[1-25] of 8342

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Vedapushpa, Bangalore - India. (5/21/19)

Individual sovereigns, the sole sentient being, the unique noble of humanity  each and every, any and all have an "inalienable right" to self defense (with such implementing assistance as constitutes guns) no matter their color, office, caste in life, etc. The issue is not a collective or culture issue.

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident.

Mike, Norwalk

The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has been overly successful in dumbing down the herd. Ask almost anybody on the street what liberty is and a "dah" will probably be the next response. Many will probably support the concept that if they have more government licenses  they would be more free. For me the scripture at Psalms 119:45 states the absolute: "And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts."

Again,“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).

Mike, Norwalk

It can be. Pure democracy as an example is flagrantly antithetical to the laws of nature and of nature's God, morality related thereto, prosperity for the many and inalienable right, liberty and justice for all. More often than not though, it is as was observed in the Declaration of Independence: "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident.

Mike, Norwalk

If I could re-use a quote from the other day, “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.” (John Locke) NO! ! ! government, State, Federal or otherwise, has de jure authority, lawful power, right or moral imperative to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and property in conservation and promotion of the public health, good order, and prosperity. The cause and effect here is an historically proven oxymoron and the function of "justice" is completely avoided. A valid administration of "order"  sort of alluded to in a passing side note kind of way is that, The further the body or representation gets from the individual sovereign, the fewer duties there are to act upon; and, the Federal Government was never given authority by the Constitution to do such acts as focused on here.

Mike, Norwalk

Radical Creed? The old belief in liberty, justice and self help is greatly diminished if not done away with entirely by State interference. It is impossible for the State to represent the whole people  that is an oxymoron. For the State to help it must be of primary social importance? ? ? Can I subpoena Mr. or Mrs. social into court to determine what is primarily important? NO!  The great social evil here is the "State?" determining it is going to help! ! !

Mike, Norwalk

The "A" from Reston, can you detail which wrongs of the radical right are worse than most anything the progressive left does? Why is fascism so much worse than communism?

Kimo, I feel your pain. I worked for years with Hawaiian Royalty, on the several Islands, to bring to light the illegality of the foreign occupation. On a similar note, I've worked with the Tlingit of Alaska to show the illegal occupation there.

The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land exponentially spreads its demonic plunder and enslavement from the banks of the Potomac. The here focused plunder is but one topic in a range of thousands that spreads from the banks of the Potomac.

Mike, Norwalk

Today's feeble facade of addressing censorship and more loss of liberty, the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land empowers its corporations, banks, etc. to grow in their criminal enslavement of "We" the individual sovereigns.

Mike, Norwalk

Patrons of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land have consistently chosen all those legislators that rule liberty out of the minds, hearts and soles of the ever increasing helots, serfs and slaves. The accuracy of the quote has historically been proven over, and over, and over, and over again.

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident. Though the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land is doing all that it can to pervert the here statement, the principles are still found in the heats of the free.

Mike, Norwalk

Couching most everything in a collectivist stint with a statist overview, Hamilton was not the greatest friend of or to individual sovereignty, personal liberty or inalienable rights. By way of example, his here statement "admission to all the rights of citizenship". There are NO! ! ! rights associated with citizenship  all rights are inherent in the being as a faculty of birth. Citizenship does afford certain practical advantages but rights, are not one of them. In the same way, today's progressive collectivists are misusing the term right. By example, the collectivists are saying voting is a right. Voting is not a right! ! !  A right is individualistic in nature (the right to protect one's self, the freedom to speak, etc.), a vote is a democratic process in administration of the whole.

Mike, Norwalk

American principles? ? ? I whole-heartedly assume, considering the source and historical applications, such "principle" reference is to a universal axiom or maxim of truth that is so clear that it cannot be disproved nor contradicted. “A principle of law is a rule or axiom which is founded in ⋯ nature ⋯, and it exists before it is expressed in the form of a rule.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

The totalitarianism of an absolute monarch is also found in ruling oligarchies of democracy, the full gamut of socialism (communism to fascism, liberals to conservatives, progressives to neocons, etc.), theocratic overlords and others. As is human nature, most immigrants have historically been looking to bask in the light of rights, liberty and a personal opportunity to financially better themselves and family. Much of today’s immigration, supported by patrons and supporters of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has been a religious degradation to destroy rights, liberty and financially prosperous opportunities (such certainly “bring with them the principles of the government they leave,”)

Another micro example of the quote’s focus is the movement of people within the boundaries of the States united. Once theocratic socialists imbibed from their youth (theocratic seminaries = government schools, MSM, etc.) have sufficiently destroyed rights, liberty and financially prosperous opportunities (California, Michigan, etc.) they immigrate to other States passing on their inherent licentiousness, new meanings of words, transgressed principles, warped and biased perspectives and incoherent distractions.

Mike, Norwalk

Rights are inalienable as a faculty of birth. U.S. citizens have no right(s) each and every other individual on the planet has. Carnal governments do not / can not bestow rights. If chaotic influxes of foreigners (politicians, etc.) are hostile to institutions and privileges granted they may desire expressions of rights, liberty and law? 

Mike, Norwalk

A very accurate historically proven standard.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk E Archer, NYC (5/8/19)

Archer, on your comment; I have a friend from Germany that came to America and became a citizen. We've had several discussions on his study of "American history". (-; He is baffled at our history and how the people have swayed so far away from the originating principles and, how unconstitutional the current government is.  ;-)


Mike, Norwalk

Within an overall context, I would tend to agree. Couching the entirety of the sentiment in a monetary collective is a very disconcerting and misdirectional effort as concerns rights, life, liberty and law. The immigration rules and applications thereof in the U.S. are extremely flawed. I had a friend that met and married an American girl in Europe. They moved near to the woman's family. She had a mental break-down after having 5 children and accused her husband of some really weird stuff (I know for a fact he didn't do such). He was very industrious / hard working, a good provider to his family, his kids loved him, talented, he was an asset to the community, employed several people and seemed to follow his religion. Immigration, solely on the word of his wife, separated him from his family and deported him. THEN, compare that with the immigrants Mr. Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin brought in (antithetical to: holding life sacred, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, the laws of nature and of nature's God, religions other than their own, etc.)

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not quite sure how to rate this. Who is going to be forcing what spirit of the Constitution. My legal spirit of the Constitution (inclusive of personal sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, nobility of life, perfected allodium and administration of the laws of nature and of nature's God  NO! ! ! compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licensing, and/or no larceny with impunity) is diametrically opposed to the socialist patrons (liberal to conservative, communist to fascist, progressive to neocon, etc.) of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. The Bill of Rights is a good place to start (freedom of religion, speech, thought, etc.). If an individual (individually or in concert, persons behind the veil of corporations, government, etc.) violate another's right, liberty, person, property, etc., they should be dealt with in a criminal system where innocent until proven guilty reigns supreme.

Mike, Norwalk

“Safety”, when relied upon to garner support in a political atmosphere is an immediate warning of what is about to be unfurled. Safety of socialism and other theocratic regimes essentially depend on their helots’, serfs’ and slaves’ common national sentiment and, on a uniformity of principles and habits. A republican form of government is an expression of inalienable rights, liberty and ordering of the laws of nature and of nature’s God by individual sovereigns – individually and in concert.

Human nature does bring with it attachments to family, customs, life styles, and manners. The acceptance of differences within individuals of the family of man is noble. When those differences are the premise of rights, liberty and law destruction (such as is now occurring within most body politics of the U.S and world), those individuals should be interacted with as criminals.

Mike, Norwalk

Constitutionally speaking, there is a huge difference between immigration and citizenship. At constitutional law, The individual States have authority over immigration  the federal government has authority over citizenship. In a closed system such as a bounded nation, there is always a premise for existence.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not quite sure how to rate this comment. What is the "national spirit" and National "character" that is referenced? Immigrants bring with them a certain level of their culture when going to a new land which is a powerful means of change  an obvious dah Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If it means perverting and corrupting an existing system that promotes and protects love of your fellow man, charity towards all, nobility of the specie, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, the laws of nature and of nature's God (gravity, physics, geometry, life, property, freedom of religion) it is a bad thing and should be treated as criminal when the rights or liberty of others are infringed upon.

Mike, Norwalk

Political correctness is the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's religious opinion(s). Rights are natural self expressions within the absolute of the laws of nature and of nature's God — inherent in the being, not dependent on⋯. Religion is: a sacrosanct object of conscience (an ethic(s), a moral(s), a value (system) or an orientation of correctness / enlightenment) believed sufficiently conventional as to enable an attributable action(s). Religion is: “ real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ⋯ our fellow men.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

Mike, Norwalk

I can't speak to others on this topic concerning an extra human personage or experience (each have their own learning style) but, it has been my experience that on the face of the here terse chosen statement, it was the best way for me personally to come to know my Father in Heaven and Savior.

Mike, Norwalk

ummm, can I give a "da" to the observation ;-)  (-; here, if A is true, B is true also '-)

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk E Archer, NYC (5/3/19)

Archer, I have had occasion to meet people who have been clinically declared dead, and upon returning to life have very similar stories. A natural occurring happenstance? — maybe? I have stated on this blog many miracles beyond an explanation by science that I have personally witnessed or have been a part of (by example: my sister was in a coma for near 4 months and expected to die. Her long hair had been shaven because there was a crack in her skull that was oozing liquid. Upon having hands laid on her head she woke up and almost immediately — within minutes — all her hair was restored and there was no sign of any medical problem). I know, people can attribute that to anything but, I have a certain "KNOWLEDGE" beyond faith and epistemology of what happened there, and more beyond science personal occurrences.

The quote though is about taking divinity out of the lawfully corporeal application of administering personal inalienable rights, liberty, the laws of nature and of nature's God (gravity, science, life, liberty, property, etc.) by servants and applying that which has best been historically accurate to secure and promote such. Those blind that claim since Jesus didn't live in a time of cars, trains and planes, his statements on personal action have no political validity today. Those same ignorant do not have a clue what eternal law or truth are nor, do they want to.

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.