[1-25] of 9115

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk

The current January 6 chamber of evil is unconstitutionally / anti-law / actively seeking to destroy the separation of the States united's 3 branches (executive, legislative, judicial). Said chamber, as law making gods, are endeavoring to encapsulate the domains of judge, jury and executioner within its own falsely perceived authorities, duties and powers. The chamber of evil is fulfilling Washington's prophetic understanding of the subject matter's "encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one".

Mike, Norwalk

The de jure States united was to function at "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) with certain applications from an extended common law thereof; — within, "a republican form of government" (Article 4, Section 4, U.S. Constitution). The jurors were to act in all cases of judicial action, determining intent, fact and law. The occupying statist theocracy (with all its robbed priests / priestesses of the dark arts {not law}) have done away of such basic constitutional procedure, carnally enslaving the Eternal Kings progeny through legal positivism and other unconstitutional systems. Global governments practicing such dark arts fulfill scriptural accuracy when speaking of the mother of all whores. (see Revelation 17)

Mike, Norwalk

We hold this truth to be self evident ! ! !

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)

“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)

Mike, Norwalk

     There are four (4) Terms that are misused, confused and otherwise incorrectly abused - by an extremely term(s) explanation.


     Democracy is: “That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised by the people in a body,” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Democracy can not perceive or identify a single tree - its domain is solely limited to recognizing the forest’s ostensively supposed will. By democracy’s definition and practice, there is no individual sovereignty, personal rights, liberty, nature’s law or anything outside a mobs will. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin is a quote that describes democracy well: “Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. Freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.” This is the democracy John Adams is referencing here.


     Democratic process describes a procedurally measured system that maintains “A series of actions, motions, or occurrences; a method, mode, or operation, whereby a result or effect is produced.” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, ed. 2.) A “democratic process” may be useful in a democracy, a republic or a republican form government (it is not exclusive to democracy).


     A Republic is primarily bifurcated into ostensibly differing references. By example: A “republic” is “A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) - A democracy perceives a/the "body" - people or otherwise - while, a republic administers the affairs of each citizen. A republic can also be the term that describes the specific boarder (boundaries) of a particular jurisdiction.

     A republican form of government is an egalitarian based system where individual sovereigns exercise personal inalienable rights and liberty at “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence)

Mike, Norwalk

     An excellent reference to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) The de jure States united's authoritative, uniquely legitimate and sole jurisprudence is a system of law at nature that is absolute (science, math, life, liberty, rights, property, etc.). At / under nature's law, man can not create law — man can only implement procedures of order through tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. Can man create gravity, life, etc. out of nothing — NO! ! !  Further, man can not legislate morality. Man can only create tyranny.

     The originating Greek philosophy (messaged through to today) is an ideology based on an ever elusive ideology that, law is based on man's morals (government actions only - man can legislate morality).

     Another legal philosophy (Legal Positivism) is an arbitrary system where demonic man is capable of creating and enforcing law. “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) – Legal Positivism, as an applied ideology, is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

     A blending of several legal philosophies today (contrary to constitutional law) deny individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, the laws of nature, etc. while promoting demonic enslavement, pain, death, violence, poverty, etc.

Mike, Norwalk

Excellent observation. I would add to the political opinions  religious beliefs. Today's greatest religious patrons and advocates for the gods of pleasure and Moloch's dogmas and cannon executions hate life's nobility. Said religious patrons also hate inalienable rights, liberty, peace and the laws of nature and of nature's God while not being able to distinguish between political and social opposition.

Mike, Norwalk

The seminaries (government schools) of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, accompanied by MSM / media directed at the youth and otherwise demonic social norms hoisted on the minds and hearts of the youth promote mischiefs of licentiousness while destroying the advantages of liberty, inalienable rights, individual sovereignty, love, peace and prosperity.

Mike, Norwalk

Concerning the most recent Supreme Court Rulings -"prophetic" in deed. Those who include Moloch worship as a part of their greater Woke Theocracy's greater dogma, are clearly acting out Adams' observed cause and effect.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, I laugh almost uncontrollably, while shaking my lowered head. Educated? Of course you've learned to do the Marxist thing when ask a specific question; dodge the question completely and give some off topic frivolous word salad. Educated by whom? / where? By what measure is the "educated" acknowledged? Again, "educated"?

Mike, Norwalk

;-) Sillik, what do you mean by educated / uneducated? The vast majority of schools (pre-K to advanced universities) are reduced to seminaries propagating false religion (forms of socialism)  dumbing down individuals of the new statist theocracy's collective. It has been shown the greater the establishment of socialist religions the lower the IQ. Do your educated socialists include the lying dog faced pony soldier's Nobel Laureates that prophesied that inflation is not caused by too few products / too many frns? Since socialists can not keep to one definition, I haven't noticed one positive conveyance (no matter what a socialist says, he/she/it resorts to compelled compliance and violence  rejecting personal inalienable rights, liberty, individual sovereignty while replacing law with despotic tyranny. Socialists are the most biased as not so much a determination of their lies but, based on their actions. Socialists, as a segment of their religious enslavements are Moloch's greatest patrons.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, your parroting a socialist's (communist, fascist, woke, etc.) lie, only proves the point of a despotic totalitarian's enslavement is uniquely furthered on changing the meaning of words / concepts and otherwise false and erroneous misdirection word salads. In your theocratic socialist enclave, who is going to define reasonable, rational, conventional forces, silly and stupid (all of which is void of natural reality, nature's laws, inalienable rights, liberty and justice). The noble child of humanity is born with inalienable rights, liberty and justice as a faculty of birth. Such noble individual sovereign does NOT censor any utterance by a measurement o f reasonable or rational.

Sillik, I'll bite  as a unique socialist god, you must be omnes scientas / omnes eruditus  1) what is money?  2) who is to blame for such horrific debt?  3) who decides and by what standard concludes what "conventional forces is/are? 4) PLEASE ! ! ! define "right(s)" / inalienable rights within a construct of "the laws of nature and of nature's god" (Declaration of Independence) 5) what is a socialist's view of "technical constructions"?

Mike, Norwalk

oops: I didn't mention that my last post here was directed at Sillik's above nonsensical word salad.

Mike, Norwalk

;-)  ;-). ;-)  Your fallacious and erroneous observation is only accurate in a closed enclave of theology's woke slaves. Individuals educated as to individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, the laws of nature and of nature's God and practice charity with the greatest abilities to converse are the building blocks of proper conduct and civilized societies. Socialists of all ilks are the hoodlum bullies that censor fee speech and place demonic spins on the truth through tools such as fake news and violence. I have noticed that those in opposition to firearms are only conceived eloquent within a circular logic of haters.

Mike, Norwalk

I feel sorry for you rob, your bigoted lunacy only illuminates the most shallow side of stupid. Have you gone public with the tie between gun toting TV preachers that so sufficiently have robbed your wealth and the Bush's 911 inside job? Turn off the TV or turn the channel when those threatening / gun toting preachers start doxing you ;-) Don't let those TV preachers disarm you  don't share your wealth with them. Are you as animated against the occupying statist theocracy that infests this land? Do you send portions of your wealth to said statist theocracy because they know your address and are ready, willing and able to use the full force of arms against you?

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik — too, too funny (not humorous). Your "realization" is a mental illnesses' delusion of a mythologically fabricated vision. This "collective" you mention, can you give me its/their (?) postal address so that I might subpoena Mr./Mrs./Ms/Gender Pronoun of Choice Collective. In the past, I've needed (I know you like to talk about needs) to subpoena this allusive "collective" to protect my self / person. Sillik, what is the lawful nexus, at nature's law, that equates your "collective" to being "one in the same" as my personal interests. My personal interest may or may NOT be the same (or even antagonistic) as/to you or your referenced "collective's" interests. Again, we’re speaking rights vs. needs. Another nexus request; in your word salad ethos, what reality realm does an individual’s right(s) equate to a realization for no firearms? ? ? Please be specific in your lawful articulation!

Mike, Norwalk

     “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Legal Positivism, as an applied ideology, is an arbitrary law administration “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) - (law of nature and morality) “The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgement but on personal will or discretion ⋯. 


     In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with tyrannical or despotic.” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2)


     As accurate as Humphrey’s first sentence was, he veered off into the never, never land weeds of legal positivism’s arbitrary tyranny and despotism - “definite safety rules of precaution should be ⋯ enforced.”

Mike, Norwalk

     Sillik, Your entire diatribe is based on a conditional lie. By example: the idea of a constitution in a "republican form of government" does NOT! ! ! inhibit inquiry! You are not complicating anything. You are simply displaying a tyrants misdirection and solution to a problem that does not exist. AND, any change to said Constitution only changes the procedural administration to the inalienable right that exist - with or without a third party governing party. Your attempt to change the meaning of words and scenarios is typical of a socialist's need to deceive.

     Also, your theocratical beliefs and ideas of "need" are a misdirection and and off topic. The topic is "rights". According to your word salad, faculties of birth, such as rights {as is according to nature's law, individual sovereignty and the sentient noble being's creation and articulation} are not conducive to "the most productive course". Please define your vision of "the most productive course". Please be constructive in your (non-ethos related) description with comprehensive, detailed, exhaustive, elaborate, exacting, meticulous, minute and specific articulation so that we lower forms may begin to understand the gods.

Maine’s Constitution speaks to each individual sovereign “Every citizen” (it does not address a social ethos); it speaks to “right(s)’ - “has a right to keep and bear arms”. And lastly, because Constitutions within the de jure States united uniquely addresses the third party / body politic and not We The People, the clause: “this right shall never be questioned”, is legalese for the inalienable right of the individual sovereign is just that, NOT touchable by the servants that are hired to protect rights and liberty. Procedures may change to protect the right but, the “right” is unalienable No where does "need" enter the topic.

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, YES, I have been acquainted with many calling themselves socialists as you do. I am even old enough to have interacted with hippie communes  where most called themselves socialists. Most of those pretended love, peace and harmony as do you also. Their mentally ill religions all failed dramatically because they did not follow fiscal laws of nature nor recognize absolute individual sovereignty. I can't think of an exception at the moment but, everyone that I've known that called themselves socialist had to change the meanings of words, as a rule vs. exception like you do. 

Mike, Norwalk

The occupying statist theocracy now infesting would have all individual sovereigns turned into slaves (the mentality, sentiments, and statements are the same).

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, I absolutely agree with a new inspired respect for life would be a giant step forward in man's noble advancement. Such can only be recognized by acknowledging individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty through "the laws of nature and of nature's God". All mandatory (or otherwise) mind movies or varying forms of groupings, social adaptations (such as any form of socialism) or theoretical multitudinous applications thereto are an exercise in mental masturbation, false dichotomies and the mentally ill's rationalization for enslavement.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, you may want to read The Federalist Papers #29. What do you think the Constitution may be changed means? Since individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and the laws of nature and nature's God are inviolate / unchanging / eternal  changing the Constitution only means changing the administration of that which always exists. Rights, liberty, etc. are faculties of birth, any administrative denial thereof is tyranny.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, the middle of what? The only scale offered by government and its 4th branch (MSM) falls within a socialist enslavement (left / communists and right / fascists) If your reference to the middle is somewhere on that scale  individual sovereignty, law, inalienable rights and liberty are not / can not be considered (tyranny enforcement {under any nomenclature} extinguishes existence by law)

Mike, Norwalk

Sillik, can you provide a correlation between arms possession and intelligence or the study you are drawing from?

Mike, Norwalk

Using the same logic, only no good murdering savages want to be socialists or drive a car  it is as cut and dry as that. To date, every administration so socialism has savagely destroyed economies,   killed and tortured individuals after removing their arms. I had an acquaintance in high school that learned (good education) to make a very lucrative living by getting into accidents the legally defensible way. One day while under severe influence of drugs and alcohol, he ran into a car killing a baby. More people are killed by cars than by guns and more people are saved by gun threat than are killed by guns.

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.