[1-25] of 8746

Posts from Mike, Norwalk

Mike, NorwalkMike, Norwalk
Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, by fiction it is given that government is an intangible mental aberration. The de jure States united was to be a secular representation of individual's sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at justice and "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) i.e., gravity, physics, science, life, liberty and property. There is no word in any language that I'm aware of that describes that specific scenario so the founders used the nomenclature of tradition. Religion is recognized by its tenets: feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the infirm, finance the indigent, etc. When blending secular / at law associations with religion a theocracy is created where everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else. Your version of the enforced collectivist theocracy creates a society of dummied downed slaves. AND, your chosen occupations were to organize the slaves according to the slave masters' whim.

Mike, Norwalk

A lot to be said for the sentiment. I don't have to stick my finger in a light socket to enjoy a censorial existence that is not quite so shocking; while, opposition is usually a great teacher.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, when Mr. Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin and his minions implemented medical tyranny, NO! ! ! individuals felt more free. Simply, those that were stolen from (higher costs of care, taxes, medicines, etc. the working poor went without, etc.) for a vast minority to receive something falls under a category of slavery, not freedom.

Mike, Norwalk

Again, the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto and property tax are criminal activities contrary to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) that achieve an enslaved social structure. Taxation by inflation, regulation and canon for theocratic profiteering are a criminal enslavement that also achieves a change in social structure. Taxation by judicial civil penalties / payments for alleged criminal activities is an illicit means of achieving changes in our social structure. Unconstitutional / anti-nature’s law taxing of compelled compliance, government licenses, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity, no matter how deeply hidden, are an illicit means of achieving changes in our social structure. Direct and indirect taxation, no matter how deeply hidden, that endeavor to support services beyond immediate protection of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty is an illicit means of achieving changes in our social structure. True tax reform that would restore the natural law / just “American Dream would truly be a “GIANT” start toward the ideal of a land of the free and home of the brave.

Mike, Norwalk

To date, the CCP's criminal puppet that wold be king/god is issuing divine canons (executive orders) on the subject matter to bring about the here topic's realization.

Mike, Norwalk

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 qualify an attributable action(s). Religion’s initiating elements of conscience, through fruition of action, encompasses self-obligated pursuits, imperative practices and devoted interests (by way of extreme brevity / example: safety, health, fairness, life style acceptance, monetary equality vs. equality before the law, and well being – an ethical belief sufficient to move a person to action defines religion). A “god”, - ‘causation’, ‘directing authority / phenomenon’ or other ‘relegated source’ - of such enabling elements may or may not be instrumental (or even useful) in defining religion. (by way of example: Buddhism, Taoism, societal ethics or values and Humanism are religions without a god or other extra human manifestation). When a god or other super human phenomenon is implemented into a religion, it is to rationalize and make sense of the conventionally held ethics, morals, values and orientation of correctness based beliefs. Religion is: “real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ⋯ our fellow men.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)


Religions are recognizable by their moral, value and ethical tenets, by terse example: clothe the naked, feed the hungry, house the homeless, finance the indigent, aide the sick and otherwise afflicted, regulate religious sacraments such as marriage, and aide and abet human sacrifice to gods of pleasure and life style. Religion is a moral and ethical tenet (singularly, collectively or in associated concert) outside the rigid absolutes of natural law (“the laws of nature and of nature’s God” {Declaration of Independence} – gravity, physics, math, life, liberty, property), also recognizable by values and orientation of correctness based dogmatic canons.


When religion mixes with secular government it is called a theocracy. Branden’s here quote is shown accurate by the example of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land. A forced value by government is a criminal theocracy by despotism.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, by definition, rights are inalienable to the individual as Divinely endowed (or as a faculty of birth if you wish). Rights can NOT be passed from the noble sovereign to a second party or a collective. When speaking of rights; rights can not be passed on, only duties can be extended. Though representatives may represent personal rights, they don't receive the rights only duties to administer a sovereign's inalienable right(s).

Mike, Norwalk

By way of further explanation, the broad nomenclature “law”, divides into multiple political philosophies – temporally rendering many mental images, understandings and exercises. Subsequent applications to said philosophies, are consistent with or, referenced to relative sources or called upon authority. – By example: 1) “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence {natural law nomenclature animates an umbrella of that which is eternal and absolute in nature} natural law) Infinite and unwavering rules of nature are categorically understood through assessable proficiencies such as gravity, physics, math, life, liberty and property (the constitutional law of the land). Common law, at its most pure state is a procedural state that administers natural law. 2) Legal Positivism; Legal Positivism is arbitrary, “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 is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). 3) Legal Realism; Legal Realism is arbitrary and habitually time/situation fleeting, instituted by any source, at any time regardless of natural law or legal positivism (executive, judicial, personal, etc.). 4) etc.

A fiscal example on nature’s law (laissez-faire natural sciences) vs. legal positivism (social phenomenon), demonstrating the legal definition’s accuracy, can be demonstrated by corporeal man’s arbitrary implementation of Keynesian Economics. The greater array of applied Keynesian Economics realizes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until the entire economy collapses or is replaced.

As I stated above, compelled compliance, government licensing, victimless crimes and larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, Social Security, police state confiscations, etc.) are all legal positivism’s violations against natural law and the noble being – man. The noble heir(s) of the Eternal King (or as perceived – nature’s child by faculty of birth) “⋯ are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” (Declaration of Independence)

Mike, Norwalk

My nature and primary focus is on the natural faculties of birth that being, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and peace at "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence). Such desire and application is extremely antagonistic, in and of itself, to those opponents that would choose socialism (fascism, communism, woke progressivism, etc.) and all other type totalitarian religions and despotic political expressions. Inherent to said sovereignty, rights, liberty and law is a self commitment to protect the right of others to speak. Those totalitarians are not my opponents unless they choose to act beyond speech to physically impair my innate faculties of birth. AND, I have no duty to hear what they say.

Mike, Norwalk

Freedom and liberty are inalienable rights as a faculty of birth. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land with its demented patrons are redefining words, censoring expression and excluding anything that may be realized as substantive. Freedom is a choice that is extremely waning.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, the simple answer to your question is yes. The result of the action you suggest would be antithetical to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) which is the jurisdictional premise that the Constitution is written upon. If such amended repeal occurs, it will be a criminal trespass and exercise in unconstitutional tyranny.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, your statement here only states that the mob grew in population. In your example, the majority mob ran the minority mob out of business. In a republican form of government were the individual is sovereign. Lawfully, a mob of one sovereign can not run another sovereign mob of one out of business. Each and every, any and and all are equal before the law. In a Democracy the majority is as a jurisdictional god with law making abilities. At a republican form of government "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) those laws that eternally exist at "natural law" - is the jurisdictional foundation with individual sovereigns choosing the form of administration of those laws through rules of order.

Mike, Norwalk

I like the sentiment a lot that it would be more accurate and influential with the masses. Individuals with open minds and hearts are likely to accept change when a narrative's discussion relates personally to the senses. By example, politics may be discussed freely with only that which pertains to the individuals religion will be heard or sensed (Atheistic socialism v. Christian liberty, demonic legal positivism v. the laws of nature and of nature's God, etc.).

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, Fox's biggest "anti-free speech" is it is becoming more, and more like the other ecclesiastical propagandists. The other major forms of electronic communication have outright become absolute agents leading the dumb and silent, like sheep to the slaughter. The CCP's criminal puppet that would be king/god, along with his minion advance free speech's demise.

Mike, Norwalk

I like it; as to your arbitrary: The broad nomenclature “law”, divides into multiple political philosophies – temporally rendering many mental images, understandings and exercises. Subsequent applications to said philosophies, are consistent with or, referenced to relative sources or called upon authority. – By example: 1) “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence {natural law nomenclature animates an umbrella of that which is eternal and absolute in nature} natural law) Infinite and unwavering absolutes of nature are categorically understood through assessable proficiencies such as gravity, physics, math, life, liberty and property (the constitutional law of the land). 2) Legal Positivism; Legal Positivism is arbitrary, “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 is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). 3) Legal Realism; Legal Realism is arbitrary and habitually time/situation fleeting, instituted by any source, at any time regardless of natural law or legal positivism (executive, judicial, personal, etc.). 4) etc.

Mike, Norwalk

Logan, your comment deserves a second "VERY well said". Your comment stands the test of time.

Mike, Norwalk

cal, governments have no rights at all, governments have duties only. The de jure States united was initiated with an unchangeable jurisprudence; that is: "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence). The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land does not accept or apply that law (philosophy or application). If the occupying statist theocracy defines religion consistent with natural law (Constitutional law) then it would be a legitimate undertaking. If that body defines religion contrary to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" it is simply another tyrannous expletive.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, your erroneous redefinition of terms never ceases to amaze. IRS personnel really have to have a sick and twisted perspective just to live with themselves. No where in a legal definition of freedom does road direction or your perception of obstacles show up. Adam's restriction by Eve was again, his free choice.

Mike, Norwalk

Robert, your bigoted rant and displayed loathing of men for mere belief is very telling. Just another abominable rambling from a hateful woke progressive. In your ANTI-individual sovereignty / inalienable right / liberty outlawing religion and kicking out all those disagreeing non-patrons of your religion, do you have room for other than a narrow-minded knee jerk interpretation of terms. By example, for the non-believer in extra human existence the term "god" is used frequently at law — "acts of god in insurance nomenclature"; means, happenstance beyond man's immediate control. Freemen can allow others their beliefs while interpreting things their own way.

Mike, Norwalk

The poet here in terms of individual free will choice (“Let us”) ranges an alternative. She impassions a giving up of hatred, bitterness, rancor, greed, intolerance, bigotry and Rosenthal’s envy and perversion. She suggests a noble renewal of faith and an assurance to humanity that individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and a perception of man’s dignity be held sacrosanct. I for one, absolutely second the sentiment.

Mike, Norwalk

Accurate enough maybe a little awkwardly stated but overall, I like it. By example, I'm not sure liberty in and of itself "requires" but rather, the protection of what liberty describes requires vigilance in an atmosphere evil or aspiring men.

Mike, Norwalk

Pro-choice? By pro-choice, do you mean the rights of individuals to choose actions all the way up to the space of your nose? OR, is your reference to the macabre death cults' choice of human sacrifice to the gods of pleasure and life style?

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, you once claimed to be Christian. The parable at Matthew 18:12-14 describes well the status and importance of the ONE. By your perspective here stated, only sociopaths have individual sovereignty as a faculty of birth (each progeny's Father being King) with each sovereign's eternal inheritance existing of inalienable rights and liberty. It is clear the Marxist dogma so intensely incorporated in to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land is at war with man's nobility. No matter your ecclesiastical word salad, it does NOT change the reality of the "ONE". Please ! ! !, call me crazy, I will wear the nomenclature as a badge of honor.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler, it has been over a decade since you originally posted; AND, I'm still laughing. I never cease to be amazed at the woke "Progressives" that can only see themselves and others as a wheel's cog (and for you ole Trekkies) or a unit of the Borg unable to even begin to fathom individuals may unite and remain individuals (rights and liberty ONLY pertain to the individual).

Mike, Norwalk

At "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) such being the solely licit and uniquely de jure jurisprudence of the valid States united, "law enforcement" is an illicit oxymoron. Can one enforce gravity, physics, life, liberty or property? "NO" ! ! !  Only tyranny can be enforced. The original intent, as understood through the 9th and 10th Amendments and through multiple checks and balances was that, the Constitution was to limit the scope of hired servants' duties ("No one is fit to be trusted with power."). No man, or group of men can lawfully decide a single humans fate whether it be insurance, vaccinations, wearing of masks or slave status as recognized through compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licenses, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto) or NON-recognition of individual sovereignty / inalienable rights / liberty.

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.