[1-25] of 8514

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
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.

Mike, Norwalk

The continuing saga of the here referenced socialist is recognized by  after dividing his personal nothing, he then begins dividing OPM.

Mike, Norwalk

(-; far too accurate, far too often '-)

Mike, Norwalk

I think it would be more accurately said that a definition of “right” and “wrong” is the eternal struggle. What is the standard to be measured to or with? If “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” ((Declaration of Independence) – a specie of natural law) was / is the standard then, the Isaiah scripture at 5:20 (there are those “that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!) is an extremely accurate exposé of today’s right and wrong understanding(s). If right and wrong are filtered through a standard of theocratic socialism then, liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty / human nobility and natural law would be wrong (including the principles thereof) and, the macabre’s death cult (sacrificing babies / life to gods of pleasure and life style) would be right (including the principles thereof). Succeeding the afore mentioned scripture (Isaiah 5:21 – “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!”), it is a further illumination that separates natural law’s right and wrong from, carnal man’s theocratic right and wrong.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Mike, Norwalk (1/6/20)

Being joint heirs with Christ, being sons and daughters of an Eternal Heavenly Father  a more accurate question might be, are rights in fact, without beginning or end?

Mike, Norwalk

The beginning? Each and every, any and all rights are inherent in and inalienable with a beings existence. Consistent with matter, I guess the nobility of man's rights are first recognized as a faculty of birth. In a representative republic at the "laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence), the body politic's sole authorization is to administer said unalienable rights (not sovereign individuals) as a guaranteed system of justice. Carnal man has long left that system of Constitutional liberty and justice for all for/with a tyrannical dimension where rights have to be protected from government (2nd Amendment for example  no longer representative of rights).

Mike, Norwalk

I here poorly paraphrase a recently reoccurring anecdote: It is easy to vote your way into socialism (tyranny, despotism, etc.) while it is much harder to shoot your way out. (author unknown, if someone knows the exact quote, please help out ;-)

Mike, Norwalk

By way of a practical example: An evolution of "stare decisis" (case law legislating from the bench) is a culminating slippery slope of corruption and tyranny away from originating principles, laws, liberty, and inalienable rights - recognized under the founding Constitution.

Mike, Norwalk

"the labyrinth"  I like it a lot. The journey or pursuit of liberty / freedom, inalienable rights, knowledge (vs. mere information), faith (vs. mere belief), truth (vs. mere perspective comfort), the spirit (vs. mere corporeal measure) along with a realized substance and action thereof raises the noble being out of enslaving entrapments.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not sure what "laws in question" are here being discussed. It alludes a flavor of victimless crimes. Benthamism is generally associated with socialism's welfare state, it bringing about the greatest pleasure (an enslaving misnomer). A vindictive act would indicate an injured third party seeking revenge (no victimless event). If the quote's reference is saying liberalism once covered a categorical protection  there being no crime if there is no injured third party; and, that the state is abandoning such protections by expanding oppressive tyranny, witnessed in the Middle Ages (???), I could give it 5 stars for an accurate observation.

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.