View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2018 07:07 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
"And now, the Articles of Confederation was “broke” in 1786 and thereby not “inviolably observed” nor “perpetual” in that they could not even maintain a Quorum to do business…the Articles of Confederation were vacated…abandoned."

Webs of deceit invented for the occasion: pure fiction? You assume the authority to make these claims despite clear accounts written by those who were witnesses to the events that you now turn into a fictional story for what, your amusement? How can it be possible that your fiction is intended to be believed? How does your storyline proceed from that stated, imaginary, situation?

"The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had representatives from 12 of the 13 States to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation…Rhode Island was invited."

That account - assuming words have meaning - contradicts your previous account. How can something abandoned be fixed? Oh, but this is a setup, a sudden realization by "we" emerges whereby the dead thing can't be resurrected, so a new thing has to be born; at least according to this fictional account.

"And there is a tacit respect in the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution that is so strong as to dilute any argument that the “that the Union shall be perpetual” was not the objective."

"understood or implied without being stated"

More confessions from the fiction writer? Nudge, nudge, wink, and wink?

So something implied is so strong as to dilute an argument. Rather than stating something strongly, something is implied instead, and rather than stating something strongly, something implied - a tacit thing - is put in place instead of something stated strongly.

That sounds very familiar, at the time of the counterfeiting of the law of the land the word for treasonous fiction writing was "construction." If something is tacit, not strongly stated, then that implication can mean just about anything to any group fiction writers.

George Mason, June 6, 1788:
"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?"

Out with the law of the land (trial by the country, consent of the governed) and in with just about any fiction written by any fiction writer then or now.

"Not being able to acquire a Quorum can be extrapolated to Congress being in “recess”…forever."

Who claims that a Quorum was a good idea at which time, exactly? How does a decision by people to attend to other things for a moment turn into an absolute eternity? Are there any boundaries to this fiction or is even the sky no limit?

"...can be extrapolated..."

"to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval"

So you too are in the construction business?

"Nine and Nine. Not to mention that ALL 13 of the States ratified the U.S. Constitution…INCLUDING Rhode Island."

Ignore, as you and your gang may do perpetually, the fact that there was no agreement to give authority to anyone by which the perpetual union (federal union) could be replaced by an all-powerful Nation-State, and while you are doing all that ignoring you can keep on writing fiction, just as your predecessors had to do to get away with that treasonous act.

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."

And at the crime scene:

“A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.” Mr. E. Gerry at the Con-Con Con-Job Crime Scene.

It is questionable or inferred, or tacitly agreed upon, or implied, that changing the existing voluntary mutual defense association, or federation, into a consolidated nation-state profitable monopoly - including aggressive wars for profit, subsidized slave trading, and central banking fraud - would be treason, and since "we" are actually in the treason business, it is advised that "we" do not let that cat out of that bag.

"We all get it, the Constitution is not as good as it should be, and that not all people are going to agree. But we should try to be “fair” and “proper”…and not arbitrary nor allow privileged authority."

And again the authority that speaks for we, a tacitly assumed, presumptuous, authority, ignores the fact that the document is inculpatory evidence of a crime, not a "constitution." If they say pay me to run my slave business, and you say OK, then that makes you one of the criminals.

If they say pay me to run a war of aggression, and you say OK, then just like the Nazi's, that makes you a war criminal too.

If they say let me write me a check for as much money as everyone else combined has, thereby doubling the entire money supply, and you say OK, then that makes you a central banking fraud too.

All that blood is on your hands, and it is in the irrefutable documentation, all that is needed is a confession: you agreed to it. Natural laws being what they are, in fact, you will get what you pay for, even if you didn't quite infer the same tacit meaning from the fine print.