[1-25] of 9843

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk

Not shooting the messenger, I like it a lot. Though there are multiple exposure remedies to current education's falsehoods and fallacies, this is a great start.

Mike, Norwalk

I’m not sure how to rate this. The entire word salad is Woke dogma couched outside Constitutional law. Thomas’ stated law is a reference to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land’s theory of positive law NOT ! ! !, the Constitution’s “law of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). Thomas’ theory of a free society differs wildly from the actuality of “law” and “justice”. Punishment is reserved to justice – not law. To punish, abuse or throttle beforehand an inalienable right is a grave injustice.

Abuse, throttling beforehand and punishing an inalienable right, as a societal preference, is indicative of a criminal system. A criminal system’s operation describes; “an offense against the state that is punishable.” (Collins Dictionary of Law) “A crime is an offense against a public law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) (carnal man’s theoretic edicts) NOT ! ! !, the breaking of a “law of nature / Constitutionally recognized law”.

Mike, Norwalk

On the other hand, NO party (individual, in concert or otherwise) may exert a so-called "right" to disallow an heir to the Eternal King's inviolate / imperative ability to vote. Carnal gods, through their anti-justice Orders, Rulings and Judgments / philosophy of men edicts erroneously believe they have an authoritative right and justification to selectively disallow a nobleman's vote  they do NOT! ! !

Mike, Norwalk

Calvin, by definition, voting is not a right as, it entails a third party enactment and does not restrain itself to just actions. Voting is a duty (every bit as valid through to an end intent) but simply, not a right. Other than that, you are absolutely correct, voting and the means of rights expression(s) are essential elements of existence and self preservation.

Mike, Norwalk

RIGHT(S): “right”; is an eternally actionable warrant, facilitating a most base particle’s just mechanics and/or performance. Right(s) is an inherent, inviolate, just and omnipresent component / factor / attribute, composing matter’s structure of expression - bonding / sealing the “be” to the “do” (law existing as the ultimate and final “do”) A right is a single being’s just ability to commit any act that does not infringe on another’s right. It could be said that "right" is a footprint of energy.

“You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” (John Adams) Rights, exude from a most base material source -from the inside out. Rights are first recognized as unalienable / inalienable sources of action (“⋯ which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)). Unseen rights, as are interacted with from the outside-in are distinguished as a principle(s). “Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity.” (Mother Teresa)

Right translates from such Hebrew scripture as the masculine noun מִשְׁפָּט “ mišpāṭ” (pronounced “mish-pawt') meaning: judgment, justice, rectitude, virtue or an inviolate attribute. From a position of justice, right is matter's unalienable free will to choose. A relating Greek feminine noun translated into “right” is is ἐξουσία “exousía”, (pronounced “ex-oo-see'-ah”). “Exousia” means: nature’s endowed ability, entitlement, natural privilege or strength – possessed or exercised; the being’s ability, authority and power of choice / to choose; the innate liberty of doing as one pleases; just abilities, authority and power superior to corporeal man’s control or oversight; an individual’s inherent sovereign faculty – i.e., ability, authority and power to express oneself by executive, legislative, judicial or other miens. It may be said that each joint heir with Christ is at liberty and free to exercise just and palpable right(s).

Mike, Norwalk

Robert, FYI  "the law of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) is "law" (science, physics, gravity, mathematics, magnetics, life, inalienable rights, liberty, etc.). Natural law is a philosophy of men that is observed in nature and then may be applied to image nature's law. It was natural law that was used by most of the founders to represent inalienable rights and liberty at law. Nature's law exists throughout eternity and is unchangeable. Positive law is a philosophy of man (carnal gods) that is based on a perceived and applied superior position over all that it purveys (sentient chattel). The occupying statist theocracy now infesting this land acts in a totalitarian manner through positivist law. 

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, the second plank of the communist manifesto, with its theocratic application, is in demonic opposition to individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty at nature's law and the family of man's nobility. I, for one, detest the bloviated benefits of citizenship claimed by the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. I prefer individual sovereigns united in a representative republic.

Mike, Norwalk

Trump is another example of the quote's accuracy. The zeal of the Woke Totalitarians (those who hate true justice / inalienable rights / liberty / nobility of the specie) commit legalfare against all that do not strictly follow the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's dogma.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, thank you for proving my point. Your messiah complex rationalizes your extremely superficial emotionality, non-existent status and your inability to think critically, attempt scientific methodology and/or definitively explain anything without a circular word salad. "general respect"?; "granting life"? "national acknowledgement of who I am and what I represent."?; "Maximum Wage."?

Mike, Norwalk

Simply allowing for the rights of others to think or worship differently than one's self is, a most shallow but necessary postulated sequence in freedom and liberty's recognition. Unalienable rights are neither good or evil, they just are.

Mike, Norwalk

In the light and context the quote is given, a broad spectrum of depth is covered (far more accurate, far more often than not). At the most basic review, “speech” is unalienable / inherently free at nature’s law (with or without legal calligraphy or other script). In carnal man’s philisophical application of control (also called law), freedom of anything (speech) is never exempt from scathing reviews. An occupational hazard of attorneys is he/she/it (can’t forget AI) gets paid by the word; thus, leaving no term or concept safe from alteration.

Mike, Norwalk

Liberty shrivels (along with the thought thereof; AND, even what liberty is) when freedom of expression enslaves once individual sovereigns. By example; in an atmosphere of hostility, danger and hazards to liberty, such as compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licenses and larceny (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, police state confiscations, funny money, etc.) the thought of liberty gets lost.

By example; A license is: “A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts ⋯ by competent authority, ⋯ without such permission would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) License is a de facto authorization of an arbitrary privilege; “given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) A license is “The permission granted by competed authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort.” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd Edition) A government license is: “The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” (People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2,)

In an atmosphere where marriage, commerce / business, and property ownership are criminal acts, the very thought of what liberty “IS”, is lost. A government license does not make an act legal, a government license only allows the participant in such criminal act to continue without prosecution.

Mike, Norwalk

Liberty of thought; or, thought of liberty.

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, nature’s 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) – nature’s 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) “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:12) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:16)

Liberty and truth's pursuit, in an atmosphere hostile to the endeavor or, under dangers which are hazardous to their person / property are sought by heroes.”

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, through scientific method, please define advanced mental refinement and how it correlates to nature's law. I may be just plain nonsensical at times (thank you for noticing); WHILE, your continuing circular word salad makes NO sense in any dimension you may claim to be currently inhabiting.

Mike, Norwalk

Okay, now, because your basic reasoning abilities are nil to extremely flawed and, in a socialist arrangement (an "arrangement" requires a third Party to facilitate the ordering), a psychotic multi-personality has to certify your credentials, how certifiable are you? Because you do not accept individual sovereignty, you can NOT credibly self proclaim your credentials (an oxymoron). From a social scientist's established methodology, please demonstrate how anything you are claiming is even anywhere near accurate. 

What BS am I making up? Please be detailed and use some established scientific methodology.

Mike, Norwalk

If someone is to rate what is more hideous than a crime, that same party must know what a "crime" is. As defined and practiced, a crime is not the breaking of a law of nature but rather, acting against corporeal man's philosophical edicts. A crime is; “an offense against the state that is punishable.” (Collins Dictionary of Law) “A crime is an offense against a public law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Crimes (criminal activity) are unique to man's philosophical systems, such as "maritime law", “legal positivism”, "legal realism", etc. “Crime” does not relate to the breaking of a law (murder, theft, destruction of property, etc.) but rather, a breach of man's philosophical applied edicts called law; i.e., godly mandates. At times, man's philosophical applied edicts image law breaking 'BUT' ! ! !, being a facsimile (crime) is NOT the same as the real thing (law). One is man's control, the other is law. By definition, crime is the breach of an oligarchal (1 to ⋯) totalitarian’s communal dictate, consuming all herd cogs within its realm of influence.


Crimes, such as: non-observance of/to compelled compliance, negating any genuflecting to victimless crimes, acting without government license {commerce, marriage, certain property ownership are all crimes, only allowed without prosecution if a government license is obtained} and non-collaboration with larceny {2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, etc.} do NOT constitute the breaking of nature's laws.


Most "crimes" on the books are "repressive justice".

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, once again your ignorance astounds me. ONCE MORE, you have attempted to redefine another word "Messiah" without even knowing what it means (your bigoted ignorance is showing). You err once more, "we" are NOT dealing with a very primitive mentality — you are. LOLOLOL — the vast majority of messiahs were not crucified. It was you that referenced your uniqueness and others wondering if you are the socialist messiah.

You are not a scientist of/by any means ! ! ! For all the times I've ask you to provide a scientific methodology that you used to come up with your conclusions, you've never once been able to / or even attempted to enlighten us with your scientific actions. Your lack of memory concerning this site's contributors on the subject of socialism doesn't even scratch history's reporting on socialism. By your statement(s) here, are you parroting the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party public stance on sex and drugs while Hitler with his many (like Eva Braun) really didn't practice recreationally? (by practice, did you mean until they get it perfect)?

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, hahahaha, lolololol  again, WHAT ? ? ?  I say hmmm. Ummm, evidence is a topic title. What specific evidence are you speaking of  it being so strong that it only demonstrates my totalitarianism and lack of depth and scope? I've mentioned that your circular word salad has never defined what you mean by "Maximum Wage". ALSO, please give the scientific method you are using to define "Maximum Wage". What scientific / law of nature are you using to define a "proper resource allocation (please add examples of improper resource allocations  who & what are being allocated; from and to).

How is my defining and declaring a desire for individual sovereignty, personal inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law evidence of totalitarianism or a lack of depth and scope. Your typical socialist lies of accusation, inclusive of blaming others for what you are doing, especially after parroting such socialists as Hitler and Stalin only proves your ideology to be destructive, enslaving and all that is antithetical to human nobility.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, You are so infested with your totalitarian religion that you can't recognize truth or nobile concepts outside your illicit dogma. The individual sovereign concept is, - there are NO chiefs vs. Indians (no leaders vs followers  just sovereign employers and employees). Each and every, any and all individuals are noble, equal to one another in inalienable rights and liberty at law.

Your new signature is an imbecile's circular word salad that exists with no definition, application or corrilation.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, in ALL practical applications to date (scientific, life style, mathematically, economically, etc., etc., etc.) has failed in utter disaster. Please show one (1) example, from the last few centuries where socialism has worked. Okay, you can't. Limited implementations of socialism may only slow economic, moral and nature's law while, the greater the implementation of socialism the greater and quicker the fall. "NO" laboratory or courtroom has ever (or can) prove socialism works (practicality and application show that socialism doesn't work).

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, it is a bit funny (not haha) that you consistently promote a lie when the truth is so available. Sillik, a question for you; why is there so much violence associated with schools and around students today, in their socialist environment, when there was no such violence 60 years ago before socialism had gained such a strong foothold?

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, okay, once again lolololol, hahahaha. WHAT ? ? ? I know, you being the socialist messiah, you have psychic and other powers we mere sentient chattel do not have  SO PLEASE!, enlighten me as to what I'm making up as I go along. I'd like to fix it. By the way  FYI, socialism is NOT a new ideology, no matter how many times you try and pass that lie but rather, a centuries old perversion. Socialism promotes illicit and recreational sex and drugs.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, your attempt to redefine "capitalism" (differing only slightly from Marx's new definition / fiscally incorrect) only goes to negate your continuing circular word salad. In a system of debt where socialist gods own all sentient chattel, property and actions (the grave and present conventional arrangement) capitalism is a foreign concept with no possibility of coexistence. A term  "crony capitalism", has been floated, that more accurately addresses the concept I think you are trying to set forth.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, all those that have the slightest inkling of what individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law is/are have rejected the implementation of a social contract (your biased responsibility towards the community of the entire universe).

Mike, Norwalk

Archer, reading the here dialogue forcibly makes me laugh hysterically  forcing me to uncontrollably fall down in a state of aw. Sillik, the socialist god (messiah), being the historically sole phenomenon able to force without force, compel without compulsion and speak absolute opposing ideologies out of both sides of his mouth while believing all of it at the same time (not being able to finitely define any of it), is a force to be reckoned with.  ;-). ;-). ;-)

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.