[1-25] of 8056

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk

The only time the "deliberate choice" of the concept and word "guarantee" was/is used in the Constitution was/is still at Article IV Section 4 where it dynamically orients a "Republican form of Government". Within the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence the foundation of the "guarantee" was established by the word'(s') "due force, appropriate . . . and natural meaning" ("laws of nature and of nature's God" / natural law). The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has ABSOLUTELY ignored and now acts in demonic opposition / criminal imposition contrary to "the first principle of constitutional interpretation, said law(s) and "guarantee" (by way of extremely terse example: compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government license, grand larceny with impunity {2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, police state confiscations, etc.}, alienation of nature's endowed rights and personal sovereignty along with all other defining acts of a slave master over its corporate chattel {"We The People"} have become the norm - the antithetical to liberty rule of order).

Mike, Norwalk

Current world wide government administrations and examples of judicial systems remain within a scope man references as law (carnal man's canons and dogmas  "legal systems"). I know of no judicial system that enters a realm that would be recognized as a system of justice ("justice system"). Though justice is a unique topic and categorization outside law, equity, religion, and mercy  it is not addressed or administered in any of man's body politics anywhere. At nature, natural justice is recognized sometimes as a resulting karma, a natural consequence, a restoration of nature, etc. An administration by man of justice would also have to include such principles.

Mike, Norwalk

Okay, maybe a last p.s. ;-) maybe: Mercy (love, truth, etc. NOT letting someone get away with something) would also have to play a major role in defining and administering justice. Justice is a separate domain outside religion.

The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land calls punishment for infractions against its demonic canons and dogmas just. Though compelled compliance, government license, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, police state confiscations, etc.), etc. are diametrically opposed to Constitutional / natural / common law, the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land implements Beccaria's here quoted principles as an application of justice (such is criminal injustice).

Mike, Norwalk

oops, a p.s.  In defining justice, where or how does restoration or making whole the victim come in to play?  The perception of good or evil in an atmosphere of virtue would also have to be set in a secular domain of the law of nature and of nature's God  natural / common law.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not quite sure how to rate this (maybe closer to a thumb's down). As to the topic of a sufficient punishment being a deterrent or adequate scare tactic against crime — for a few or some that works but, is that thee, or even a definition of justice? Ancient Greek philosophy considered education as part of justice (maybe flogging, moral classes, etc.) Justice being in itself a part of virtue, is confined to things simply good or evil, and consists in a man's taking such a proportion of them as he ought (Bouvier's Law Dictionary). To the here quote, it would first have to be settled what is 'justice' then, how best to administer it.

Mike, Norwalk

The zealot patrons of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land are blind to freedom, liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty, the nobility of life, substantive love or mercy, truth, the laws of nature and of nature’s God and the justice related thereto. A love of justice against offenders is a misnomer masking hatred’s manifestation against those who would dare think or act outside demonic domains.

Mike, Norwalk

I quoted this prior but it bears repeating here as an example: “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. (“S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54); and, “Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity”. (Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, ({1936} 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773);

In our country, the pillars of the State are a lie(s). No longer does the sovereign's representative Republic with inalienable right(s) exist (individual sovereigns being the pillars with a servant body politic being the servant). The tangible sovereign has become a mere prop for his straw-man. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land - as god(s), has/have replaced noble sovereigns with chattel (property and franchises). Agents and officers of the police state no longer serve and protect, or have a liability of, responsibility for or duty to "We The People" but rather, they are paid to serve and protect the interests and property of the State with a demonic moral fealty.

The corporate body politic (executive, legislature, judicial) can lawfully only deal with legal straw-men. By way of example: a corporate court (a court that has been incorporated or given franchise through a corporate auspices) can ONLY  at the laws of nature and of nature's god / Constitutional law / common law deal with intangible legal persons (corporations, legal representations at commerce [a bared counsel for example], straw-men, etc.). Within a representative Republic, "We The People"  individual tangible sovereign(s) act in said status to judge our fellow sovereigns. In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category, but a pillar of the State. 

Mike, Norwalk

Judith and Waffler: “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. (“S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54); and, “Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity”. (Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, ({1936} 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773);

Mike, Norwalk

The republican form of government guaranteed (the only guarantee in the organic Constitution  see: Article IV Section 4 united States Constitution) is fundamentally and in all substantial ways different than the socialistic democracy of the occupying statist theocracy now infesting this land. I have written this several times here in this blog  there are 4 terms / concepts that are faliciously used as synonyms when in fact, they are very different. A "democracy" is the majority (a forest's non-perception of individual trees), as god, has ability to create law (mob rule). A "republic" is a unique land masses' defined boarder where individuals are the foundation of a body politic. A "democratic process" is simply: one person, one vote (no reference to type of law or law's origin(s)). A "republican form of government" is each person is a sovereign with inalienable rights; each and every law being a denomination of nature with man administering such existing law through rules of order.

Mike, Norwalk

Knavery?  Is liberty knavery? I think not. Is it knavery to be a patron of evil (tyranny, despotism, social slavery, a patron of the occupying statist theocracy now infesting this land)?  YES ! ! ! absolutely, I think so.

Mike, Norwalk

John, said well. Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, and measure in which the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn are intimately interested have been lost to a national establishment of religion that approves of human sacrifice, religious sacrament mandates (such as marriage) and forced charity; AND, replaced by compelled compliance, victimless crime enforcement, government licenses, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, police state confiscations, etc.) and NON-recognition of perfected allodium or inalienable rights endowed by nature’s God.

Mike, Norwalk

Within the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, the patrons thereof  in harmony with their hearts, minds and souls have elevated the enslaving 2nd plank of the communist manifesto to a integral tribute to their god(s). In support of the quote’s principle, incorporated into the settled policy of America, a founder’s principled vision couldbe expressed: "The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees." (Attributed to George Washington)

Mike, Norwalk

If I could rate this with innumerable stars a countless number of times, it would not do it justice. YES ! ! !  ABSOLUTELY ! ! !  We hold this truth to be self evident ! ! !

Mike, Norwalk

Governors, as governors (government) have no rights PERIOD; they have no rights but duty(s) ONLY ! ! !  Honorable servants that usurp and disparage that which would be unique to the individual sovereign (rights) is in fact a despotic malefactor, not a servant of "We The People".

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident.

Mike, Norwalk

Much, much more accurate than not. One of the measurements that is used to express great wealth or fortune(s) is spaciousness (incorporating a claim, use or occupation of/to land). That is one reason no personal sovereignty  related liberty or perfected allodium is recognized (a privileged title only) within the confines of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. Lending, or the taxation of labor are socially excepted terms making slavery a more palatable existence.

Mike, Norwalk

In a narrow context of focus, the quote would have a different understanding than the specific statement as a stand alone generality. Its not the labor that is despised (by the rich, poor, etc.) under the whip of slavery (look at the supporting / enslaved patrons of the occupying statist theocracy's 2nd plank of the communist manifesto), it is - those who love liberty and "the animating contest of freedom" that has such extreme aversion to labor's "forced condition." Labor is: well, labor. Labor's expressions can be to participate in, inspired by, be harmonious with, etc. that which is noble, or otherwise.

Mike, Norwalk

I like and agree the observation of comparisons made. Now, the non-producing carnal gods lord over their laboring patrons with discontent raising. The police state administrations of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, though vain claiming an intelligent aspiration, are not even a resembling facade of natural law / nature's inspired advancement.

Mike, Norwalk

In a very narrow scope of hindsight on specific cases, an accurate observation. Here, another observation comes to mind: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Also, the diligent labors of politicians who continue to borrow to get out of debt need never despair, the Federal Reserve can always print more ;-( 

Mike, Norwalk

In a very narrow scope of hindsight on specific cases, an accurate observation. Here, another observation comes to mind: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Mike, Norwalk

From Hume's point of perspective and reference, yes  accurate. Even mass poverty is purchased and expanded by the endeavors (labor) of despots.

Mike, Norwalk

As a stand a lone statement, I like it and very much agree.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Editor, Liberty Quotes (6/21/18)

I do like the new format. I did cut and paste because some of my first writing was getting lost. I'm trying to figure out how to post a cut and paste without losing some of the spacing and content. Thanks for all you do and have done over the years.

Mike, Norwalk

O. Delusional Liberal, of what you wrote, I clearly understand the modern liberal. Liberals DO believe their rulers are above the Constitution (constitutional law / constitutionally related “laws of nature and of nature’s God) – Constitutional sovereigns believe their servants are to be limited by/to representing inalienable rights only. As an extremely terse understanding, I meant by an "alien organic ethos with inherent right," - modern liberals believe their carnal gods (unconstitutional government) have a right to force their national establishment of religion on all people. THUS, you / modern liberals do NOT believe rights are inherent to individual sovereigns. Your liberal concept of law – with its liberal defined exceptions (inalienable rights having no part thereof) – confuses law with justice in an unconstitutional atmosphere (in the liberal legal atmosphere of today, there is NO justice system available, only a legal system). Today's liberals DO suppose natural fiscal laws are mythical by their religious support of an unconstitutional fiat / counter-fiat atmosphere (in your statist theocracy and otherwise), their forced collection and expenditures of the carnal god’s statist theocracy’s tithes and obligatory illicit offerings, etc., etc., etc. Your statist theocracy theories and unnatural policies on fiscal law are restrictive, destructive and unconstitutional. Your / modern liberals’ half-truths and misdiagnosis of history (such as the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto being natural / constitutional law) are modern liberal fabrications not based in factor complete truth. Now, factoring in the changing attitudes of Americans up to present day; the majority of people in the US today, liberals and conservatives alike, want more social programs which is a blatant contradiction to your /modern liberals’ concept of liberals wanting to abide constitutional limitations. Today’s liberals and conservatives simply want more of their brand of a statist theocracy, not a constitutionally limited administration of inalienable rights. Your liberal word salad only goes to prove my original post.

Mike, Norwalk

In the context given, YES  ABSOLUTELY !  Patrick Henry, said well

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.