|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Thu Oct 25th, 2018 03:34 pm||
|My studies have once again been reinforced by information on the American public record. During a search for paperwork issued by those who were given authority under The Articles of Confederation, I found the author and a few words from him as follows:
John Dickinson, 1767 (before a declaration of independence, and before the war of aggression perpetrated by the British criminals)
"The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New York either had, or had not, a right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no American will say they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it. If they had not this right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and therefore no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privilege of legislation, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case, of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions, that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp Act, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely surrendering that of taxation?"
That is in line with the following from the first congress, while discussing the need to publish a declaration of independence that has not yet been written, and this is before the Articles of Confederation created a union of independent states under the common law.
First USA congress:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
I can also link information that confirms what I am about to describe concerning the concept of federation, however, I will avoid linking that information now, but be assured that this concept is not my construction, rather it was, and still is, a viable quality of federation. The idea is to have competition in offering various examples of organizations that work like insurance companies, which insures people against harm done to people, and if one insurance company in one area (a state) moves toward organized crime under the color of law (despotism, tyranny, etc.), then people vote with their feet, and pay for a higher quality, and lower cost, alternative in a nearby area (another state), whereby all these competitive states are themselves paying for a group insurance policy, where the provider of that insurance is a federal government, which is expressly not a national government.
So you have a federal government in view, a voluntary association for mutual defense, and the states are known to be experiments in democracy, as explained. A national government, on the contrary, is a government that assumes the power to directly tax individual people in every single area within the reach of the national tax collectors. There is no longer any experiments in democracy anywhere, as everyone is made, by any means deemed necessary according to the national army of tax collectors, to pay whatever the national army of tax collectors deems to be the cost of existing within the reach of the national army of tax collectors.
Next, and please consider the need to include more than a few words here, as I work to be succinct. This is offered to you because this is a new find and I want to share this important information.
I stumbled upon more evidence concerning the crime scene that most people call the first Continental Congress. In the following words from a criminal named Governor Randolph, whereby this criminal's words are recorded by someone named McHenry, and this is an account of what happened at the start of the first Con Con Con Job in 1787. Keep in mind that a federation is already in existence, and the people connected by this federal association had, in fact, drove off the invasion perpetrated by the largest criminal army then on the planet earth.
"5. Inferior to State constitutions. State constitutions formed at an early period of the war, and by persons elected by the people for that purpose. These in general with one or two exceptions established about 1786 [sic]. The confederation was formed long after this, and had its ratification not by any special appointment from the people, but from the several assemblies. No judge will say that the confederation is paramount to a State consti[tu]tion."
That is an aristocratic soul (now known as a globalist, nationalist, statist, and many other cover-up words) expressing the intent to establish an all-powerful nation-state, complete with an all-powerful court system by which the people who produce anything worth stealing will have the fruits of their labors stolen: extorted.
Here is the link:
One more thing and this is the confession concerning the requirement to confuse the public by confounding words that mean opposite things, doing so by fraud, whereby the words federation and nation are those words being used to perpetrate this fraud upon the people of America.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
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."
Keep in mind that the above words are notes written in the Con Con, written by Dr. James McHenry in 1787.
Then listen to this, and this is what went on in the Con Con, which resulted in the subsidizing (national tax) of African Slavery, a crime which was spelled out as a crime by Thomas Jefferson in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence.
"Governeur Morris. Not yet ripe for a decision, because men seem to have affixed different explanations to the terms before the house. 1. We are not now under a foederal gover[n]ment. 2. There is no such thing. A foederal government is that which has a right to compel every part to do its duty. The foederal gov. has no such compelling capacities, whether considered in their legislative, judicial or Executive qualities."
Those who were for the National (consolidated) Government called themselves Federalists, and those who were for a real federation (experiments in democracy) were called by the criminals: Anti-Federalist. The false names stuck, and are still stuck to this day.