions… ie ‘Unwelcome cave dwellers who fish for bites.’
It is meant to be insulting, yet it has occurred to me that it is a cowardly device used mostly to avoid dialogue, and debate… Ie an Anti-reason ad hominem attack.
Thus I have never used the term in any argument… ever.
I am not saying that there are not Malicious loosers on the Net whom get off provoking others. Of course there are! Yet when you look at when and who is throwing the term about like stones, It is most often the stone thrower whom displays malice… usually because they have been taken to task about one of their most cherished delusions.
Usually they accuse their adversary of being a troll because they are painfully *On topic* , asking too rational questions and presenting too difficult a counter argument for the ‘Troll accuser’ to parry.


And I see… surprise surprise … it is a term that is becoming popular in Objectivist circles.
I know my fellow blogger Richard has been labeled a troll many times by Objectivists for presenting Christian arguments for Liberty, etc.
What makes these people particularly odious is that they claim to support reason and free thinking, yet from their howls of “Troll!” “Troll!” we see that they must believe their arguments are so powerful It’s not necessary to justify them!
To understand why many Objectivists are fond of this devise all that is necessary is to look at the founder of their religion Ayn Rand.
She propagated the idea that theistic minded people are brain dead and irrational.
That they are anti-reason ie they don’t base their beliefs upon well reasoned propositions, thus the theists are supposed to shun debate!
The reality is that Theists are more than willing to confront the objectivist on the Battleground of the mind… and take pot shots at them!
Indeed many Christians feel obliged to do so… in defense of their faith… to prove just how vacuous Rands accusations are.
And it is the Objectivist whom most often spits out the anti-concept ‘Troll!’
That’s not an argument guys!
That’s a piss weak ad hominem Cop out!
Its a token of intellectual weakness.

Only the ignorant mistake such a device as being a valid retort.

Some might say it’s just a bad habit they have picked up… and this maybe so yet this being true would only go to prove my point.
Such people are using a term, *without thinking* about what that says about them… ie that they are the unthinking advocates of anti-reason.
I sincerely hope that an objectivist or two reads this and has the honesty to admit the use of this term ‘troll’ is for the birds… and take their Comrades to task about it when they use it.
I wont hold my breath because objectivists are so incapable of debate.
They prefer sycophantic Randoid monologue to real dialogue.


The most fanatical will delete your argument out of their thread… lest you corrupt one of their disciples.
This has happened to me many times, most recently on the facebook page Ayn Rand.
The Delete button used in such a way is not a device of reason… not an argument either guys!
If I get sick of your babblings on face book I may un-friend you to give myself some peace, yet I wont delete what you have said! I will let it stand for posterity.
You see I believe bad arguments are good in that they are self evident testimonies of stupidity! They serve my purposes just as well as well reasoned arguments, yet many Objectivists (not all) will attempt to expunge you out of existence… faking reality.
I never delete what my opponents have argued… that’s cowardly and anti-reason.
Again I hope one or two Objectivists reading this grasp the truthfulness of my argument here and work to eradicate this sort of censorship from their ranks.
That would be a positive outcome from my assertions here… for everyone.
Getting rid of these two underhanded tactics would reform and improve the integrity of anyone’s standing in the war of Ideas, including Objectivism.
And as a result better dialogue could result.
Reason would be enhanced.
Yet for Objectivists this reform would explode one of their articles of faith… that Theists are anti-reason, and I believe this delusion is too fundamental to their belief system to ever be exorcised.
How the more rational ones, whom know there is a difference between belief in God, and belief in Santa Claus continue to call themselves Objectivists I dont know.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

P.S Does Sasquatch Exist?
…. Obviously there is a minority of ‘monsters’ out there who enjoy prowling the Internet with nothing but ill intent…. nothing but a desire to be Flies in the ointment…. and maybe ‘Troll’ is an apt… newly minted coin… Yet this would have to be one of the most miss-used terms of Urban lingo…. as described above.
My post about the mythology of Trolls is designed to make a point.

Blessed are the sick


Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Matthew 25:34-36


Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:1-4

[Hat tip: No Minister]

Shearer off to a ‘good start’


Yesterday, Shearer promises clear policy initiatives.


Today, Shearer defends policy-free speech.


Chris Trotter says Shearer is off to a ‘good start’. Why? Because

He was on just a few minutes ago and once again, he didn’t stumble, he didn’t stutter – this is a good start to the year.

He had a terrible first year, and he really needs to get this year rolling with an image that most people can at least not recoil from in horror and disbelief, so that’s a good start.

I don’t always follow the MSM, but when I do, I recoil in horror and disbelief.

At least one Labour MP is making the right noises about drug law reform. For that reason alone, I’d like to see a Labour-led government replace our National-led government in 2014. But I can’t see Shearer’s “good start” ending well. His flagship policy*—that of spending $30 billion of your money to build other people’s houses—was never a starter, let alone a good one. It’s in tatters.

I believe that we should be building houses – that’s not the Government building houses, it’s the private sector – obviously builders build houses. But what the Government can do is to make that happen. We can stand back and we can twiddle with the RMA, or blame councils as this government is doing, but it won’t get young Kiwis into their own home.

We have to step in and actually do something.

The government should do something. Yeah right. It’s all too awful to contemplate.

(* Labour’s KiwiBuild plan is to build 100,000 extra new houses over the next 10 years, for around $300,000 each. This, Mr Shearer says, will help young families buy their first home.)

A new life begins

Hatebreed is metal with attitude. (All true metal is metal with attitude!)

Destroy everything (x 3)
So a new life can begin

Destroy everything (x 3)
Rebuild and start again

The lyrics to this song make me think of Genesis 6. (YMMV.)

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (NIV)

Where Haters come from.


Where do Haters come from?

This is an important subject I have been wanting to blog for some time.
It has to do with the Nature vs Nurture debate.
It’s a very big topic which will only lightly be touched upon in this post.
I would like to talk about a few examples which prove the importance of how Parents nurture their children.

While it may not be strictly true to say We start our ideological/ mental lives ‘Tabular Rasa’ (with an empty slate) we… like Birds who don’t need to be taught to build nests…We humans too possess some ‘instincts’/ innate knowledge, and despite the latest controversial/ absurd claims by Evolutionary biologists that try and assert that we are born politically Left, or Right, or Libertarian….the reality is how we end up ideologically speaking as adults has a hell of a lot to do with the environment in which we live and the external influences we imbibe.

It is patently obvious to me that both Nature and Nurture work together in producing Human personalities, yet for now let put aside the discussion of Nature and focus on Nurture.
I raise this subject for discussion to highlight just how important our behavior as parents is in respect to effecting our Children’s perspective of the world and how they learn to deal with life, and how vitally important the Ideas and values we embody and teach them are to our children’s future well being.

Just two examples will suffice to get this discussion going…

The first is an article which appeared in the NZ herald
‘Hate-filled Family made monster’ read it Here:
Now in this article the brother of a Terrorist… the French Scooter Killer Mohamed Merah whom Murdered 7 people (including 3 Jewish children) and died in a hail of Bullets resisting arrest.

Yet Mohamed was not born in a vacuume.
In a book he has written this Terrorist’s brother dis-owns and condemns his own family members for filling his brothers head with hatred.
I would suggest that this is a very common thread within the Lions share of Radical Islamic extremists whom end up with a Rabid Race hatred for the Jews and others, and go on to become Terrorists, suicide bombers, etc.
Not having read the book I must ask why it is that this other brother did not become a terrorist too?
What saved him?
In what way was his individual nature and Nurturing different to that of his fanatical Brother?

Racist radical and Mana Party Leader and MP Hone Harawera.

The Next example I would like to raise is closer to home (for Kiwis)….that of the Racist Radical MP and Leader of The Mana Party John (Hone) Harawera son of the Rabid Racist… the Evil Titiwhi Harawera.
Now it is obvious to all what sort of upbringing Titiwhi gave her son!
She filled his head with stories of how the Pakeha (European invaders) executed a ‘Holocaust’ against the Maori people, and robbed them of their land, and have left them destitute. She has taught him that ever since the establishment of ‘White rule’ Maori people have been trodden underfoot and suffered vile Race oppressions.

The end result has been to produce one of the countries most militantly hateful and racist personalities… Hone Harawera.
Mummy must be proud!
This tale would be common to many of our worst Maori Radical… like Tame Iti.
Thus from these two examples we can easily see that Haters do in fact grow on trees… They are carefully propagated… nurtured… Indoctrinated.
We can be sure that had Hone been adopted out as a child to a Pakeha family (like my uncle was) that he would not be the same person today.
That many of the most vile Haters are born from Hate filled environments surely means we ought to mitigate our condemnation of Hone’s current attitudes and activities.
Putting it bluntly… he’s been brainwashed from a very early age, and his attitude is almost to be expected.
We can see that his hatred for Pakeha, and his desire for UTU has less to do with factual history, and more to do with the vile racism of his mother.
It’s like an moral virus he picked up.
I suspect Titiwhi herself had a similar upbringing.

Of course depending upon how solid a moral foundation we ourselves have been taught by our parents, (and others) will determine how resilient we are against the hatred and prejudices of others throughout our lives. Ie if we have been taught enlightened values as a child, and wisdom about how the world really works, we will be able to fend off the vile lies and hate filled Bigotry of others rather than assimilating it.
This points to just how vital it is that we as parents take pains to instill enlightened and humane values in our children to fortify them when they go to school, and eventually out into the world.
So many evils are taught in school!
Today from primary school to University our politically corrupted Education system since the late 70’s has actually taught our nations children many of the lies that Titiwhi taught her son!
And due to a serious lack of wisdom on the part of the average parent today we have an indoctrinated society of sheeple whom accept a heinously distorted view of the history of New Zealand, and embrace an apartheid system of Government!

Copy of bt
The Great Booker T Washington.

I do not suggest that All haters result from hateful upbringings, or indoctrination. I know horrible events in peoples lives can also generate hatered.
Nor am a saying Hone’s upbringing renders him morally blameless for his prejudices and activities as an MP. I have said what I have said with hope of understanding how such a bigot came to be… where many haters come from.
As an adult he is morally culpable.
If we look at such Moral exemplars as ex slaves, Frederick Douglas, Booker T Washington, or Equal rights activist Martin Luther King, we learn from them that oppression and prejudice does not justify reciprocation.
These Humanitarians were followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ… “Render no man evil for evil but overcome evil with good” .
They broke their chains… not only the legal chains which kept their peoples under, but most importantly, the Chains that link intergenerational Race hate.
So I ask Parents here … esp to Maori parents…” What values are you teaching your children?”
“What example do you set?”
Are You holding up a torch to lighten their paths, or are you filling their hearts with malice against their white friends and neighbors?
Will the values you have instilled help them to succeed in the world or will they hobble their ability to make good judgments… free of malice?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

love thyir kids

Update: 28-4-13 Who Radicalised Boston BomberTamerlan Tsarnaev?

Time for Regime Change in the USA.


^^^^^^You think this is a joke?
Sorry, it’s economic reality!
Just ask your Neighbors whom escaped Zimbabwe about governments printing money and hyper inflation.
It is cheaper to wipe your arse on ten dollar notes than squares of dunny paper!
In places like Germany and Russia Money was blowing around the streets like worthless trash.


Today ‘Money’ exists to a large degree in cyberspace… as numbers in an electronic system, so it is not necessary for Socialists to Print as much paper as in times pass to achieve the same results…>>>inflation/ devaluation<<<... and so when the shit deepens, Yanks may not be seen using wheelbarrows to carry their lunch money yet their credits in the bank will be just as worthless. Look up the meaning of the phrases Hyperinflation. Look up the history of the saying "Don’t give a Continental"... Its all about Fiat Currency… Governments whom Mass print money/credits without having the means to exchange it for mediums of intrinsic value like Gold, silver, etc.
Governments have historically resorted to Fiat Money when they are in dire straits…Broke and in debt.
It results in poverty and ruin for the populations of such Nations.
Real Money is a ‘promise to Pay the face value in Gold or silver upon Demand’ by the issuers, which can only be done when the amount in circulation is less than or equal to the stores of real wealth in the vaults. When the money supply exceeds what is in the vault, it is impossible to redeem your paper currency/credits and you are stuck with BUM PAPER!

Yet what do we find is happening In America under Obarma?
Herd of QE1, QE2, QE3? (Quantitative Easing)
Look it Up!
Do you understand that they implemented QE2 because QE1 Flopped?
They have implemented QE3 because QE2 Flopped too!
Google *QE2 Fail* and see for yourself.


Ron Paul forced the Federal Reserve to admit it has *No Gold*!!!
When will Socialist realise that you cant print your way out of trouble, not print your way into prosperity?
The Bastards know that Printing money devalues it! Even the Tree hugging Zombies in New Zealand know that!
Here in New Zealand The Socialist Green Party suggested our government gets more Paper Money Printed with the express idea of reducing the value of the NZ Dollar with the insane notion that this will help our export sector and economy.
It’s economic voodoo!
They share the common belief with Obama’s democrats that Governments create wealth, and have the right to Meddle / control the economies of their citizens!
It’s Corrupt! It’s Theft! It’s Funny money!
It’s the final stage of Economic ruin.
All this meddling and regulation is Socialism not capitalism, it’s fascism, yet the Propaganda merchants of the Left have managed to brainwash the masses into thinking the corporate welfare… the bailouts is Capitalism!!!
Lies upon lies!
Stupidity upon stupidity!
Bail outs and Regulations are`ANTICAPITALISM!
Capitalism allows Failing Companies to Fail!
Capitialism does not Steel money from the People to prop up Bad businesses!
The freemarket allows business to Profit or go belly up baces upon their own merits.
What the regulations, Bailouts, welfareism, and other over-government (ie Socialism) has done is create a massive systemic failure and bankrupted the governments of the world.
There’s a massive crash coming folks!
Herd of the Fiscal cliff?
Understand why Obama wants to confiscate Guns…. to keep the people under when the shit hits the fan!
He know when it does the People will come gunning for his hide.
The People of America had there chance to save themselves.
They should have Backed Ron Paul, yet the vested interests wanted to maintain the Status quo at all costs.
They Made sure ‘Mit Romney’, not ‘Ron Paul’ appeared next to Obama on the ballot.

The Elite Fascists know what’s coming.
They put Obama in power to stall for time… so that they could prepare for the Great crash.
As we speak they are building Bunkers and stacking away Gold for the storm to come.
They will be sitting Pretty when there is chaos and starvation on the streets.
They will support the tyranny which will rise up to suppress the rioting masses.
The end is Nigh.
Prepare yourselves My friends… and pray.

The comming American Civil war