View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2018 07:32 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Boyd White,

First in order of importance in my opinion concerning that which threatens our temporal salvation is deliberation, such as that which happens in trial by jury according to the (real) common law. We are deliberating here and now, but without the power of voluntary government for our mutual defense (jury trial), so it is to use a phrase: just for fun.

Second, when I say wealth or voluntary association, you appear to see something other than what I see. Wealth is an individuals value judgment, not a claim made by an individual as to what everyone will value: or else. See: "The power of the peg of how much gold or silver is in a monetary instrument is another facet; if you have the power of the peg you can get $20 Trillion from one ounce of silver by decreeing that 1,750 atoms of Silver equals $1.00." Boyd White, 2018, Redoubt News Article "The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded." Discussion

"If the 13 Colonies intention was to be free, independent States, then, they would not have bound themselves to the Articles of Confederation. And mind you, in this list, “criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes” you can also find examples under the Articles of Confederation."

Who speaks for they, you? Those who made a lot of profits from the war, or stood to make a lot of profits from the war, spoke for themselves, and they lied. Those who actually acted morally, lawfully, so as to create and maintain a republican form of government under the common law spoke for themselves. Who is accountable for which people then, you?

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10

"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."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"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."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

The slave traders were making war on, at least, all those African slaves, and all those "poor" Americans put out of work because the slave trader, warmonger, central banking whores, created, and maintained, a poor for them, rich for us, fake government.

Who were the warmonger, slave trader, central banking whores, then?

Who was the republican, free in liberty, defenders, creating a grass-roots, voluntary association for the mutual defense of all, a government under the common law?

Who told lies to gain power, then began enforcing dictatorial orders to be obeyed without question?

14th of October, 1774

"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

On the 20th day of October 1774
"This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."

On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."

What is the method by which the people as a whole consent to any government by anyone, anytime? What is the method by which the people hold everyone to account for anything?


"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial12.html#p222

I am deliberately grinding a particular ax here, one that you appear to marginalize: deliberately.

"They were in the process of Creation. They were not hell bent on wickedness."

Who are they?

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.

Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."


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.
https://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

Boyd White:
"So how do they prevent the crime? Grand Juries is one legal way."

Don't you get it? In 1789 the legal way was outlawed by the criminals who took over, why is that hard to see?


1788, June 6
George Mason:
Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?

December 7, 1787
Rhode Island is right!
"The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it-for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time- serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed."

"They would look at our lives and our imperious observations on their lives and probably would not give our opinions too much weight or credit."

They are who? We are who? They did not all, in unison, enslave mankind with malice aforethought, but some did, those individuals were not stupid, perhaps criminally insane, but not stupid. Many of them, then, were moral, peaceful, and willing to give their fortunes, and their lives, for moral goals, and many died: culling.

We are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately? Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?