[1-25] of 8523

Posts from Mike, NORWALK

Mike, NORWALKMike, NORWALK
Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Gabriel, Johnsville (2/11/20)

There is an occupying statist theocracy infesting the land that is identified as the United States of America. Constitutionally, servants were to represent the inalienable rights and liberty of life and happiness (not corporeal individuals personally). The occupying theocracy only has illicitly defined helots, serfs, slaves. I do agree with your last sentence. To make the world a better place, each person (individually and in concert) must look at themselves and make a change brining about a return of inalienable rights, liberty, individual sovereignty and "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence).

Mike, Norwalk

hmmm, okay; who? short memory? or is it just, you know, "a lot of people"?

Mike, Norwalk

(-; Okay   Kinda brings to mind the latest impeachment. I'm sure there is an argument there somewhere (-; no time for a scavenger hunt  ;-)  Was there a Democrat Party obligation to make the Republicans understand the unconstitutional abstract word salad?

Mike, Norwalk

Way too close to accurate not to be really funny.

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Waffler, Smith, Arkansas (2/5/20)

Waffler, the smoke and mirror facade you choose to mislead exists solely by illusionary ignorance. What is forced to be taught comes from a far — some administration of such propaganda comes from locals. Your use of "friends and neighbors" is a shallow term of art, attempting to legitimize ecclesiastical seminaries (government schools). Generationally, the more immorality, theocratic socialism, mythology and otherwise dumbing down methodology (common core for example) are expanded in said ecclesiastical seminaries, the less the "we they" even have the capability of comprehending a good education from a bad education. Though you are free to fuzzily, profundity and drivelate, doesn't modify the need to take back the body politic and return it to a republican form of government.

Mike, Norwalk

One would have to laugh here if it wasn't so sadly and pitifully wrong. The god complex here descends to a tyrannous government of no law / law hatred. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has long ceased being a government of law.

Mike, Norwalk

A back handed common law reference that gets somewhat lost in the weeds of the word salad  definitely more accurate than not. At natural law  the narrowly defined "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence), a law need not be written to exist. Gravity for example; gravity to date has not ben completely or exactly defined while, we all know of its existence by person experience. At man's administration of natural law, due process demands / requires a standard which includes a lawful definition of a/the crime.

Mike, Norwalk

Here, a time sensitive smile (thanks Editor). With all the Hamilton quotes during the impeachment, this one really fits.

Where no violation of any code, ordinance, regulation, rule, statute or crime (high or misdemeanor) was ever cited or alluded to, one individual's actions against a political parties policy decisions and strength culminated it the Party attempting to bring in a political legalism of guilt.  (-; way too prophetically accurate ;-)

Mike, Norwalk

Off the top of my head, there is only one glaring exception to the rule (Jesus). The second half or follow up to that would be  only the justice as harmonizes with the laws of nature and of nature's God can stand as proper in defining individual actions of others (not a standard). Each standard of expression emirates from the individual. By way of thought, multiple body politic styles of administration can offer a standard establishment of expressions. Keynesian Economics is an established standard of expression for others BUT !   it is not proper within / by a standard of natural / common law, ultimate justice, prosperity for the many, liberty, inalienable rights and/or individual sovereignty.

Mike, Norwalk

"the laws of nature and of nature's God" ((Declaration of Independence) at times referenced as natural law) reign supreme, no matter man's compliance or rejection thereof. Keynesian economics is an excellent example of man's organized rejection of natural law (ultimately resulting in economic destruction, pain and integrity loss). Applied theocratic socialism is another prime example of ultimate chaos and destruction when confronted with natural law's supremacy. Personal action (individually or in concert) is criminal when it violates natural law  no matter carnal man's perceptions or practices.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Anonymous, Reston, VA US (1/28/20)

The "A" from Reston's theocratic socialism's perversions have been played out over, & over, & over, & over, etc., etc., etc. to the ultimate destruction of liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty, prosperity and happiness. The "public good", as applied through socialistic / tyrant filters is a mental abomination that is antithetical to each and every, any and all individuals and the nobility of the specie. 

Mike, Norwalk

Probably a practical working number? Certainly, those scholars that have studied it, along with any primary / founding discussions thereof only cherry-pick events and statements to support their newest theocratic endeavors. Concepts, legalisms and actions  such as liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty, leaders vs. servants, representatives of rights vs persons have all been nullified by non-existence in conversation and practice. Even the best law schools' (tongue in cheek with bowed shaking head) only study, during the one mere semester, a reduced to a laughable (not haha but rather shame) practical application of stare decisis.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Simon, Victoria, BC, Canada (1/27/20)

Simon, please define far right and give the extreme examples in the U.S.

Mike, Norwalk

An extremely layered comment. For one, the civilian commander-in-chief over the military's job description changes once congress declares war.

Mike, Norwalk

A patron of ANTI ! ! !  / liberty / inalienable rights / individual sovereignty / prosperity / natural law / justice theocracy spewing forth the method of how to abolish that which he was antithetical to.

Mike, Norwalk

Stalin / Lenin, Mao, Hitler were all prime personal examples of policy within their particular forms of socialism that illustrates the quote's accuracy. I am personally aware of the occupying statist infesting this land's implementation of the quote's subject matter. Such practice has been tied to certain political leaders of today who act as privateers. The subject matter may also be expanded to include such incidences as Epstein and Soleimani.

Mike, Norwalk

This would rate an LOL if it wasn't so sad. Stare Decisis alone is a uniquely judicial killer of liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty, etc. Combining with other departments, makes the tyranny that much harder to eliminate.

Mike, Norwalk

I say hmmm  I like it a lot. It has been an observation that those of substance (love vs. emotion, truth vs. P.C./theocratic perspective, knowledge vs. information, etc.) need fewer controls while those without such substance live in a chaos they can't get enough controls (over self and others). In that substance, small family ranchers care for their animals more than P.C. veterinarians, gun owners have a reverence for life more than those that require domination over others, etc. AND; that all humanity had the fortitude to abide liberty, individual sovereignty and inalienable rights in love, truth and knowledge.

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident ! ! !

Mike, Norwalk

The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, with its vast majority of patrons, divides itself into two major categories — both are mere elements of immoral socialism. For nonviolence to work, substantive love, truth and conscience must replace the P.C. and mindless / feckless illusions of a fallacious utopia. Ghandi's approach was in the face of a society that claimed a moral / nonviolent administration (in reality, actual or otherwise — socialism makes no such claim). The nonviolence of MLK's message was in Christ's day mostly underground with great sacrifice. Socialism's overcoming of liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty, prosperity, truth, love, law, justice, etc. in this land was in great part done nonviolently (ecclesiastical seminaries / government schools, ecclesiastical missionaries / MSM, ecclesiastically self aggrandizing gods / politicians complete with police state implemented theology supporting canons {as is averse to statute defining law}. A threat of violence and war being constant while the actual physicality of such being only occasionally used.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Patrick, Toronto (1/16/20)

Patrick, The history of socialism is from a definition of central / government ownership and control (even though it is called communal). Mussolini patterned his socialism through a format of corporatism. Mussolini then coined the name fascism. Hitler recognized that fascism was far more efficient at advancing socialism than was communism. Banks, securities firms, manufacturing, distribution, farming, production, etc. were allowed to keep their same names and administers under a corporate structure while government ultimately owned and controlled everything (everybody).

Mike, Norwalk

Differing concepts of socialism have been around for a long time. Early settlers of North America tried establishing socialistic utopias only to fail. Karl Marx needed an enemy / villain to champion his theocratic obsession. Marx redefined what capitalism was/is by such manners and techniques as exchanging the concept of wealth creation for profit (as an accounting ploy). Wealth creation was based on tangibles while Marx's (crony capitalism) focused on such issues as funny money (debt, notes, etc.).  Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. followed Marx's successful strategy of lying long enough so that people will believe. Today's socialists (communists, fascists, progressives, etc.) continue to change the meanings of words, morality, concepts and otherwise to further eliminate liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty and advance their enslaving tyranny.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not sure where the left / right political paradigm originated with no credible etymology, genealogy or otherwise to trace it. I've read the French revolution with monarch vs. anti-monarch, religious differences, etc. alleged beginning uses but, no real palpable evidence  only subjective opinion. Socialism's core definition supports both communism and fascism as elemental sub-categories. Both socialistic phenomenon are only separated by administration (communism places everything in its singular name while fascism uses corporations {corporatism}). No aspect of socialism allows liberty, inalienable rights or personal sovereignty "SO", the current left / right political designations only point to differing administrations of the same enslaving tyranny.

Mike, Norwalk

Ronw13, very apropos. The current occupying statist theocracy infesting this land more than exemplifies the quote's accuracy.

Mike, Norwalk

A “Republic” has 2 distinct meanings: 1) “it signifies the state, independently of its form of government” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary); and, 2) “A system of government in which each person holds sovereign power and elects representatives who exercise that power. • It contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person (such as a king or dictator) or of an elite group (such as an oligarchy, aristocracy, or junta).” (Black’s Law Dictionary)

A “Republican Form Of Government” (as guaranteed at Article IV Section 4 U.S.A. Constitution) differs from a general understanding of “Republic” by each person’s sovereign liberty and rights at “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence – a specific focus of natural law) being recognized and held sacrosanct as inalienable / unalienable / inherent. Individual sovereigns personally unite, maintaining discrete separated status to extend personal administration of said law, liberty and rights with / to a limited body politic.

A “Democracy”: “That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised ⋯ in a body” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) – averse to an individual (mob rule). Of course, a most clear illustration being attributed to Benjamin Franklin; “Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. Freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.” The ole forest and tree adage works well in defining a democracy; though there are trees voting, only the forest is recognized. The here often repeated Lysander Spooner applies; “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” Simply by trying to redefine democracy does not magically associate individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty to it.

A “Democratic Process”: broken down to its simplest understanding is one individual, one vote. The process is useful in Republics, Republican Forms of Government and Democracies. No sovereignty or right is associated.

Freedom is: “The state of being free; liberty; self determination:” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition); “the power or liberty to order one's own actions” (Colins English Dictionary); “The ability to act at liberty.” (Webster’s Dictionary) Liberty is: “The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

Liberty is the “exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st ed.). Clarifying original fact, natural law intent, and de jure jurisprudence: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Thomas Jefferson) “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ⋯ and is regarded as inalienable.” (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987).

Neither freedom or liberty can by definition or otherwise associate with democracy.

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.