[1-25] of 8962

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk

Fredrick, please tell the audience here what "socialism" is; NOT simply what is does OR; what the end result is intended to be.

Mike, Norwalk

Frederick, by who's definition are you claiming socialism (socialists) does/do not oppress? Can you give a legal dictionary, history worn, well accepted or traditional application of socialism that comports to your religious dogma? Do you have any Fabian Society or earlier German academia accounts from which the phrase "socialism" was coined that would support your ecclesiastical morality? Does your new and personal definition of socialism in anyway imply any form of collectivism? Please give us your definition of socialism so that we may know how Marx, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, dictionaries, the currently woke and original understandings were wrong. OR; how the above quote does not apply to current self claiming socialists such as the CCP, BLM or Antifa.

Mike, Norwalk

William, it is obvious you are a result of ecclesiastical seminaries (government school). You might want to find a re-education center or course to adequately express yourself without the vulgarity  especially when you are so ultimately and obviously wrong. Socialism is: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership of all property, religion and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Socialism's differing administrations and implementations is that which distinguishes "fascism" (corporatism) from "communism" and other illicit forms of collectivism (Socialism). By example: all corporations are extensions of the State (the State defining creation and by enforcement owns everything while regulating all production means and distribution of goods). At communism, the State simply does all that the State does through corporations in its own name. The Chinese Communist Party utilizes fascism within its administrations for what it speculates to be the most prosperous to the State.

Mike, Norwalk

David, a much broader religious realization concerning oppression is the demonic statist theocracy now infesting this land as a sorcerous fulfillment of our day (see Revelations 18:23; sorcery translated from the Greek "farmacia"). Those claiming to be the light of liberty and saviors of safety prevent Christians from attending houses of worship while they at the same time promote the greatest of merchants in their expansion of spirits / drug sales, gambling / the circus, carnal elitism over slaves, etc., etc., etc.

Mike, Norwalk

LOLOLOL  hahahaha Waffler, you should throw more terms into your word salad that aren't defined correctly, doesn't make sense, don't relate one to the other and/or further your red herring mis-direction / mis-information. By suggestion, unicorn, centaur, or most of the economic tenets that Marx or Keynesian came up with.

Mike, Norwalk

The de jure States united's originating jurisprudence was to be: "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) — a limited form of natural law. A line through the defining tapestry(s) of natural law (science, math, relationships, etc.) by all philosophers on the subject of natural law describe a regularity of action sufficiently similar as to determine a rule.

The term "God" in the Declaration of independence was understood to be an extra human intelligent design by the founders. By way of legal application, the term "god" is simply a reference to that which is outside the control of corporeal man (by example for insurance purposes, damage by tornado is an act of god). Above, Logan's expressions are spot on. At natural law, man can not make or create laws. Law already exist so corporeal man can only create codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. to define the law that already exists for justice and administrative purposes ONLY. The natural law (regularity of nature's God — again, science, math, relationships, etc.) intended by the founders was each individual was sovereign with inalienable rights and liberty at natural law.

A “right” is: tangible matter’s eternally omnipresent warrant; A right is an enabling conveyance of nature’s inherent rectitude; A right is the congenital prerogative to act without restriction at/in each and every, any and all way(s) harmonious at, of or with organic justice - just locutions (non-infringement of/on another’s rights); peculiar to each and every specific person, identified by law, equity, life, liberty, property and happiness. Right(s) more closely associate with the domain of justice than law.

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) “The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule.” (John Locke - second most quoted source for creation of the Constitution) “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). Liberty, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) – natural law, is the state of exercising all inalienable rights. “All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” (George Mason)

Corruption is an act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty, liberty and the rights of others.

The guaranteed representative “republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4 U.S. Constitution) was to be a body politic to enhance and protect individual sovereign’s inalienable rights and liberty at natural law; recognize all else to be corruption. AND, because I am a hard core believing Christian, I here set forth that the LORD'S law of inalienable rights and liberty is good. Thank you Logan for setting up an opportunity to define and explain.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not quite sure how to rate this. Depressions, inflation and war have all been caused and funded by the various central banks. The current occupying statist theocracy infesting this land is once again inflating the perception of money through its central bank.

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident. When natural law's fiscal applications (for example: by weights and measure's gold and silver coin) are criminally ignored by carnal demagogs while, replacing such with debt notes / funny money (enhanced through the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto's larceny with impunity) inflation acutely become a taxing oppression on the NON-represented slave.

Mike, Norwalk

After reading my earlier reply to you and considering the time between when you wrote that and now;  I still don't know what law the Liberals are upholding that sustains the Republicans? ? ? Is it a new unwritten philosophy of rules, outlining a commit to crimes against nature without being caught ? ? ?

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, you and Ken are not saying the same thing. Within a representative “republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution) the individual sovereigns at “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) were to hire servants with limited job descriptions of enhancing and protecting - NOT the individuals personally but rather, the individual sovereign’s inalienable rights and liberty at natural law. Considering linguistic short falls and/or meanings or mental images by limited sound combinations (language deficit thresholds), terms such as “government” and “state” did not accurately describe the body politic that was de jure to the founder’s initial intent. Being that no word described the new creation, traditional words well established and accepted were implemented to the demise of the original concepts (traditional meanings and understandings won out - there are no longer individual sovereign servants protecting and enhancing inalienable rights or liberty at natural law but rather, State employees by way of legal positivism and legal realism only). The State, no longer a mere body of servants protecting rights and liberty at natural law became, an independent abstract that expanded in proportion to its means of altering existence - living beyond its means (thus the creation of funny money, slavery by the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto, etc., etc., etc.). Freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence and personal dignity are all vanishing exponentially as the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land continues to expand.

Mike, Norwalk

Accurate enough on its face when considered in a furtherance of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at natural law. BUTT ! ! !  Active courts of men and women, acting with vigour and effect (in their time tested mature measures, judgments and experience) - not hurried on conclusions by fears of the multitude, have deliberated legislation from the bench creating and enforcing tyranny, despotism and enslavement of the whole.

Mike, Norwalk

Hi Fredrick, I wasn't aware our exchanges were to be couched in an atmosphere of fun. Unbiased impartiality is a great basis to start conceptions and realities conversations. I've never commented to incur a sick game, confuse or overwhelm. Your religious ad hominem seems to follow a pattern; if you can't discuss actual facts, win or end the conversation with character assassination.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not quite sure how to rate this with stars. On its face, without any analysis, it deserves a minimum of 5 stars — BUT ! ! !. By example: in WWII, fighting against the Axis Powers was a fight for differing forms of administered socialism with differing levels of recognized rights. The evolution of today's occupying statist theocracy infesting this land does not recognize Divinely endowed inalienable rights or liberty at "the laws of nature or of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence). Can that tyrannical and enslaving theocratic body still be considered my country?  OR; does my sovereign representation (country) still silently exist under the occupation.

Mike, Norwalk

Fredrick, you would do well not to accept hearsay, erroneous spin or possible prevailing dogma (or an opposing party's interpretation). You should do your own original research to find what the real source of an issue really is. 

Mike, Norwalk

Well said Logan. There are those that profess inalienable rights, liberty, the Lord's law / natural law, justice, peace and prosperity all while willingly succumbing to a slaves life - all under the facade of materialism's easiness of the way.

Mike, Norwalk

I like it a lot ! ! ! The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land is attempting to brain wash into compliance all attendants of their their ecclesiastical seminaries (government schools). History is polluted by fractional focus and dogmental spins on facts. Dumbing down is the nature of the beast so as to attain better and more obedient slaves.

When I was young, a Pastor told me not to believe him, follow any one else that would preach and or don't make rash conclusions concerning most events but rather, challenge the Lord daily as to find the absolute truth. So, its been my experience  Buddha is correct here.

Mike, Norwalk

Thank you Fredrick for giving me an opportunity to respond. There are many of the family of Man (including myself) that concerned with what a real human entails. As long as we can maintain meaningful dialogues, each or our individual paths will help reach those that are looking for that path. My experiences and understanding are very different than yours, BUT, that's half the fun. Have a Merry Christmas and a very fruitful New Year ! ! !

Mike, Norwalk

Hi Fredrick, your observation is kind of befitting for the narrow limits you have placed on the scenario to get the results you are looking for. The white and black slaves utilized in this land's early history were purchased from a pool of already existing slaves. By example: slaves from Africa were captured and cultivated by tribes with lethal implements of a similar fashion (both victors and captives had similar implements of war). Those enslaved, remained in restrictive fetters from their originating African enslavers through their ultimate destinations. From there, those slaves were denied any implement of modern war or self-defense so that no action could be used to free themselves. As differing administrations of socialism (fascism, communism, etc.) hate one another so, the fascists of the north hated the southern's desire to maintain a State sovereignty. To accomplish the North's win during the War between the States, the moral issue of liberating the slaves from individual ownership (to become owned by the central government) became a uniting call.

Mike, Norwalk

Hi Fredrick, your extremely narrow and mostly fallacious expressed observance of tools is not only contrary to natural law, it does not address eternal inalienable rights, liberty, natural law or justice. I do agree that a degenerative human trait is exacerbated by more lethal tools; BUT! ! !, addressing the core cause or source of the problem and correcting the dilemma is not to eliminate rights, liberty, an expression of natural law, justice or man's tools (don't put an illegal band aide on the cancer  it will continue to grow). A more equitable, helpful and corrective action would to get rid of traditional socialism, other degenerative concepts and teachings, eliminate despotism, tyranny, with other inhumane instruction / actions and instill through education the individual an united nobility of man (with inalienable rights and liberty at natural law). Historically, when ever implements of defense have been taken from individuals, despotism, tyranny and enslavement grow.

Mike, Norwalk

Hi Fredrick, to clarify that which seems to be a pattern, your personal definitions do not harmonize with historical, well recognized or legal definition and are erroneously based and extended on miss-use of terms and concepts. The Abrahamic families were not chosen to be above or control of others but rather, chosen to do a particular job of service. For instance, the Levites were chosen to be administrators of Aaronic priesthood functions (Aaron was a brother to Moses, Moses was a Levite, not a Jew) while, other tribe members would on occasion be called to Melchizedek orders and functions. The whole of the family had chosen jobs that would enhance the entire extended household. Originally, within the government of Judges (a representation of rights and liberty at natural law) there was to be no earthly kings. When the Israelites chose a king, the Grand Patriarch was displeased but continued with the people in their chosen diminished state. Uniquely, dependents of David were chosen to be the kings of all tribes. Upon further digression, even that office of service was done away; SO, your new definition of "chosen" doesn't fit the scenario you are trying to place it in.

Mike, Norwalk

Hi Fredrick; The reason you do not understand what I've written is because you have no basic knowledge or understanding of the subject matter in which you speak. Linguistically, concerning the subject matter(s) you are addressing, you need to create new words that adequately describe your desired religious life style and not use (or try to redefine) historically traditional, well established / defined, legally binding and comprehended concepts  trying to establish your intended prowess. By example: if you are going to use non-binding social relationships as a unique global system, you will have to utilize a term other than socialism as, it is well established, limited by definition, legally well understood, etc. To compare your new religious dogma to historically accepted legalisms will only cause chaos and frustration. As a Christian, I believe all individuals are unique sovereigns with inalienable rights and liberty at natural law ("the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence)). All nations' compelled compliance, licensing, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, a financial system utilizing debt notes as currency, police state confiscations, etc.) and non-recognition of inalienable rights (including perfected allodium) personal liberty and natural law are contrary to Constitutional / natural law.

Mike, Norwalk

Eric, again thank you! ! ! Merry Christmas to you and all.

Mike, Norwalk

Fredrick, specifically, what philosophy of law are you eluding to and within that germane jurisprudence, what finite law are you speaking of (especially when couched in a sphere of criminality)? Were there no Jews in the fascist (socialist) Germany that could not solve their plight nonviolently? How about the Uyghurs of China, is there no one with sufficient brains to solve their Chinese Communist (socialist) problem? How about the U.S. slave atrocities? Is your narrow statement simply indicative of people with increased levels of melanin — they all being all criminals while having no brains? Throughout history, men such as Jesus and Gandhi have had very few true followers concerning peace, love and nonviolence while, citizens that keep and bear arms have at times (very few times) been able to slow the creep of enslaving tyranny from deaf, dumb, blind and violent despots. Do law abiding citizens that are being immediately threatened with fatal activities always have the time, inclination, and opportunity to dissuade their mental deviant - lethal attackers?  AND BESIDES, arms are useful tools to provide food when starvation looms and/or sport for those talented so inclined.

Mike, Norwalk

A broad maxim from a narrow observation  sometimes accurate. Man also proffers belief to acquire an advantage, power, justification / rationalization, material increase, image, position, etc. Truth, at law and otherwise is an absolute, no matter one's preferred belief. I think Sir Francis Bacon prefaced the statement well when interjecting the defining word  "prefer". 

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.