Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Forum  Rate Topic 
 Posted: Mon Aug 17th, 2015 05:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408

Those on the opposing side (opposing Rule of Law) offer such ideas as this:


In North and South Carolina the changes tend in the other direction, and are clearly the result of increasing dependence upon slave labor and of expansion of industries in which large numbers of slaves are essential to the prosperity of the community.

People on the Rule of Law side, on the other hand, understood, and understand, that all people, all races, Jews, Africans, Asians, Indians, Irish, all, meaning all, are members of the whole people and therefore worthy of protection under the law.

Slaves are essential to the prosperity of the Criminal Rule slave owner community? Slave children need those productive slave fathers who are so valuable to the criminal slave owners. Why do the criminals steal the slave fathers from their families and destroy those formerly free communities, and why did those criminals perpetrate that obvious crime under the color of law? Why were slaves encountering a BAR against due process of law which is afforded to all people under Rule of Law? Why was Rule of Law not afforded to each slave who accuses each slave owner of such a heinous, cruel, and evil crime as IS slavery?

The first federal congress did this:

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, the non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement was adopted and signed by the Congress. 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. In general, the association expressed a determination to suppress luxury, encourage frugality, and promote domestic manufactures. The agreement was dated the 24th of October.

That is a moral application of Rule of Law. End the slave trade. Let it be known, human trafficking is evil, end it now. Those authorities were powerful enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression then perpetrating War of Aggression (for profit) on Earth, with that much power those authorities certainly had the power to enforce their order to "discontinue the slave trade," right there in the official record.

A member of the original federal congress offered this:

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.

That is a clear indictment recorded in the official first draft of the Declaration of Independence concerning the obvious crime "cruel war against human nature itself," waged against a number of people from Africa.

697,624 People in America in 1790 counted as victims of human trafficking on an official record.

1790 is after a working federation was turned into a Consolidated Nation State and a "Dirty Compromise" made the crime of Slavery "legal" in the former independent states in the former federation.

697,624 People in America in 1790 are owned, traded, consumed, by a small minority of the "families" in America according to the "authorities" who claim:

In North and South Carolina the changes tend in the other direction, and are clearly the result of increasing dependence upon slave labor and of expansion of industries in which large numbers of slaves are essential to the prosperity of the community.

What kind of "family" owns people?

Here is a clue from Thomas Jefferson concerning why some "families" struck out the indictment against slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence:

Congress proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported, and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. 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 effort to turn a working federation, where slavery was outlawed in Rhode Island, included a deal made between Northeastern slave traders and Southern slave traders, and that deal was called The Dirty Compromise.

George Mason:
Upon the most mature Consideration I was capable of, and from Motives of sincere Patriotism, I was under the Necessity of refusing my Signature, as one of the Virginia Delegates; and drew up some general Objections; which I intended to offer, by Way of Protest; but was discouraged from doing so, by the precipitate, & intemperate, not to say indecent manner in which the Business was conducted, during the last Week of the Convention, after the Patrons of this new plan found they had a decided Majority in their Favour, which was obtained by a Compromise between the Eastern, and the two Southern States, to permit the latter to continue the Importation of Slaves for twenty odd Years; a more favourite Object with them than the Liberty and Happiness of the People.


The second clause, as well as the third, together with the decision to enable Congress to regulate commerce by majority vote rather than two-thirds, became known as the "dirty compromise."

Rhode Island had already (before the Consolidation of a former federation into a Nation State) outlawed the crime of slavery.


The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

The increase from 697,674 Victims of Slavery in 1790 to 3,953,760 Victims of Slavery in 1860 was not the fault of the founders of a true federation, as the federation was a true federation before 1787, the dirty deal known as the dirty compromise was the work of criminal human traffickers who called themselves (falsely) "Federalists."

The so called "founders" who formed a Consolidated Nation State did so in order to make slavery legal for them to enforce at their pleasure, safe and secure under the color of law.


Sec. 4. And it be further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or attorney in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labour, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared; or shall harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labour, as aforesaid, shall for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars. Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by the action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person claiming such labour or service, his right of action for or on account of the said injuries or either of them.

Those Nation State "founders" are on one side, the "legal" human trafficking side, and that side considers people, actual living, breathing, people, to be their property.

Criminals do not obey moral laws, on the contrary, criminals enforce Criminal Rule, such as human trafficking for the profit of a few.

Had the federation remained a federation the rate of increase from 697,674 Victims of Slavery in 1790 to 3,953,760 Victims of Slavery in 1860 would not have been the ruin of the American soul; it would not have happened, it would have cost too much. Rule of Law makes such crimes unaffordable; as the victims are afforded due process in due time.

Those on the Rule of Law side saw the ruin in clear view and they warned against it.

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.

The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds-That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom.


In 1757 he was appointed justice of the peace for Westmoreland County. In 1761 he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, of which he remained a delegate until 1788. Extreme shyness prevented his taking any part in the debates for some time. His first speech was on a motion:

“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.”

Any cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon anyone, anywhere, anytime, is a cause for legal action against the aggressor. Why were some people enslaved and prevented from (by a BAR) gaining access to Rule of Law?

In North and South Carolina the changes tend in the other direction, and are clearly the result of increasing dependence upon slave labor and of expansion of industries in which large numbers of slaves are essential to the prosperity of the community.

Roughly 20 percent of the population, a small minority, were human traffickers for various reasons, and that minority took over a working federation and turned everyone into criminal founders of human trafficking? What about the central banking frauds, did they have a say in the turn from Rule of Law to Criminal Rule too?

Of those human traffickers some of them owned 100 people or more, and what happens when subsidized, corporate, forced labor invades free markets? Independent, non-criminal, non-human trafficking farmers then have to compete with corporate (fascist) government subsidized slave labor camps and those less able to compete are themselves forced into poverty and debt.

Human trafficking is essential to the prosperity of the human trafficking community: Criminal Rule.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 01:07 am  
Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2015 > Updates > Forum Top

UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems