The Great "Free-Labor" & Modern Slavery Double Cross via Euphemisms
*The below summary is for educational and research purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice.*
​
There are a number of double-cross scenarios that are brought into existence within the construction and execution of the four organic laws. For instance, former attorney of 30+ years and professor of law, Dr. Eduardo Rivera has provided valuable research that shows that the four organic laws are limited to territories, and properties that are owned by and ceded to the United States of America as stated below:
​
"Government bureaucrats rely on your ignorance of the fact that all written law is limited to a specific subject. For governments, the subject is territory. Thus, Congress cannot write laws for Japan. Furthermore, Congress cannot write laws to regulate you without your consent, unless the United States of America owns the property on which you are located." - Dr. Eduardo Rivera, OrganicLaws.org.
​
This situation is a large double-cross that is of extreme importance for those that choose the option of self-governance provided in the four organic laws vs consent to extension of limited government outside of its jurisdictional boundaries.
​
Although, this is one of the grandest of double-crosses, there is another double-cross that I would like to explore here in regards to the fourth organic law known as the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
​
Most people probably know of the secret convention that was used to create the Constitution of September 17, 1787. However, must people would not know, without historical research, that the so-called "founding fathers" encoded modernized slavery via white-supremacy into the Constitution of September 17, 1787 by use of terms of vagueness and euphemisms for free-labor purposes.
​
The Constitution of September 17, 1787 was the first affirmative action plan put into place for "white" Americans to oppress "black" native Americans as a tool to make them a permanent "under-class" without access to land, money, and resources as stated by Dr. Claude Anderson in his research below:
​
"Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the primary drafters of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of rights, had no intentions of providing freedom and the blessings of liberty to Black people. They sanctioned, codified and institutionalized Black Slavery into this nation's founding documents. Jefferson, Madison and other drafters of the Constitution carefully avoided using words slaves, Negroes or Blacks. They intentionally used broad and ambiguous terms to disguise and minimize debate about the caste system they were creating. Moreover, they wanted to avoid leaving fingerprints in those documents that specifically identified the human beings who would be enslaved, exploited, crippled, and killed. So, they agreed to use broad euphemisms to distinguish White European immigrants who would be granted rights and opportunities from millions of Blacks who were imported into lifetime enslavement qnd suffering." - Dr. Claude Anderson, A Black Histtorical Reader 101 Questions You Never Thought to Ask, p. 56.
​
Unfortunately, the framers knew that without a "free-labor" class, the United States of America would not be sustainable for their selfish interest and DOA (dead-on-arrival). Therefore, as slave owners they decided that they would make a permanent black slave caste system out of these slaves and divert the allocation of 100% of all resources [true "racism"] from this permanent slave class to all White Immigrants and any future "fabricated" immigrant groups and categories that would be used to subordinate this permanent slave class.
​
Further verification and proof of this encoded white supremacy system, based on skin color, that would be called a "peculiar institution" is shown in the legal government related literature as provided below:​
​
“Slavery was a big problem for the Constitution makers. Those who profited by it insisted on protecting it; those who loathed it dreaded even more the prospect that that to insist on abolition would mean that the Constitution would die aborning. So, the framers reached a compromise, of sorts. The words ‘slave’ and ‘slavery’ would never be mentioned, but the Constitution would safeguard the ‘peculiar institution’ from abolitionists. Jethro K. Liberman, The Evolving Constitution 493 (1992).”– Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition, p.1422.
​
The After-Effects of This Calculated and Occulted Move:
The implementation of this "peculiar institution" has continued a civil war, of detrimental proportions, in which the group of native Black Americans have suffered tremendous losses of unpaid labor, deaths without justice, and discriminatory practices aimed at avoiding their Natural Law rights and the Law of Nature and Nature's God. All with the purpose of continuously keeping the native Black Americans at the bottom of society and other "white" immigrants and "fabricated" groups on at the top of society and its access.
​
Unfortunately, George Washington and other framers claimed Natural Law for their freedoms while simultaneously and hypocritically violating the Natural Law / Law of Nature and Nature's God in order to pursue their selfish financial gains of resources (land, money, illegitimate political power).
​
Simply put, this situation and the intentional "selective" observance of Natural Law / Law of Nature and Nature's God caused a rip in reality in which the following transpired:
​
"The distinctions of persons establishing in the states two codes, two orders of criminal justice, two sets of laws, the people, placed between the propensities of the heart and the oath uttered from the mouth, had two consciences in contradiction with each other; and the ideas of justice and in justice had no longer foundation in the understanding.”– Ruins of the Empire, by C.F. Volney, pg. 39, (1999).
​
However, to this day, politicians and so-called religious men of power in the know, pretend that they don't know what the problem is and how to correctly use the Law of Nature to fix and observe the necessary mandate issued by the Law of Nature and Nature's God which is that "All Men and Women Are Equal Under the Natural Law"! Moreover, to heed the caveat that "the enslavement of one is the enslavement of all"!
​
Some will say that the 13th and 14th amendments of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 corrected the above issues. However, one must keep in mind that, supposedly, those amendments were never ratified correctly. Furthermore, another man can not give or deny Natural unalienable rights to another man as that is a process that happens upon one's nativity. Last, but not least, non-ratification of 13th and 14th amendments would mean that the Dred Scott Case has never been "officially" overturned. Therefore, remember that the statements associated with the Dred Scott Decision was as follows:
​
Chief Justice Roger Taney announced that "enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and had no rights to sue in federal courts, and in fact, Blacks couldn’t be citizens."
​
Also, let's see what Dr. Claud Anderson says about the Dred Scott case:
​
"America's perception of Black men was framed by the U.S. Court's infamous 1857 Dred Sott decision...The Supreme Court ruled, however, that 'A Black man has no rights which a White man is bound to respect.' This infamous ruling, never reversed in over 150 years, has been locked into the culture and collective American psyche and passed down from generation to generation of ethnic Whites. The first lesson immigrants learn when they come to this country is that they are prized and valued over native Black Americans." - Dr. Claude Anderson, A Black Histtorical Reader 101 Questions You Never Thought to Ask, pgs. 150-151.
​
This brings into consciousness a couple of questions that every free inhabitant needs to be asked - What do you choose, morally objective and "substantive" Natural Law Rights of nativity that are granted by the universe or morally subjective and "illusory" Civil Law Rights granted by men to other men? Are the rights, privileges, and immunities under the 14th amendment the same as the rights, privileges, and immunities that are not under the 14th amendment?
These questions are something to internally know, choose, ponder and research. Especially in these times where there is a historical pattern of deception, arbitrariness, ambiguity, artifice, and avarice at every turn! (See quick notes below.)
​
​
***************************************
​
Quick Notes:
***According to Dr. Claude Anderson, Five Emancipation Proclamations were issued, drafted, and/or proposed for varying purposes. However, not one actually ever freed slaves. These are as follows:
1) Emancipation Proclamation proposed by Lord Dunmore, British Royal Governor of Virginia (Nov. 1775)
2) Emancipation Proclamation drafted in response to Nat Turner's slave revolt
3) Emancipation Proclamation proposed by Virginia Legislature to end slavery
4) Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln (Jan. 1, 1863)
5) Emancipation Proclamation proposed by the Southern Confederacy to free blacks to fight (end of Civil War)
***The most notable was the fourth one that was issued on January 1, 1863. This one is the one that native Black Americans celebrate annually on Juneteenth Day. Unfortunately, many native Black Americans have never realized that the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War was only a War measure used in an effort to save the Union.*** The absurdity of this deceptive and duplicitous action, for political purposes, was explained by Lincoln's Secretary of State among others:
​
​
“Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, mocked the Emancipation Proclamation by saying, ‘We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.’, “The London Spectator succinctly observed, ‘The principal [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.’ That, of course, is exactly the position that Lincoln espoused in his letter to Horace Greeley. It should have been no surprise to anyone.”–The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. Dilorenzo, pgs.36-37.
​
​
***Last but no least, any intentional design to destroy any group of people is considered genocide as stated below:
genocide – Int’l law. An act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. • Under the terms of the Geneva Convention of 1948, genocide is a crime (whether committed during war or peace) subject to prosecution either in the nation where the act was committed or by an international tribunal having jurisdiction elsewhere. Black’s Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) pgs. 694-695, Bryan A. Garner, Editor In Chief.