 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"The primary objective of the Constitution was a self interested desire to break away from privileged rule. They did it for themselves…Caucasian males…with the long term hope the trend to liberty would prevail by creating a system of checks and balances where ratiocination would have a chance."
Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787
Page 13
Luther Martin
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
So...they resorted to deception, also known as fraud. When fraud is perpetrated by Federal officers, and their goal is as stated above, the crime is treason. Even if the officers are National officers, not federal, the crime is still treason.
Under the Articles of Confederation, which was under the common law, there was a check to balance criminal treason, despotism, tyranny, empire building, slave trading, central banking fraud, etc., and that process was (and still is) trial by jury according to the common law.
Articles of Confederation
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
All Thomas Jefferson had to do was to grow some balls and set in motion due process the very moment Jefferson encountered the slave traders who insisted upon subsidizing slavery; but then again Jefferson also had his hand in that cookie jar, even as he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: slavery is "a crime against nature itself."
Jefferson, or anyone else, had plenty of political leverage, help from every single state in the federation, to move forward with the indictment stated in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, to bring the slave traders to their trial by jury, and rescue millions of innocent people.
For people to fail to see that situation then is one thing, for people to fail to see the same situation now is another thing. People like Craig Sawyer stepping up to the plate, working to rescue millions of children, from the likes of the criminal Clintions, Bushes, etc., demanding PUBLIC TRIALS, isn't - in principle - any different than Richard Henry Lee, or George Mason, or any number of fellow abolitionists, working against the criminal powers, seeking to rescue those in need, in time, and in place.
The criminals must cover-up, weaken, render powerless, our common law due process, failure to do so ends their criminal careers.
Why is that difficult to see?
"Because I recognize the value of the Constitution in that regard does not mean I support slavery, indentured servitude, or corporal punishment…none of those three things the Constitution abolished."
Who anywhere, anytime, and anyplace, has the audacity to claim - with a straight face - that slavery is legal?
"Rhode Island RATIFIED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! There is no crime, there is no Con-Job, there is no conspiracy. You might not like, it might not be the best thing, but it was above board."
Boyd White did it.
"Results from Rhode Island’s State Ratifying Convention (5/29/1790):
"AYE: 34
"NAY: 32"
Boyd White identifies the inculpatory evidence proving the fact that 34 people, on the official record, makes that outrageous, ridiculous, criminal, false, claim that slavery is not only legal, but everyone in the new Nation State will have to pay for enforcing said crime against nature itself: or else.
Now this is telling:
"And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”."
That case of Machiavellian maneuvering can be compared to the following:
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-2.html
"The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
And this:
Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia
"Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."
And this:
Declaration of Independence (before censorship by slave traders)
"he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
How is it that someone today cannot see this evil for what it is precisely? Not seeing it is one thing, now making claims that blowing the whistle on it is frivolous is another thing entirely: a malicious thing.
From Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:
Page 442
"The movement was aimed at reversing
that. King's motto was, the SCLC motto, it
was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul
of America. That was our motto.
So you see right away that that is
much larger than getting a hamburger at a
lunch counter."
So the student of Machiavelli resorts once again to this type of communication:
"And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”."
Frivolous in this case are those slaves not yet enslaved at that moment when The Dirty Compromise was at play in Philadelphia in 1787.
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf
From nearly 1 million to almost 4 million (souls) victims of slavery between 1790 and 1860. But that is not the only victims. Everyone is a victim, including the criminals themselves. All things are relative, but the sum total of harm done, without question, falls disproportionately upon the helpless, innocent, apparently forgotten, children.
What do you think happens when a family exiled from Europe, rescued by a very costly trip to America, and said family encounters markets dominated by Corporate Subsidized Slave Labor? Does that sound at all familiar to anyone?
"So when you damn the United States for creating the Constitution in 1787 without fully acknowledging what else was happening in that era…including slavery and oppression in the domains listed above…there is a substantial amount of cherry picking."
OK, now this libel is entering the Man of Straw phase in earnest. Whoever those words are aimed at: it is not me.
This fellow Boyd White, if that is even a real name, is creating someone out of thin air, a fictional character, and he is attempting to brand me with that fictional character of his construction.
Who is guilty of the charge "you damn the United States"?
It is not me. Specific individuals were perpetrating specific crimes upon specific people in specific places, and they were called out for doing so, at the time the crimes were perpetrated. That is factual, and it is on the official record. That is a fact even if I do not exist. So why is Boyd White resorting to this type of Machiavellian maneuvering?
Then this Man of Straw (with my name on it) is guilty of "cherry picking"?
If I don't, for example, choose to add the information concerning the common law adjudication of Allodial Title to this dicussion concerning the first, and potentially a second, Con Con Con Job, discussion, I would not be doing so because I didn't want to pick that cherry, it is because there is a need for brevity. The subject of what is, or is not, moral, lawful, right, legal, conduct concerning land adjudication is vital information necessary in forming a comprehensive understanding of political economy; as vital as the information concerning labor, and the fruits of labor.
"But since the Framers did not give us the best Republic they could, only the best that was to be received, there is hope and reason to believe a better Republic can be created."
I suppose that those words could be interpreted as a pro-con con con job stance.
The "framers' then, like potential re-"framers" today are individuals, some are criminals because the pay is much higher for criminals who work under the color of law, compared to the lowly drone criminals paid for their work by the criminals in fake offices.