Mini-Seminar by Adask

Adask at the “gates” of Hell’s Canyon, Idaho

I was recently interviewed by Stephen Roberts on “Cancel the Cabal”.  During that video interview, I explored the concepts of sovereignty and the “sovereignty movement,” as well as potential applications of the 1st, 2nd and 9th Amendments, and “MOOA” (“man or other animals”) in relation to drug laws, the war on drugs, police state, big pharma, and American medicine.

The interview lasts almost two hours.  It’s too long to be an “interview,” but it might reasonably be described as a “mini-seminar”.  Most won’t have the time to listen to the entire presentation.  But it’s actually a pretty good general introduction to a number of concepts, so, if you’re inclined to listen, here’s the link:

 

Sovereigns or Anarchists?

Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wrote this article back in February.  It was lost in the piles.  Now it’s found and–without further proof-reading–published:

The Constitution of the United States was ratified by the people in A.D. 1789.  In that same year, the Congress proposed thirteen Amendments to the Constitution.  Of these thirteen proposed Amendments, ten were actually ratified.  Today, these ten are commonly referred to today as the “Bill of Rights”.

When Congress first proposed these Amendments, they sent copies of the proposed Amendments and a “cover letter” to the governments of each of the States of the Union.  The “cover letter” explained the fundamental purpose for the Amendments.

Today, that “cover letter” is largely unrecognized but can be found on the internet if you search for “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.   That “Preamble” declares in part,

 

The Essential Struggle

Image via Wikipedia

As seen in our “Declaration of Independence,” this country started with the principles that 1) “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; and 2) “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”.  The first principle elevated all men from the status of subjects to the status of individual sovereigns.  The second principle declared that the purpose of government was to secure each individual man’s rights of sovereignty, and reduced government from the status of master to the status of public servants.

These two principles had never before been seen in an earthly government and are the foundation for the “republican form of government” guaranteed in our federal and State constitutions as well as “American exceptionalism”.

In A.D. 1793, the Supreme Court declared in Chisholm vs Georgia that the American people were “sovereigns without subjects”.   “Sovereigns“–plural.  Not one sovereign (as in a monarchy); a multitude of sovereigns.  Given that that case was decided just four years after the adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court had to know what the status of the American people was.  There’s no mistake.  This nation was conceived on the idea that every man (and woman) was an individual sovereign.

 

“What is the NATURE of the person or individual you’re seeking?”

I’m convinced that this system’s Achilles Heel may be our ability and right to ask insightful questions.

For example, in response to my earlier article, “Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?,” John Peter posted the following comment:

“It might be to our advantage to listen carefully to lawyers in courtroom proceedings. I have reviewed the videos of the OJ Simpson trial and observed the following. One day judge Ito asked the question ” Is the defendant in the courtroom”? Johnnie Cocoran, the attorney replied with honor by asking the following question: From the recorders Log- “What is the nature of the PERSON or individual that you seek ?”  Everyone knew that OJ was not in the courtroom at the time and the question was not brought up again. Could the answer lie in the understanding of the word “nature”?

 

Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?

•  This article might be one of the most important I’ve ever written.  I haven’t proofread it yet.  They’ll be grammatical and logical errors.  But I’m publishing now, about a half hour before I start tonight’s radio show because I’m going to talk about this subject and I want folks to be able to download “something” that will help them to see and understand the hypothesis I’m advancing.  Although it may turn out that the hypothesis I’m advancing is mistaken or even silly, for right now, I think this hypothesis just might be enough to damn near break the existing “system”. 

•  Sometimes the Good LORD lets me “see”.  Not always.  Not perfectly.  Not completely. But I sometimes “see” a lot. And when I do, I know it’s a gift from the Good LORD.

For example, in A.D. 2005, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million/year).  I read the relevant laws defining “drugs” and “medical devices” and I instantly “saw” that those laws 1) only applied to animals, and 2) violated my freedom of religion.  I knew from the first moment that that understanding was of great importance and that the Good LORD had brought me to that understanding—that He had allowed me to “see”.  I devised a religious freedom defense and the Attorney General (after investing 6 years and most or $500,000 in the case’s investigation and pretrial hearings) simply dropped the case.

So far as I know, that victory is unprecedented.  Call every “patriot” you know and ask he’s heard even a rumor that another “patriot” has stopped a case where a state Attorney General had invested 6 years and $500,000.  There are no other such victories by any “pro se’s”.

 

“Hell No! We Won’t Pay!” “Hell Noooo! We won’t Paaaayyyy!!!”

Image by asterix611 via Flickr

The anti-government demonstrations of the 1960s were motivated by the draft.  Government demanded the power to compel young men to spend two years of their lives, fighting, killing and possibly dying in the jungles of Viet Nam.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of young American men refused to be compelled to fight, and therefore burned their draft cards, demonstrated, rioted and, in rare cases, bombed government facilities.

The draft resistors’ favorite chant was “Hell No!  We Won’t Go!”

Over time, the draft resistors won.  Government recognized that the draft (compulsory military service) caused more domestic chaos than it was worth, and moved to an “all-volunteer” military.

 

Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?

•  This article might be one of the most important I’ve ever written.  I haven’t proofread it yet.  They’ll be grammatical and logical errors.  But I’m publishing now, about a half hour before I start tonight’s radio show because I’m going to talk about this subject and I want folks to be able to download “something” that will help them to see and understand the hypothesis I’m advancing.  Although it may turn out that the hypothesis I’m advancing is mistaken or even silly, for right now, I think this hypothesis just might be enough to damn near break the existing “system”. 

•  Sometimes the Good LORD lets me “see”.  Not always.  Not perfectly.  Not completely. But I sometimes “see” a lot. And when I do, I know it a gift from the Good LORD.

For example, in A.D. 2005, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million/year).  I read the relevant laws defining “drugs” and “medical devices” and I instantly “saw” that those laws 1) only applied to animals, and 2) violated my freedom of religion.  I knew from the first moment that that understanding was of great importance and that the Good LORD had brought me to that understanding—that He had allowed me to “see”.  I devised a religious freedom defense and the Attorney General (after investing 6 years and most or $500,000 in the case’s investigation and pretrial hearings) simply dropped the case.

So far as I know, that victory is unprecedented.  Call every “patriot” you know and ask he’s heard even a rumor that another “patriot” has stopped a case where a state Attorney General had invested 6 years and $500,000.  There are no other such victories by any “pro se’s”.

But that victory was not me.  The Good LORD had His hand all over that case.  He let me see.  He bought me time to put pieces together.  We didn’t win because we were smart, we won because we were blessed.

Part of the reason I know that’s true is that there have been “man or other animals” laws on the books as far back as A.D. 1906, but I’m the first layman and first layman or lawyer to go public with the meaning of those laws.  I’m first guy (outside of the government) in over a century to read the “man or other animals” laws and realize their spiritual and political implications.

 

European Stabilization Mechanism leads to Aristocracy

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a 4 minute video that describes the terms of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty among the nation of the European Union (EU) that is reportedly scheduled to replace the existing European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

Lots of acronyms, hmm?  EU, EFSF, ESM.  They’re confusing.  Hard to remember and keep straight in your mind.  The average American may not be interested in the ESM or EFSF—after all, those institutions are intended to deal with EU problems, so why should Americans care?

Americans should care because, as you’ll read, North America may soon face problems similar to those of Europe, and be similarly tempted (or terrified) by our own “American Stabilization Mechanism” (“ASM”) to solve those problems.  If you understand the strategy being used now, by the New World Order with the ESM in the EU, you may be able to later recognize same strategy if they try to create an “ASM” for North America.

There are only so many moves on the board.  There are only a relatively few fundamental strategies.  What they try in Europe, they will probably try here, too.

 

Power Hour Notes

Image by santibon via Flickr

I’m scheduled to be interviewed on The Power Hour–hosted by Joyce Riley–this morning (Monday, October 17th) at 8 AM central.

The two topics that I’m tentatively scheduled to discuss are individual sovereignty and the world’s first economist.

Those listening to The Power Hour who’d like a written explanation of some of the topics I’m talking about today can take a look at:

God-given “unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty and

The Story of Joseph, the World’s First Economist—or, “Those Who Won’t Learn From History . . . .”

 

“Sovereign Debt Crisis” Threatens Sovereigns’ Existence

Image by alancleaver_2000 via Flickr

“Sovereign debts” are those owed by national governments.  Historically, any nation’s sovereign debts were deemed to be of higher value than most of that nation’s private debts.  I.e., investors were more likely to be repaid if they loaned to a sovereign/government than if they loaned to a private corporation or private individual in the same country.  As a result, the interest rates on sovereign debt were almost always lower than the interest rates on loans to private corporations or individuals.

Thus, the interest rates charged to a particular national government tend to set the lowest possible interest rates for that nation.  Whatever interest rate is set for a particular national government, the interest rate charge to private companies and individuals within that nation will almost always be higher.

I.e., if the government of France borrowed money for 4% interest, the private companies of France would borrow for, say, 6%.  If the less credit-worthy government of Greece was simultaneously paying 9% interest, Greek private companies might pay 12%.

The interest rate charged to the national government effectively determined the interest rate charged to that nation’s corporations.