[1-25] of 8462

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Robert Edwards, somewhere in the USA (11/20/19)

The use of the term "libertarian" for many of our understandings pre-dates your focused social mind set. For example:William Belshim wrote of libertarianism in a 1789 article describing the metaphysics of liberty. An 1839 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary references a libertarian as one who acts with freedom of restraint only by the laws of nature at civil, natural, personal and political engagements. It is true, that "liberalism" once included a sincere expression of "Human Compassion". Now, liberalism is nothing more than a collectivist's excuse for a despotic compelled compliance.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Robert Edwards, somewhere in the USA (11/20/19)

Your current depiction of a "liberal" was accurate over 200 years ago. Today, the PC "liberal" is far from that understanding. The ole adage of "he who forgets history is doomed to relive it", puts into perspective a notion of "new ideas" (not much new under the sun, just spins on old applications). The liberal of over 200 years ago new that the old enslavement of socialism was antithetical to personal sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, prosperity and the all around well being of individuals (health, housing, education, personal commerce, etc.).

Mike, Norwalk

A mixed metaphor with a string of dissimilar almost accuracies trying to stitch together a lucid thought — almost kinda worked. By example: absolute truth, complete with a flowing moral philosophy (???) only here applies ( a lot of kindas here) to the comment when man, as a god and government his priesthood, form from his/its/their own belief system of right and wrong a compelled compliance instead of defining the laws of nature and of nature's God by such tools as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. AND; more than infinitely precious with something to offer, each individual is a sovereign with inalienable right(s) at liberty. AND; in a Representative (of rights) Republic only a despotic tyranny can explain the sophisticated government planners attempt at fulfilling dreams (the de jure job description is to represent rights and liberty — not fulfill dreams). AND then; the last sentence tries to bring the thought together with an absolute accuracy.

Mike, Norwalk

In a focused context, more accurate than not  in a general application, not so much. Uninhibited action in harmony with the laws of nature and of nature's God is more than just a defense of liberty, it is liberty's life expression.

Mike, Norwalk

The implied morality of the Politically Correct is nothing more than an ecclesiastical control mechanism. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, with its enforced dogma is an accurate and direct example of the quote's correctness.

Growing up, I learned that there were gods many (carnal, extra human, political, etc.), each with their own morality. I also learned that morality that does not conform to the laws of nature and of nature's God is a depraved form of slavery. Morals and law enforcement by a police state is a depravity of slavery. The issue of the laws of nature and of nature's God infringement is a jurisdiction of justice administration.

Mike, Norwalk

Within a broad scope of focus, the intended message is probably more accurate than not. A good example to prove the point is the current occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. Beyond that, on the specific addressed topic; “Power” is: “The ability to act or not act” (Black’s Law Dictionary) When the disposition of power is to unjustly control someone else’s responses or exert anti-natural law dominance and/or influence over another’s actions, it is illicit abuse. Who - which individual, has authority to confide or consign to the masses unrestrained political authority? ? ? NO ONE ! ! !

There also exists a moral disposition of power in individuals to benefit others at law without limiting liberty, inalienable rights, interests or actions

Mike, Norwalk

Excellent, accurate ! ! !    we hold this truth to be self evident ! ! !

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Jack, Green, OH (11/11/19)

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).

Fake freedom is what is occurring under the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land with its applied socialism, tyranny and other forms of despotism. WHEN: compelled compliance, government licenses, victimless crimes, enslavement through larceny, (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, police state confiscations, etc.); AND, non-recognition / persecutions against individual sovereignty / freedom / liberty / perfected allodium (absolute private ownership) / the laws of nature and of nature’s God is called freedom, it is fake.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not sure I would say that: "The most fatal blow to progress is slavery of the intellect" but, I would certainly say it is at the top 2 or 3 of any list that describes progress inhibiting (spiritual, mental, moral, physical, economically, etc., etc., etc.).

Mike, Norwalk

"for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority" is so effective that it is used while perpetrating forms of Stockholm Syndrome and other humanity degrading techniques and domains (such as peer pressure induced philosophies / religions - socialism, democracy, progressivism, etc. I have not seen any teachings of individual sovereignty, natural law, liberty or inalienable rights within the wishes of majority think.

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk luis, panama (11/8/19)

Churches are too broad a topic to make such a statement. In your enclave of churches, are you including socialism, monarchal restrictions of belief for staying in power, theocratic seminaries (government schools), etc.

Mike, Norwalk

Not quite sure how to rate this. dave above gives a good spin with a positive observation. When the mindset is set or focused on a multiple (collectivism, socialism, democracy, cultural crusader, mass society, etc.) the general rule tends to lend itself to destruction. When the mindset is set or focused on the natural law, liberty, and inalienable right of the sovereign individual, there is loss without the personal crusader. 

Mike, Norwalk

By any/all traditional / legal definitions of religion, the quote demonstrates a subject matter fulfillment by in the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. Said very well!

Mike, Norwalk

A very accurate observation. Safe spaces are filling up.

Mike, Norwalk

I'm not sure how to rate this. As Ronw13 said, 5 stars for accuracy OR, should it get a thumb's down for what the staggering application has done to a once free land.

Mike, Norwalk

In context as an abstract overall, I'm afraid it is far to accurate, far to often. The demonic / sick heart and mind feeds itself through greater and greater acts of immorality, debauchery and depravities.

Mike, Norwalk

You have to love the illicit / unconstitutional "Democracy" we are terrorized under. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's criminal high priests and priestesses (can't forget to include the judiciary and executive) act almost uniquely in forging their destruction of a once conceived free people.

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Mike, Norwalk (10/15/19)

While I’m quoting Latin standard legal maxims today ;-) “veritas vos liberabit” (the truth will set you free)  Inalienable right, liberty, truth, love, the laws of nature and of nature's God and justice are all inseparably connected and inherent in life's Divine expression(s). To live otherwise (for any reason) is spiritual / cognitive death. To knowingly choose a life in harmony with unlawful / unjust demonic rule (law) is beyond mortality's demise. Patric Henry's: "Give me liberty or give me death" here rings eternally to the point.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Mike, Norwalk (10/15/19)

A couple of questions here: how do you transgress something that does not exist by or at natural law? Though dangerous, is non-obedience to illicit tyranny transgression? By lawful absolute: "lex iniusta non est lex" – an unjust law is no law at all (Thomas Aquinas)

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk E Archer, NYC (10/14/19)

The thumbs down are partly because it is impossible to list all the inherent, inalienable or otherwise rights of man, inclusive of all the situations those rights can be expressed in. The constitution was not to be an exhaustive declaration of rights but rather, a limitation on servant’s jurisdictional boundaries. Scalia's here: “The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts", stands with a thread of accuracy woven through a much broader tapestry of law, justice and job description. Scalia’s misdirection smoke screen is to deflect any possible meaning or application of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) and what the Declaration actually was. Such Declaration was to declare the how / what / where of tyranny’s so called law, an establishment of individual sovereign status and was not meant to confer powers but rather, limit the Supreme Court's jurisdictional purview. Under the original natural law jurisdictional preference, the people could/can not create law — corporeal man could/can only use certain tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes to define the natural law that already exists(ed) (therein lies inalienable rights and liberty). Calling such tools “law” was/is the tradition of maleficent politicians and academia to enslave an ignorant chattel. Scalia's word salad only plays to the court's legislative tyranny, enforcing the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's status as a supreme god (law giver, definer of law — denier of inalienable right and liberty).

Mike, Norwalk

Again, at "the laws of nature and nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) / common law application (individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, and liberty) the term "law enforcement" is an oxymoron. Can one enforce gravity, physics, math, life, liberty, property? The answer is a great big emphatic NO ! ! ! Only tyranny can be enforced. Observance to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's canons (law) is slavery. So, Coolidge's options only describe differing domains of / for enslaved chattel.

Mike, Norwalk

Ronw13 and jim, said well

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Mike, Norwalk (10/7/19)

Beyond a professed epistemology (studied knowledge) of truth, truth stands independent in the domain in which exists.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Mike, Norwalk (10/7/19)

Beyond being one’s own judge, the systemic vernacular for a juror (independent party / peer {a noble equal} that is to recognize fact and law) is known as “voir dire” (speak the truth) which, is ultimately to be an impartial / unbiased individual sovereign. Nothing here references the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land’s black robbed high priests that uniquely promulgate its judicial will.

Mike, Norwalk
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Robert, Sarasota (10/2/19)

Robert, WHAT ? ? ?  You obviously have no clue to what a lawful definition of "rights" is. Your here reference to "time" would suggest that individual rights are in fact being recognized today (at this time  that is highly subjective and wrong).

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.