My Recent Interview on Alex Jones

Anon4fun

August 31, 2012 at 4:43 PM

You killed, Big Al. Several more mentions of adask.wordpress.com would have been apropos, though. The general idea is to plug your site so frequently that the host is wondering: “Does this guy Tourette’s syndrome or something?” That way, more people get clued into what you’re doing here, in aid of rescuing this Republic distressed yet so fair.

Reply
- Don
  
  August 31, 2012 at 5:47 PM
  
  Anon4fun: Is there another way to say “Does this guy Tourette’s syndrome or something?” I have no clue as to what it means. In fact,I don’t understand ANYTHING your response says. You killed, Big Al. ??? Who is “YOU?” Who is “Big Al?” “this Republic distressed yet so fair.” What does this mean, especially “yet so fair?? “
  
  Reply
- liberty tree
  
  August 31, 2012 at 8:56 PM
  
  That’s how I got turned on to Al’s great work here!
  
  Reply
Anon4fun

August 31, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Don: {Is there another way to say “Does this guy Tourette’s syndrome or something?” I have no clue as to what it means.}

Hmm, I seem to have omitted a verb in my enthusiasm for the cause of our beloved Republic, so “Does this guy *have* Tourette’s syndrome or something?” is the corrected version. The rest of the message is conventional English.

{You killed, Big Al. ??? Who is “YOU?” Who is “Big Al?”}

“You” is Big Al himself, analogously to “You ate a sandwich, Don,” when I’m saying to you that you are a sandwich. Big Al is, well, Big Al, the dynamite legal theorist.

{“this Republic distressed yet so fair.” What does this mean, especially “yet so fair??”}

I’m sure Big Al, the intended recipient, is down with this. As the saying goes, poetry is what’s lost in translation. So you’re on your own here, sorry. If you have love in your heart for this Republic, the poetry follows.

Reply
- Yartap
  
  August 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM
  
  Don, If I may…
  I understand what Anon4fun is saying and meaning. He said, Al did very well on Alex’s show; and Anon4fun wishes that Al would promote his wordpress blog, so more people would get Al’s message and get involved with our movement to stop the demise of our Republic to this point in time. Anon4fun wanted Al to “blurt” out the name of the blog site, so much, that Alex would think that Al had Tourette Syndrome.
  
  I understand Anon4fun’s passion for saving our Republic. This passion is a Noble and Patriotic stance against tyranny and is a very important idea. I’m sure that Al will take Anon4fun’s ideas under consideration to promote the message of liberty to the public. As I said, these are important ideas to consider; buttttttt, let get to the least and non-important ideas I have for Al.
  
  Al,
  
  First, you should sit up straighter in your chair (this will make your mom proud).
  
  Second, you should brush your hair the other way every other week to make you look open minded to the audience. Spiking the hair and a shaved head are also a good ideas for influencing people.
  
  Third, don’t wear black. Black equates to evil. Rather wear a Hawaiian flowery shirt to make saving the Republic look fun and like a vacation (going topless is a good idea, too.).
  
  Fourth, get a great big round black lapel button pinned on your shirt with the white lettered words, “GOT”- “SOVEREIGNTY?” People love fashion statements, it makes them want to join the cause (If you go topless, ware a funky hat. Nobody likes the sight of a bloody nude chest.).
  
  Fifth, remember: “Sex -Sales.”, use a lower toned voice, like Berry White’s voice. This will “turn on” the ladies.
  
  Sixth, I noticed a green back ground screen behind you. This can be used to project video images, say like…. the “Debt Bomb Girls.” This will “turn on” the guys to our cause.
  
  Seventh, do not wear framed glasses. The computer screen reflection upon your glasses is bothersome, rather, wear contacts that color your eyes baby-blue. Now when the computer screen light reflects off your contacts, it will look like your have a sparkle in your eyes. This, too, will “turn on” the girls, when combined with the Berry White voice.
  
  Eighth, with your headset on, I want you to slowly sway back and forth from side to side. This will give the appearance that you listening to romantic music and have the desire to dance. The girls like men who desire and want to dance.
  
  Ninth, with your best Berry White voice, say things like, “Right On – Right On!,” “I want to get it on with your Sovereignty.”, and “What will it be, babe? Your Republic or Mine?”
  
  Tenth, finally, make sure that you always have on clean underwear. This will make your mama proud.
  
  If you use any of my ideas, just remember where they came from. OK?
  
  Reply
Jeff D.

September 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Job well done Al.

The comments on this post are not the usual enlightening type.

Reply
James Barnes

September 1, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yeah, I liked the interview Al. Appreciate your efforts. In the process of waking up my family and it’s a trying battle but you can watch on Facebook. Yes I know they monitor it. I joined just because of the crap they pulled on Brandon Raub. They can only kill me once. I will not live as anyone nor any fictions slave.
Peace and love to you all

Reply
NDT

September 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM

So why is it that in the context of drugs man is deemed to be an animal?

In New Zealand, mainstream media said that a trespass order could stop police from entering your property, but it wouldn’t stop them from entering under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Is this because some illicit drugs can present a threat to public security and give rise to a delictual obligation, or is there another reason?

for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived (Rev 18:23)

pharmakeia
1) the use or the administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry

Regarding spiritual warfare: religion is of no value, but the law assists the ignorant.

Reply
- Adask
  
  September 2, 2012 at 12:22 AM
  
  Yes. In my opinion, the drug laws presume us to be animals as an act of spiritual warfare.
  
  You can Google the “1906 Pure Food and Drug Act”. It’ll come right up. Read Section 6 and you’ll see “man or other animals” was used to define both “drugs” and “food” over a century ago. I am the first layman to read, understand and publish the meaning of that phrase in 100 years! I can’t tell you how astonished and even dismayed I am to see that no other layman appears to have understood the phrase for a century.
  
  The implications of “man or other animals” aren’t new or unprecedented. This language is a significant element of the spiritual warfare that’s been being waged for at least 3,000 years. And yet, somehow, we have not seen.
  
  Good LORD.
  
  Reply
menaradi RADI

September 1, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Excellent show! I really enjoyed it, and great points brought out regarding the Bible! I’m going to forward a link a friend of mine sent me to watch, and then consider what kind of power needs this kind of power and for what purpose… Mena

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:55:52 +0000 To: menaradi@msn.com

Reply
MVG-AVG

September 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Al, you look like a friend of mine ,his name is Clyde ,striking resemblance ,Ha! If I have established that I am a “man made in God’s image”, does that mean that I have dominion over a person (animal) in “this state”? Lot’s of persons (animals) out there that want dominion over me. At arm’s lenth over and out.

Reply
- Adask
  
  September 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM
  
  I doubt that the words “person” and “animal” are synonymous. I’m inclined to see a “person” as a party to a RELATIONSHIP whose rights and obligations are governed by the express or implied terms of that “relationship”. For example, you and I might enter into a contract (relationship). You and I would be “persons” relative to that contractual relationship because we were each a party to that contract. Another man who was not party to the contract would not be a “person” relative to our private contractual relationship.
  
  A similar analysis might be made with regard to trust relationships. If you were the beneficiary in a particular trust, and I was the fiduciary in that trust, then (in my opinion) you and I would be “persons” in relation to that particular trust. In relation to that particular trust, each “person” who was party to the trust would be bound by the rights and obligations agreed to in that trust relationship.
  
  If you were a beneficiary relative to a particular trust, you would be be a “person” relative to that trust. But if I had no relationship to the particular trust, I would not be a “person” relative to that trust, nor would I be a “person” in relation to you whenever you acted in the capacity of trust beneficiary.
  
  That’s my theory du jour and I’m stickin’ to it, for now.
  
  If my theory is roughly correct then, whenever I declare myself to be acting “at arm’s length” I deny acting as a fiduciary in relationship to any trust. That should mean that I’m not subject to a court of equity as a defendant and I’m not a “person” in relation to the plaintiff based on any express or implied trust relationship. More, “at arm’s length” at least implies that IF I am a “person” in relation to the plaintiff, that relationship must be contractual rather than trust-based. So far as I know, there are no implied contracts. So far as I know, every contract must be expressed orally or in writing. If so, the plaintiff had better be able to produce evidence that I’d entered into a contract with him, or he would seem to have no case based on private contracts or private trusts.
  
  Reply
- Yartap
  
  September 3, 2012 at 5:00 AM
  
  MVG-AVG,
  
  From a religious point of view, I would not place any man or woman in my thoughts as an “animal.” To do so, would place me as “Them” (evil govt., sheep, slave). I do not wish for that position. I see my position in life, as one, who is to up-lift my brothers and sisters to truth and liberty, free from the oppression of lies.
  
  I may have wards, and even slaves in my family. But, to place them as animals, in my opinion, would be a direct violation of my understanding of “being in God’s image.” I am to love my fellow man.
  
  As far as the people wanting dominion over you, I understand where you are coming from. What you and I suffer from is that our wards, wards of the state and public workers were given the Right to vote, when it should be restricted from them. It is called Democracy!
  
  To preserve our Republic, I believe, that only one vote from each sovereign’s realm (household), who does not have a “conflict of interest” (one who receives govt. money) and is truly independent of others rule.
  
  Reply
Ivory Oracle

September 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I am a regular Alex listener and very much enjoyed this interview. I found it enlightening and encouraging.

I noticed your tag paragraph, and particularly the portion regarding The United States of America. I had a couple of months of experience with that organization. I will be interested to learn of your future association with that group. Legally and historically the foundation of the group seems elegant and effective. I found that the way it is administered tends to restrict liberty rather than promote it.

All the best to you as you continue a quest for liberty–and as you share your experiences

Reply

Adask's law

My Recent Interview on Alex Jones

14 Responses to My Recent Interview on Alex Jones

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Follow Blog via Email

Categories

Archives

Pages

Follow “Adask's law”

Adask's law

My Recent Interview on Alex Jones

Share this:

14 Responses to My Recent Interview on Alex Jones

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Follow Blog via Email

Categories

Archives

Pages

Follow “Adask's law”