View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2018 02:45 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6386

If fraud is legal, then what else can be claimed as legal: slavery? I have a very hard time listening to people who patently justify every kind of evil on a nebulous “legal” authority they imagine themselves, or are told to “believe” because some how, some way, some time, some one once said this or that crime is legal, and therefore justified.

All moral people have a hard time with this type of rationalization, covering-up, aiding and abetting, criminal acts perpetrated by criminals with (or without) badges.

All immoral people require this type of fraud, this type of excuse, this type of fake justification, this type of covering-up of their crimes, but only because there are moral people. If there were no moral people then eating babies for fun, or harvesting babies for profit, would be no different than sitting down in a chair.

All amoral people sit on an imaginary fence put in place by immoral people, and maintained by amoral people, and maintained by immoral people, so as to prevent any action taken that causes moral people to volunteer to work effectively for their own defense against immoral people, and their amoral counterparts.

That is why I have a hard time with those people who actually work at “justifying” the crimes perpetrated by the extremely immoral people.

Jefferson – in the first draft to the Declaration of Independence – offered the following (cryptic) message:

“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & 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.”

Thomas Jefferson also entered into the official record (common law court of record) the following confession concerning why the indictment against African Slavery was taken out of the Declaration of Independence. Also, the Declaration of Independence is Statute #1, a common law document, recording (in a common law court of record) a declaration of Mixed War against the British aggressor criminals. Statute #1 for the voluntary mutual defense association – federation – of independent states under the common law.

“The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

The closed door, gag ordered, secret, nefarious, deceptive, extortive, coup d’état, crime scene is only called a “Constitutional Convention” so as to cover-up, “justify,” “legalize,” “legitimize,” a crime scene whereby those who profit from crime are then able to accomplish the task of weakening the people in the states that were moral: and against slavery. What does augmentation mean: as in the warning by the founder of the Bill of Rights George Mason’s words: “augmentation of slaves”?

It means this:

“Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. 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.”

That from this:

Garrison’s Constitution

The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made

Winter 2000, Vol. 32, No. 4

By Paul Finkelman

So called Liberals, Progressives, and those on the so called Left may call harvesting babies stolen from moral parents by so called Child Protective Services legal today. How is that any different than a so called “Federalist” in 1787 calling their Slave Trading “Constitution” legal?

So…today someone claims that the “founding fathers” were one group of like minded people, all of which were in favor of a Constitutional Convention so as to legally, lawfully, justify the removal of the existing federation and putting in place a corporate Nation State Dictatorship. That is a lie made out of either ignorance or malice.

So in the future the people looking back at us today may claim that everyone was 100 percent behind the founders of the new “Constitution,” and whatever may be in that new “Constitution” is “legal” because we all agreed to it, or some other pretend justification? All those against it here and now are sent to the memory hole?

There isn’t any room here to explain to you, or anyone else, the actual law, which is the common law, whereby the entire country is represented by 12 randomly selected people, in tribunals concerning any conflict, and unanimity is required before any action is taken to restore the victim, or redeem the criminal, in a case where the whole country, through the jury, unanimously determines that the individual criminal, in that case, has perpetrated a crime.

If, on the other hand, the paper here says that eating babies is OK, well, then let them eat babies.