Constitutional Elections Summit

November 4: Barack Obama elected President (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On May 26th, A.D. 2012, Rudy and Erin Davis hosted a Constitutional Elections Summit at the Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church at Dallas, within The State of Texas.  I was one of the seven speakers.  Several of the speakers (Orly Taitz, Pastor David Manning, etc.) enjoy national recognition.

The Summit’s primary purpose was to explore the constitutionality of Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Although the subject matter might seem primarily “political,” the Summit was every bit as spiritual as an old-time, tent Revival.  The quality of the speakers and the variety of subject matter (“Man or Other Animals,” Imprecatory Prayer; “Birther” issues) made this “Summit” an event of truly national significance.  Unfortunately, only about 70 people attended the Summit.  We’d hoped for more.  But all the speeches were video’d and those videos are already up on the internet and beginning to attract attention.  I am hopeful that these videos (below) receive widespread attention.

 

“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”?

 

The Mark of “ADASK”?

Image via Wikipedia

I’m somewhat fixated on the concept of “definitions”.  If you haven’t already seen my article “Definitions:  The Law of the Law” at http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/definitions-the-law-of-the-law/#more-10319) you ought to read it as an introduction to this article.

 

•  Title 1, Section 215 of the Arizona Revised Statutes lists 46 definitions.

Definition # 37 declares:

 

 ”Signature” or “subscription” includes a mark, if a person cannot write, with the person’s name written near it and witnessed by a person who writes the person’s own name as witness.

This 30-word definition is complex and confusing.  I see this confusion as emanating from the fact that the words “person” and “person’s” each appear twice in the 30 word sentence.  The word “person” (more or less) appears four times in the same sentence.

 

Judge Alleges Gov-co Caused Terrorism

Image via Wikipedia

Since 9/11, there’ve been 20 reported attempts by terrorists to attack America.  All 20 attempts have been foiled.  Three genuine attempts at terrorism were foiled by private citizens.  Seventeen were foiled by the FBI and law enforcement.

But Judge Andrew Napolitano claims that the seventeen plots foiled by the FBI and Homeland Security were actually initiated by the FBI and/or other governmental agencies.  I.e., the FBI would search for young American Muslim men who were angry and isolated.  In a “sting” operation, the FBI would then entice the angry young Muslim to enter into a plot to commit some terroristic act against America.  Not realizing they were dealing with the FBI, the “angry young men,” would cooperate in the plot.  Then, just before the terrorist act actually took place, the FBI would swarm in to arrest the would-be “terrorist”–and claim credit for having foiled another terrorist plot against the U.S..

In fact, these 17 terror attacks were just as scripted as a Hollywood movie and no more real than a James Bond story.  But the American people would be suitably impressed by this fiction, and would therefore come to respect the gov-co in general and the FBI in particular.  Thank God the FBI was here to protect us, hmm?

 

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Image via Wikipedia

Earlier this year, a virtually unknown Tunisian was so frustrated with his life of poverty and government tyranny, that he doused himself with gasoline, set fire to himself and died as an act of protest against the Tunisian government.  That suicide triggered the “Arab Spring,” a jump in the price of crude oil and and the fall of several Arab governments.

Mohammed Bouazizi’s suicidal protest should scare the hell out of politicians around the world.  His death illustrates how a single, seemingly insignificant event can trigger consequences that can’t possibly be anticipated or prevented.  We live in an age where people are under so much stress–where there is so much anger, fear and frustration is bottled up–that a society or entire region of the world that appears “orderly” can suddenly explode into confrontations and revolution.

The fundamental cause for this global instability, fear, frustration and anger might be described as the “love of money”.  Our world is not merely run by, it is largely owned by, a handful of super-rich psychopaths and legal fictions whose only love is for money.  Each of these crazy multi-billionaire individuals and corporations have more money than they could ever need and yet appear to be driven to the point of madness by the fact that they don’t personally hold all of the money.  If you really love money, it’s not enough to have some of it–you’ve ultimately got to have it all.

 

We’re Number 99,045! We’re Number 99,045!!

Image via Wikipedia

OK—OK—Chanting “We’re Number 99,045!” etc. is not quite like chanting “We’re Number 1!  We’re Number 1!”

Even so, being Number 99,045 is not so bad.

Alexa is an independent company that tracks visitors and demographics relative to most blogs and websites.  According to Alexa, my blog (adask.wordpress.com) is currently rated as (approximately) the 99,045^th most popular blog in The USA, and the 479,396^th most popular blog in the world.

Those numbers aren’t exactly impressive, but they’re encouraging.  There are an estimated 175 million blogs in the world.  Mine is rated 479,396.  That means there are 479,395 blogs more popular than mine—but 174,520,604 that are less popular.

On a global basis, this blog is in the top 3/10ths of one percent of the world’s blogs.  It’s surely not Time magazine or Rush Limbaugh . . . but . . . blogging is a very competitive sport, so being in the upper 3/10ths of 1 percent of the whole world is not so shabby either.  This blog may not be of Olympic caliber, but it might one day be a contender.

 

Stats

Image via Wikipedia

I started this blog in March of A.D. 2008.  During the last 8 months of that year, I averaged 70 “views” per day.

A.D. 2009:  148 views per day.   Views had doubled as compared to A.D. 2008.

A.D. 2010: 274 views/day. Again, views had almost doubled over the previous year.

A.D. 2011 (first 8 months):  1,164 views/day.  We’d increased by 4 times over the previous year.

These aren’t big numbers.  But the trend is encouraging.  The number of readers is increasing by 2 to 4 times per year.

My goal is 10,000 views per day.  At current rates of increase, I might reach my goal in 2 to 3 years.

 

My Reader’s Demographics

This blog tends to deal with unusual and sometimes seemingly fantastic ideas.  As a result, some of my readers may regard this blog as a “guilty pleasure” somewhat akin to reading the National Enquirer’s articles about Elvis being a space alien.

In fact, some of my readers might even suppose that, because they read this blog, they may be “extremists” on the “lunatic fringe”.

Therefore, I want to share the information about my readers’ demographics because, as you’ll see, this blog is not home to the lunatic fringe or terrorists.  Instead, this blog tends to attract some of the most affluent and best-educated people in the country.  This demographic is good evidence that the ideas espoused here—although often politically incorrect—are worthy of your consideration.

The high quality of my readers implicitly validates the quality of my articles.