First to “See”?

07 Oct


Seeing (Photo credit: parker yo!)

In July of A.D. 2009, I posted an article on this blog entitled “The Undefined Dollar, Part II”.  In that article, I wrote in part:


“Our current economic problem began in 1934 when President Roosevelt removed gold-backed dollars from domestic circulation.  The problem was aggravated in 1968 when the gov-co stopped redeeming paper silver certificates with silver dollars and thereby removed all tangible definition from the domestic dollar.  The problem was further exacerbated in 1971 when President Nixon closed the “gold window” in international trade and thereby left the dollar without definition in both the domestic and international spheres.

“Once the dollar was completely undefined, the U.S. should’ve soon suffered a massive economic failure.  However, Nixon and Kissinger devised a brilliant deal with Saudi Arabia whereby the U.S. guaranteed the Saudi’s security and the Saudi’s guaranteed to sell their crude oil for dollars only.  OPEC quickly followed the Saudi’s lead and for the next 30 years, any nation that wanted to purchase oil on the international market could do so only with dollars.

“Result?  The dollar—no longer expressly defined in terms of a physical mass of gold or silver—became implicitly and vaguely defined in terms of crude oil.  This scheme was brilliant but ultimately too fragile to last.

“Enter Saddam Hussein who, circa 2000, dared to sell Iraq’s oil for euros rather than dollars.  In doing so, Saddam threatened the “de facto definition” of the dollar and the foundation of the world’s economy.  Saddam Hussein precipitated today’s global financial crisis by stripping the dollar of its last quasi-tangible definition in terms of crude oil.

“Our gov-co responded to Hussein’s denial of the dollar’s quasi-definition by invading Iraq and hanging Hussein—but too late.  The genie was out of the bottle and the world’s petroleum-producing nations began selling their oil for euros, yen or other currencies.  Once the dollar was no longer the only currency that could purchase crude oil, the dollar lost its last claim to tangible definition.  Without a gold-, silver- or oil-backing, the dollar became undefined, irrational and surreal.  Completely untethered from tangible reality the dollar’s value became “relative”.

That’s the first time I’d expressed the relationship between crude oil and fiat dollars on this blog.  It’s the first time I’d explained that preservation of the “petro-dollar” was the motive for the War on Iraq.  If I recall correctly, I’d first had the insight about A.D. 2006 and expressed it repeatedly on my radio shows.

I don’t know that I’m the first layman to recognize that when the dollar went off the international gold standard in A.D. 1971, it was subsequently “backed” by crude oil and, therefore, our primary motive for invading Iraq in A.D. 2003 was to stop the mortal threat Iraq posed to the “petro-dollar” in A.D. 2000 by selling its crude oil for euros rather than petro-dollars.  I.e., if the world could purchase crude oil with currencies other than “petro-dollars” (and it now can), the dollar would soon be recognized as a pure fiat (worthless) currency and it’s value would fall (inflate) until it died.

But if I wasn’t the first to connect those dots, I’m sure I was one of the first.  If other laymen had previously connected those dots, they were unknown to me.

Over the following years, I’ve seen others express the same insight.  Some may have connected the dots (just as I did) as an “original insight”.    Most wrote to express the connection based on what they’d read from other writers.  They didn’t have an “original insight,” but they recognized the importance of the idea and sought to present it more clearly.

I was very proud of my “original insight”.  I still am.  I knew from the moment I made that connection that that insight was powerful and important.  It explained much about recent world history and laid the foundation for the subject of “currency wars” that I also presented on this blog.

•  Most of the articles I write on this blog are just “there”.  I write ‘em.  I try to make a credible presentation of an idea or insight that I think may be worth my readers’ time.

But every so often, I write something that I think has real value.  Such articles are rare, but I take a lot of pride in such articles.  I have an egotistical investment in such articles.  The “man or other animals” insight is a good example of one of my “original insights” (something that I wrote completely on my own, without any clue or basis from any other previous writer).  The articles on notice and the correlative right of inquiry are another example of “original insight”.  The articles on “petro-dollars” are also, initially, based on pure “original insight”.

I probably shouldn’t be proud of such articles. Such pride may be offensive to God.  I shouldn’t be egotistical.  But I am.  Sometimes.

I’m proud of those “original insight” articles—but not because I’m really proud of myself.  I know all of those articles could’ve been written much more clearly.  I’m sometimes embarrassed by the mistakes I make while writing, speaking, thinking—groping to find and express the truth.

If you’re honest, writing is a humbling activity.  I may be able to write better than most people, and some people might be a little impressed by my “talent”.  But I know how much better I could be, how much better I could write.  Just don’t have the time and energy to do my best.  My constant hope to do my best is necessarily cause for humility and recognition of how often I fail to do so.

Nevertheless, I am proud of those “original insight” articles because I know that every time, they’re result of the Good LORD allowing me to “see”.  The Good LORD let me seeman or other animals”.  The Good LORD let me seenotice and right of inquiry”.  Our Father YHWH ha Elohiym let me see the relationship between fiat dollars, crude oil and the invasion of Iraq.

I don’t make the truth.  I don’t own the truth.  The truth is God’s property, not mine.  But sometimes I’m allowed to “see” some of the truth, and then I try to report that truth to others. And don’t suppose that I ever report the truth perfectly. Even when the Good LORD lets me “see,” my reporting is imperfect. I doubt that I’ve ever written anything that was 100% true.

Still, I couldn’t ask for a better job. I get to “see”and try to report some of the truth.

That’s what I’m proud of:  the Good LORD sometimes lets me “see”.  And despite my persistently mediocre job of communicating the insights I’m allowed to “see,” He must not be too much offended because every so often, He provides me with yet another chance to “see,” another opportunity for “original insight”.    Insofar as He still gives me the chance to “see,” that means I still have a shot at salvation.  That means I’m not damned.

And, therefore, my pride.  Not in myself.  In fact, in some respects I have a pretty low opinion of myself.  But I am proud to be “called”; to be “considered”.  I am proud.  I am grateful.  I am amazed.

I’m like a kid with a five-gallon pail of ice cream.  Is all that for me?!!!  As an adult, I know I can’t eat that much ice cream.  As a kid, I know I’m darn sure gonna try.

I really don’t know why He puts up with me.

I don’t know why He let’s me “see”.

I don’t know why He gives me reason to live.

But He does.

Must be love.

What else could explain the Good LORD’s tolerance for a sinner like me?


•  In any case, all of the previous text is brought to mind by a recently-released video (below) that explains the relationship between “petro-dollars,” the invasion of Iraq and current global politics.  The video does a much better job of communicating that concept than I ever did.  It will probably reach a lot more people than I did.  That’s good.

But I doubt that the video offers “original insight”.  Instead, I suspect that the video is “derivative” in that it does an effective job of reporting that which I (and others) saw in an “original” sense two years, three years, six years ago.

I don’t suppose that it much matters who sees and tells the truth first.  It only matters that the truth be seen, told, shared and recognized by others.

Still, I was among the first.  I regret that my presentation of the truth was nowhere near as effective as the presentation in this following video.  But I was among the first to “see”.




Posted by on October 7, 2012 in Currency Wars, Money, US Dollar, Video, War


Tags: , , ,

59 responses to “First to “See”?

  1. Edward-Jay-Robin

    October 7, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    count with me from 1918 till the end of Silver in 1967-8….49-50 years …Jubille Leviticus 25-26 Do not doubt that is what is taking place in the Non Profit Religiious Corporation Called The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…..Lets do another Jubilee count….1933-1982 Rewite of the foriegn investment Act of 1933 to the Canadian Ownership Control and determination Act….A redemption caluse enactment via the minister of Natural resources..See schedule 2 in the 1984 Regulations cooinciding with the 1934 United states Securitee’s Enactment to allow the trades of securitee’s based in pledges and bonds upjn flesh to take place…2 Peter 2:3 With Covetousness and feigned words they will shall merchandise of you!!.. 1867-1913??? 50 years jubilee The BNA Act was enacted in 1867 and in 1913 we got shafted with the Federal reserve act…CANADA ceded to the United States upon section 11 of the articles of independance in 1934 by Registering in the SEC registry as a Foreign Government….Registration means submission…a Royal Gistry..

    What happened in 1886-87 that cooincides with the jubilee of 1933?

    • Don

      October 8, 2012 at 12:05 AM


      You ask: What happened in 1886-87 that cooincides with the jubilee of 1933?

      It ran out of gas sometime around 1932 or thereabouts

      • owlmon

        October 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

        That makes no sence Don as I am pointing out the reality of Jubille’s being conducted by the religious cabal that runs the world finincial empire…You trying to duck that reality is not very impressive..

  2. Don

    October 7, 2012 at 11:07 PM

    Alfred, dear one,

    There is not anything that forces the “Good LORD” to be good. I am grateful he chooses/chose to

    be good. Can you imagine what it would be like if he chose to be anything else but good? One of

    your wonderful traits, Alfred is, you give the “Good LORD” ALL the credit & rightly so. This is why

    he will continue to open up new doors to/for you. He also knows you will use that knowledge to

    help others, who are his “people.” You summed it up in one word-LOVE. To me, Love is an

    outgoing concern for others. The opposite of, hate,greed,& jealousy, i.e. Satan’s way(s).

  3. Anon4fun

    October 7, 2012 at 11:50 PM

    We, the People, can’t have a revolution in this country. We are already the rightful authority here, and recognized as such in law and through the oaths of office of almost every government employee. What we can do is a police action where we root out the criminal billionaire mafia which has covertly usurped our power. Professionally produced YouTube videos with hypnotic soundtracks rarely make this critical distinction when they openly and notoriously advocate revolution. This is not surprising given that the only revolution possible is against the People’s law, your law, in this case on behalf of the billionaire would-be oligarchs who pay for such propaganda.

    • Don

      October 8, 2012 at 12:10 AM

      @ your message of/on,October 7, 2012 at 11:50 PM

      OK What do we do? Just give Step 1 for starters as I believe there will be step 1,2,3,4,5, etc

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

      @ “What we can do is a police action. …..”

      If you think you can come up with something that is more powerful than Saddam Hussein’s army, let me know. You saw what happened to him, didn’t you? I guess I’m not understanding something here. What do you mean by “police action?” Who comprises the “police” & how many do you estimate will be needed? I send this, totally confused. But, maybe this response from me will make sense to all others on this blog. Nothing else I posted seems to make any sense to anyone but now that I’m cofused, maybe my questions will make sense to others. If it makes sense to me, then it’s confusing to others.

  4. Anon4fun

    October 8, 2012 at 2:03 AM


    For starters, we can round up these anarchist media rats and try them for treason, since the stateless plutocracy they are helping create excludes all forms of lawful government, including that established by the will of the sovereign people of this nation.

    • Don

      October 8, 2012 at 8:08 PM

      try them for treason?
      I PROVED to a District Attorney, TOM RUTLEDGE, HEY THOMAS, if you are reading this, YOU INCORRIGIBLE selfmade reprobate traitorous BASTARD, remember laughing at me THOMAS & saying OK so I’m commiting treason, so what, what are you gonna do about it!!?? Remember laughing HEARTILY & saying WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT!!!?? Remember THAT THOMAS ? Thomas Rutledge, District Attorney,5th Judicial District Attorney. I understand you are now a 5th Judicial District Court JUDGE. MR RUTLEDGE, YOU ARE LOWER THAN WHALE MANURE & that’s on the bottom of the ocean. NOW, WHAT ARE YOU gonna do about what I JUST SAID? By the way, MR. RUTLEDGE, ALL of the above statements are some of your GOOD POINTS !!!

      • Don

        October 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM

        TOM RUTLEDGE, 5th Judicial District, CARLSBAD NM

      • Adask

        October 8, 2012 at 9:07 PM

        Let’s try to resist the impulse to insult or cuss each other out. I’m hoping this blog can be devoted to the ideas rather than personalities. I know that kind of separation is sometimes very hard to sustain. But let’s try to avoid getting into personality conflicts.

    • owlmon

      October 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

      try them for treason in what valid courts?? Can you explain where you can find an integral judge who recognises Exodus 20:3-5 Deuteronomy 4;2 ,12:32, Ezra 7:23-26?? Help us out with your brilliance please…

      • Don

        October 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM


        I have said the same thing as you have for so long I can’t remember. For MANY years. No one wants to or can believe it, I guess. I don’t know what the problem is. But,no doubt the “others”, feel it’s my problem. Well, at least you & I have at least one thing in common. I have been in their courts so many times,I’ve lost count of it. I was there 99 percent of the time in an orange jail jumpsuit. Mainly for no driver license,registration, etc. It’s easy to give advice sitting in an ivory tower or living under a rock tho,ain’t it?

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM


      October 8, 2012 at 2:03 AM


      For starters, we can round up these anarchist media rats and try them for treason, since the stateless plutocracy they are helping create excludes all forms of lawful government, including that established by the will of the sovereign people of this nation.

      Is the above information your answer to my post of:
      October 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

      @ “What we can do is a police action. …..”

      If you think you can come up with something that is more powerful than Saddam Hussein’s army, let me know. You saw what happened to him, didn’t you? I guess I’m not understanding something here. What do you mean by “police action?” Who comprises the “police” & how many do you estimate will be needed? I send this, totally confused. But, maybe this response from me will make sense to all others on this blog. Nothing else I posted seems to make any sense to anyone but now that I’m cofused, maybe my questions will make sense to others. If it makes sense to me, then it’s confusing to others.

  5. applescence

    October 8, 2012 at 2:19 AM

    hey, Alfred,

    Sometimes we all get “help” to see things we don’t yet understand, but we do the best with what we are able to pull from our “help’ and present it as best we can with our understanding at the time. As we go along and begin to see a “clearer” picture, We refine and sometime revise our thoughts, now seeing something that we “colored” with our previous limited experiences, but now are having clearer vision of. I believe it is just the nature of receiving and understanding “help” from somewhere else, however you want to label that help.

    You provide wonderful, helpful and insightful assistance and food for thought for a lot of people. Please don’t underestimate the value of that or degrade what you do. Learning, as you know, or, more precisely, I suppose, UNDERSTANDING, is a process, constantly being refined, and your process of “refining” is inspirational to a lot of people.. I, for one (and I am sure there are many others) seriously appreciate your insights and, even though you may not feel they are “spot on” in the beginning, you constantly re-define and refine them to the point that they are useful and applicable for even normal .people like me. My life is, to a great degree, either directly, or indirectly, now driven by knowledge aquired by your speculations and the research it has inspired.

    As Mary Elizabeth, [Croft] would say ““Doubt is an incitement to research, and research is the path to true knowledge.” Reminds me of your apparent mission in life, with the added felt responsibility to share and help others gain that same knowledge.

    Again, again, thank you for your sharing of your insights that inspire others to become involved and share their insights as well. It all helps the less-than-brainiac types like Myself. : )

  6. Huey Campbell

    October 8, 2012 at 4:55 AM

    I love you Adask,I love what you see. I believe you see the truth
    I love your recognition of and giving credit to the one who woke you in your mother’s womb.
    I have young’uns who live in Spring. It would be my pleasure to be in your presence if the good Lord wills it so, sometime.

    • Adask

      October 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

      I certainly appreciate your compliments and affection. But don’t get overly impressed with my “presence”. If I recall correctly, there might be an instance in the Bible where a mule is empowered to speak. If so, I probably have more in common with that mule than I do with the other people in the Bible. That being said, I have still one of God’s mules–and that’s good enough for me. I am fit to pull the plow. Don’t worry about being in my “presence”. Celebrate being in the “presence” of your own children.

      • sem

        October 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM

        Things that make you go ~~~hmmm~~~

  7. greg

    October 8, 2012 at 6:53 AM

    Just sharing cause I Love you all too….

  8. patrick

    October 8, 2012 at 7:15 AM

    John Perkins – Confessions of an Economic Hitman…not sure if it was pre/post 2006…

    Also in 1995 Greenspan divorced interest rates from gold. Even though we weren’t on the standard, he loosely tracked it via interest rates. That died in 95, aaron Krowe has a great piece on it.

    More real time: Can anyone locate any currency printed in 2011 or 2012? I’ll take your word for it…but I have been looking for a few weeks and have had friends looking as well. We can’t seem to locate ANY…

    I received information from three totally separate sources confirming the above in addition to the printing of real lawful money that has been in storage for 2 years…which makes sense in light of the above.

    The FED is being foreclosed as we speak…currently its on the private side. When it bleeds over to the public one…

    Kansas is about to go bye bye….

    • Don

      October 8, 2012 at 8:29 PM

      @ Kansas is about to go bye bye

      The melody of: “Lullabye & goodnight in the sweet……..”. came to me as I read(red) your comment.

  9. Joe

    October 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

    If you have been born again, in the way that Jesus said you must be, then God does not view you as a sinner. He views you as an adopted son, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus himself. “What manner of love hath the Father bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.” And because you have not rejected knowledge when it was presented to you, and because you sow the knowledge you have obtained, you qualify to reap more knowledge. “As a man soweth, so shall he reap.”

    • Don

      October 8, 2012 at 8:20 PM

      I guess I must have sown some terrible horrific seeds Then,again, the apostle Peter was cruicified upside down. He said he was unworthy to die like his Master. No kidding!!

    • Don

      October 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      (“Jesus”) also said: That which is born of the flesh is flesh & he that is born of the spirit is spirit.
      Are you flesh & blood? Spirit beings do not “bleed.” The Bible speaks of at least two resurrections.
      The first will be for those who were pleasing to the Good LORD & THEN, they will be resurrected
      with a “spirit body.” “The Christ” is an example. Those who are deemed worthy of the first
      resurrection,will be “born again” & this is the true meaning of “born again.” i.e.born of the
      spirit. Spirit beings can “manifest” themselves to “appear” like anything they want to. Remember Christ saying after he was resurrected,”feel me, see that I have flesh & bone as you do? Then, after that,he vanished. Flesh& blood beings cannot do that, e.g. vanish right before your very eyes

  10. sem

    October 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    Please let us be clear:

    Is it not Written (in Red letters), “it is the LOVE of money that’s the root of all evil.” Lest we forget, Almighty GOD is a jealous GOD; in that, “Ye shall have no OTHER god before ME”.

    A significant example of the above is written as to the fate of King Solomon.

    Free your mind…and the rest will follow; please consider the following in conjunction with the times:


    September 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    An excerpt from JSMindset:

    This is an ancient observation true even today – that most people spend their childhood in pranks and play, their youth in sports, pleasure and pastime, middle age in plans and schemes to pile up a fortune, and old age in hospitals trying to bolster failing health through failing wealth. Earning and spending, one fills their time with work and worry. People are busy with a number of attempts to earn happiness, but success is little and short-lived. The only panacea for all ills, the effort that will result in total victory is the control of the mind, which is the master of the senses. Every sense organ is an outlet for energy that binds one to the objective world. The senses are induced by the mind to move out and attach themselves to objects. You must make the mind submit to wisdom, which discriminates between right and wrong. Then the mind, instead of harming, will help you.
    –SSB, Oct 2, 1965

    PS money in and of itself is not a problem…it is the WORSHIP of said from whence cometh the problem.


    • Don

      October 8, 2012 at 8:23 PM

      The “Good LORD” himself ain’t exactly a pauper.

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM

      Please let us be clear:?????

      How can you put us up in the clouds,lift us up so high, with youw superior knowledge & wisdom,& expect us to be clear. Being in the clouds is cloudy, not clear.

      • Don

        October 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM

        YOUR,not youw, but “your superior knowledge & wisdom.” I’m still in the clouds. Where is my harp?

  11. pop de adam

    October 8, 2012 at 5:09 PM

    There is a leap of logic somewhere in the present definition of a dollar and its historical definition in relation to gold:

    At one time I believe a dollar was defined either as 437 grains of gold or 1 ounce of gold.

    Today that ounce of gold it valued towards 1500 dollars to 1800 dollars an ounce depending on the source of the quote used.

    While this issue is dismissed easily by most and probably rightly so, as inflation. What I am seeing is a logical definition being distorted to an illogical definition.

    $1 = 1 ounce gold = $1500 = 1 ounce gold = $1, The illogicalness of this should be obvious.

    This is akin to using the same word in the definition used to define that word. I seem to have read this is among the cheif rules of authoring a dictionary. While this may not be a hard and true rule for every definition, every word, to abuse it extensively would lead to absurdness.

    Just my 2 cents.

  12. sem

    October 8, 2012 at 9:39 PM


    Coincidentally, your 2 cents is the approximate, current value of said ‘dollar’. May I respectfully suggest that it is in the individuals own interest to know the fundamentals and consider thinking for ones’ self.

    It has become clear that the various statistics (government or otherwise) are scewed to favor the banks and wall street. If you know how many grains of gold comprise an ounce, it is safe then to presume that you also know…numbers don’t lie.


    • Don

      October 9, 2012 at 11:37 AM

      Individual? Individual WHAT??

  13. Don

    October 8, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    To: Alfred,
    insult or cuss “each “other” out ?? Other like in “Man or “other” animals?? I am not another Tom A. Rutledge. “Personality Conflict”? I don’t see how telling the truth is a “personality conflict.” I call what I said, “righteous indignation.” HOWEVER, I will apologize for using this forum to TELL THE TRUTH. about THOMAS A. RUTLEDGE aka RUTLEDGE THOMAS A. If I had used the initial A & said what I thought it meant,that would be an insult. BUT,I did not do that. Yes, my Mother & Father taught me that if I could not say anything good about anyone, then don’t say anything. What I said about RUTLEDGE THOMAS A, are some of his GOOD POINTS. BUT, I most certainly did not & do not want to cause ANYONE on this blog any problems or trouble by usung this forum to tell the truth.So, I think it’s best for all others that I just refrain from saying anything else about anything. I do not expect a comment from anyone about what I have just said, unless of course,there are “others” who would like to come down on me for telling the truth about Thomas A. RUTLEDGE. As I have told many “others” before, if you can’t find someone else to come down on, just help yourself to me.

    • pop de adam

      October 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM


      Apparently you have a distaste for this fellow named Rutledge. If I am reading your comments correctly. The Constitution the piece of paper that it is, defines “treason” already and I suspect you understand this. What the legal profession has attempted to do is redefine any resistance or disagreement to them as treasonous. “Treason shall consist of waging war against them”, who is readily bearing arms against who, both in reality and metaphoriclly? Judges will have their opinions, should that bear upon you or I? Congress may resolve upon their resolutions, play out their acts with their actors, yet those are not made by you and me. It is absurd that being defensive or even disagreeable rises to the extent that treason is an acceptable accusation.

      There was a group that behind closed doors created this governing document, much like founding a foundation. Neither you or I are even possibly considered with in it, unless you fancy yourself among the “posterity”. Much like any last will and testament the posterity cannot be bound to it without their express consent, many would like to avail themselves of this as a beneficiary, but this comes with the possibility someone believing they are owed compensation for the debts incurred to the testators and the estate they left. I believe I have read that debts incurred are not recoverable from beneficiaries, but the complaintant may sue for recompense from the estate of the deceased.

      Whether or not the constitution is a will, trust or foundation is not really what I began this comment to explain. This Rutledge character obviously believes his opinions about treason, and obviously likely aware of this idea of authority flowing from the constitution to make such an accusation. The problem with using the Constitution and the other various founding documents for this is: the founders who wrote them seemed to be wary of the uncertainty with the willy-nilly arbitrary rule-making of the period, royal edicts,declarations and such. So initially they attempted to pen this pig in, you may note that in my estimate 95% of the Constitution only worked or was considered as acting on the government itself. This to someone outside of it makes it rather insular, sure they may make rules, but these rules should only work upon them. Likewise unless you are a member, you might be an enemy, but you can’t be called treasonous to an order you aren’t a member of. Of course they come up with numerous shemes to allow a presumption of membership to be assumed.

      Yes, I have a drivers license not because I wish to be a commercial driver or want traffic laws to apply to me or to join their order. I have one because the agents of the state are ignorant of the law, and will severely inconveniece me if it is otherwise(kidnapping). However this consent only extends to the rules of the road and consideration for fellow travelers upon the roads.

      You seem agitated, and I can’t find where or why, and so I thought this might be something else to think about. Authority really is only of importance to the author, in the case of the Constitution it has multiple authors and could be considered schizophrenic. On one hand they were attempting to fence a government in and on the other the may have been actively creating one. This to me seems self defeating and possibly mad, why ingratiate ourselves into the mess that it is? By argueing and citing their own rules against them, we may also come to be seen as mad or party to it.


      • Don

        October 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

        pop de adam,October 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM

        pop, you say,Don, Apparently you have a distaste for this fellow named Rutledge.
        How can you possibly think such a thing? Where do you get such an idea as that ? NAW ! No way.
        @The Constitution the piece of paper that it is.

        I think that is what George Bush said too. The constitution is just a piece of paper. He undoubtedly meant the Constitution that was in full force & effect BEFORE the newer enlightened age Constitution that begins with the 13th amendment. I call it the WAR Constitution which trumps the “1787 Constitution.” via appropriate legislation. I call it Treason. I know you disagree.

        @ bearing arms. This means you are allowed to wear a sleeveless shirt so you can show your bear arms.

        @Judges will have their opinions, should that bear upon you or I?
        They have ways of bearing down on you like an angry mama bear if you don’t honor & obey their opinions. It’s not a pretty picture either.

        @It is absurd that being defensive or even disagreeable rises to the extent that treason is an acceptable accusation.
        What you say is proof you have not remotely been through & seen, heard or experienced what I have. I know from hard cruel barbaric knocks they are agents of Satan.You’ll find out the hard way.

        @ You seem agitated,
        NAW !!! I am content with what the agents of Satan are doing. Most of the people in this world are just as evil. I can safely say that,from experience, & NO I haven’t talked with most of the people in this world. I don’t need to or want to. The “Good LORD” has shown me & told me so.

        ALL the law we need can be written on a paper no bigger than a post card. It is written but most people ignore that too. Hate, greed & jealously are the 3 ruling powers in this present EVIL world.

        You say you have a driver license. What other government issued ID do you have? Do you think I ought to get one. Not having one has destroyed me “wordly wise.” Think I ought to get one? Don’t say it’s up to me,tell me what you think. You’re my “pop” Viva la papa.

  14. Don

    October 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

    October 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

    owlmon, you say: “That makes no sence Don as I am pointing out the reality of Jubille’s being conducted by the religious cabal that runs the world finincial empire…You trying to duck that reality is not very impressive..”

    Where is your “original” message? I’m missing something, because the only “owlmon” message I can find is where you start out by saying: “That makes no sense…….”

    • Don

      October 9, 2012 at 6:37 PM

      pop de adam

      I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just ignorant & not stupid. “THEM?”

      The following court excerpt defines who THEM are & the court excerpt is one of many I adhere too.

      “The court say, in, Well’s v. Bain, 75 Penn. St. 39, “The People,that entire body called,The State.”
      I am one of those “People.”

      You say in essence:”…treason is an absurd accusation”. It maybe absurd to you, but not to me & I did not accuse “Rutledge” of treason, I proved he was committing treason. Accusing is one thing, proving is another. Rutledge understood what I meant & he thought it was funny except he was laughing at me because he knew there was NOTHING I could do about it.

      You say: “unless you fancy yourself among the “posterity”. I don’t fancy myself being among the posterity, I AM ONE OF THE POSTERITY !! How do you “know” I am not??

      You say: “….the Constitution only worked or was considered as acting on the government itself. ”

      Simply stated,BEFORE the Ungodly United States WAR Constitution came to exist,beginning with ITS 13th so called amendment, both State & National Constitutions were ORDERS from the “People” to their servants,i.e. those who held Government positions,e.g.It is written in, State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Prods. v. Meachem, 63 N.M. 250: “… Constitutions are not grants of power to the legislature, executive and judicial branches but are limitations on the powers of each, and no branch of the State may add to, nor detract from its clear mandate;” Even this excerpt shows that stealthy encroachments had advanced to the point that “branches” existed instead of departments

      You say: Yes, I have a drivers license not because I wish to be a commercial driver or want traffic laws to apply to me or to join their order. I have one because the agents of the state are ignorant of the law, and will severely inconveniece me if it is otherwise(kidnapping). However this consent only extends to the rules of the road and consideration for fellow travelers upon the roads.

      “severely inconveniece me” is putting it mildly,but no one needs a driver license to have consideration for fellow travelers upon the roads.

      Re:”You seem agitated, and I can’t find where or why……”

      This is because most people only want to post something & are only interested in responses to his/her post/message.They are not interested in reading much of anything else from anyone. I know this from the non responses to 90 percent of what I post & I see the limited response others receive. I post a message for example & it’s apparently good enough to create a new thread and the one I send the message to gets the credit for it. It’s as tho my messages are not meant to be understood & there are about 3 reasons why,but I don’t know for sure which of the 3 is the right reason. In other words, if I send a message to you & it catches the attention of “whoever” & so much so it starts a new article/thread & you get the credit for what I sent to you, well that’s about all the “recognition” I get.

      As far as the rest of your message goes pop de adam, if you consider Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,John Adams, Benjamin Franklin & ALL of the 39 WHITE People who put their “John Henry”s on the “proposed document” that starts out: “We the people” were mad,& if you think they put a curse on themselves as well as their children,grandchildren,& on down the line, then you don’t want to or should not want anything to do with me because if the above mentioned people were mad, then so am I. The current system thinks I am insane anyway. Sometimes I wonder about that too but I don’t think insane people know they are insane.

      • pop de adam

        October 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM

        forgive the olive branch, reward you with war?

    • pop de adam

      October 10, 2012 at 12:23 AM

      There are ideas. there are IDs’, I am not a name, I am not a thing, I am not an image. What should I be?

      • Don

        October 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM

        you ask: What should I be?

        You need to ask Your maker that question for his answer is the ONLY one that matters.

        Also, The “God” I put my faith & hope & trust in is very understanding. NO WAY is “my God” going

        to disown or condemn anyone for having a driver license. I’m just BULLISH on telling the

        GUHMUNT to take a long run off a short dock for trying to FORCE me to get a “DL” OR ANY of ITS

        GUHMUNT ID. Would life be easier for me if I had ITS ID’s? OF COURSE ! AND, IF this life IS all

        there IS, I would have had ALL ITS ID’s. In fact I would be a GUHMUNT agent myself IF this life IS

        all there is. I can get names kick ass get convictions & raise revenue for the Guhmunt with best of them.

      • Don

        October 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

        POP, You say: forgive the olive branch, reward you with war? and,
        There are ideas. there are IDs’, I am not a name, I am not a thing, I am not an image. What should I be?

        What are you doing here pop de adam? Are you answering yourself?

  15. Anon4fun

    October 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM

    I feel your pain, Don.

    By the way, the definition of treason that applies to the “anarcho-capitalist” (meaning the abolition of all government, including what the sovereign People have established) social change agents for the billionaire oligarchy-in-waiting is from the Constitution:

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

  16. Don

    October 9, 2012 at 7:45 PM


    @Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    “THEM !!!! THEM !!!! THEM !!!! WAR AGAINST “THEM”…..

    The court say, in, Well’s v. Bain, 75 Penn. St. 39, “The People,that entire body called,The State.”

    “The States” were,at least at one time,THEM aka the PEOPLE. How is treason levied against any land area? Today, called, “Region.” How do you give aid & comfort to LAND ? Geographically speaking, that is?

    Well Thank the Good LORD” you didn’t take what I said to mean you or any “others” !! When you mentioned what you did about “treason,” instantly, the RUTLEDGE incident came into my heart & mind. I wish you had been there to witness what took place. I sincerely believe you would have left walking like a zombie. I was stunned at his reaction. I left in a condition of disbelief. I was speechless because I could not grasp his reaction & laughter. Satanic !! He was also a “Sunday School Teacher.” I approached him humbly.& left stooped over.If you knew of just one incident he was a party to & what he did to me, you would be stunned too. This was BEFORE I proved to him he was engaging in “treasonous activity.” He tortured me mentally for over 4 years because of my stand & for my refusal to adhere to his position,stand,etc. He was a party to & had me charged with “criminal trespass” for “being” at the courthouse,& I went there just to file some affidavits in the county clerk’s office, which was inside the courthouse

    “I apoligize to you, Anon4fun,for replying to you,like I did,& for using this forum to say what I did. Please forgive me. Anyway, I wrote him a letter,years ago, and said the same thing to him in writing as I said in my “losing it” to you,reply. I also let him know what the penalty for treason was, at least at one time. Most people including the “others”are not aware of that penalty. It wasn’t just hanging. The “hanging was the “good part” what happened after the hanging was terrifying to put it mildly. He,RUTLEDGE probably HORSE LAUGHED about the terrifying aspect.

    Once again. I DON”T WANT YOU TO FEEL MY PAIN !!! They don’t hurt me anymore. They make me angry, well a better word is,MAD !! But, NOW, I AM FREE!!! I have nothing left to lose. I have a lot to look forward to IF IF IF I can stay firm. Heck, I’m in the habit of it so strong, I don’t think I could become “unfirm”. Unstable, yes, maybe, if I’m not already. THANK YOU for not coming down on me. Now I’m about to see my typos,etc.

    • pop de adam

      October 10, 2012 at 12:26 AM

      RES as a suffix means property in latin. Or thing.

  17. pop de adam

    October 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

    RES as a prefix, res-ident, my wrong.

  18. pop de adam

    October 10, 2012 at 5:25 AM


    I am the bringer of light

    thy lucifer, before darkness

    the moon, without darkness…

    This really messes with your head.

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

      To: pop de adam
      FROM, Don,
      YES pop. The Holy Scriptures do say that Satan appears as an angel of light. This does not mess up my head. It may mess up yours, not mine.So are you saying that YOU are the bringer of light? You certainly seem to be as you give no source of your “poetry.”

  19. patrick

    October 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM

    folks this is really simple – stop the war inside…which we all keep letting loose into this creation.

    does this help anyone find that?

    TITLE 18, PART I; CHAPTER 1 Sec. 1.; Sec. 11.
    Sec. 11. – Foreign government defined

    The term ”foreign government”, as used in this title except in sections 112, 878, 970, 1116, and 1201, includes any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by the United States.

    Did you catch the last seven words? Think about how you can build your castle of peace around that CODE…once your (code) moat is PERFECTED, stop building the moat and go enjoy your castle made of peace free of codes and statutes. It helps if you have a country to EXPORT to :)

    that’s the secret sauce i feel…you can declare your NOT something all day long, but guess what you can’t PROVE you’re NOT something…negative presumptions? negative claims? :)

    however if you are standing on another jurisdiction that can be NAMED and is HONORED, welcome to the promise land.

    come join me, the fields are open…


    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

      @”..but guess what, you can’t PROVE you’re NOT something.

      I say: “You’re nobody till somebody loves you. BUT, nobody loves you till you’re somebody.” Sort of a catch 22, ain’t it?

      Is that right? If I can prove who I am & it is the opposite of what guhmunt says I IS, have I not shown that I am not that something guhmunt says I IS?

      You live in the promised land, huh? Well then there is no need for the messiah to “return” to establish that “promised land, is there?

      You say:come join me, the fields are open…


  20. Anon4fun

    October 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM


    A bit of random speculation about “THEM”:

    Sometimes a State is considered the same as its people. We see this at the State level a lot (e.g. Wells v. Bain). On the other hand, in the Constitution, the elements of the union are States and not individual Americans. So here a State and its people are not the same. One way of reconciling these is: internally, a State has no independent interest aside from those of its people, whereas external to itself a State acts as a corporate whole. This would explain how the States could send Senators without a popular vote. They represented their State itself as distinct from its people. Also, it is the States, not the people, who elect the President (through the Electoral College). Both of these are external functions of a State.

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 4:49 PM

      To: Anon4fun
      FROM: Don
      @Also, it is the States, not the people, who elect the President (through the Electoral College).

      This is a “major” part of the problem.” What you say above is true but it was another BIG step towards destroying the “sovereignty of the several States through “appropriate legislation” via the 17th WAR amendment. No one will respond to my question of: Why is it necessary to have 2 power clauses in “the” Constitution. The 2nd power clause begins with the 13th amendment.”The Congress shall have power…..” The 1st power clause gave Congress authority to do what was NECESSARY & PROPER.There would be no need for a 2nd power clause IF Congress was doing what was necessary & PROPER ! They(Congress) granted themselves POWER to NOT DO what was nesessary & proper & destroying what was necessary & proper via “appropriate legislation.” The WAR Constitution TRUMPS the 1787 Constitution via “appropriate legislation.” Everything in the 1787 Constitution NOW means what “appropriate legislation” says it means.” IF you do not believe this NOW, you will sooner or later. I hope it is sooner rather than later. Have you seen the Alex Jones-Jesse Ventura POLICE STATE video ? I will pay you to watch it if you will tell me how to send you a “donation.” Once again, my email address is:
      Phone Number-505-865-9293. Prove me now herewith.

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 5:34 PM


      The following Court excerpt is verbatim word for word, Caps are my emphasis.

      “That intangible thing called, a, STATE, however extensive “its” powers,can never appear or be represented or known in any court in a litigated case,except by and through ITS officers.” Justice Harlan, dissenting in, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123.

      Anon4fun, IS this the kind of “State/state,you are referring to? If so,then apparently treason can only mean levying war,etc.,against ITS. Treason can only be levying war,etc., against an “intangible thing” ???.”

      Please define for me the “State” you are referring to for I don’t believe you are referring to “That intangible thing called a State/state.”

    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 6:10 PM

      To: Anon4fun
      FROM: Don

      “A State,in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries,organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such States under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and States which compose it one people and one country.” Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 720, 721.

  21. sem

    October 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

    There may be truth in what you are touching upon Anon:

    What is on the Back of the Two Dollar Bill? The back of the $2 bill has an engraving of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In the image is a man who has dark skin and wearing a powdered wig while sitting at the table just to the left of the men standing in the center of the engraving. This dark skinned man is John Hanson in his position as president of the continental congress. In the original painting hanging in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, the dark skinned man does not appear!!!

    A “Black” Man, A Moor, John Hanson

    Was the First President of the United States! 1781-1782 A.D.??? George Washington was really the 8th President of the United States! George Washington was not the first President of the United States. In fact, the first President of the United States was one John Hanson. Don’t go checking the encyclopedia for this guy’s name – he is one of those great men that are lost to history. If you’re extremely lucky, you may actually find a brief mention of his name. The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land). Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress. As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a monarch. All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as the only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops down and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington. In fact, Hanson sent 800 pounds of sterling silver by his brother Samuel Hanson to George Washington to provide the troops with shoes. Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents. President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today. The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one year term during any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. Six other presidents were elected after him – Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) – all prior to Washington taking office. So what happened? Why don’t we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States? It’s quite simple – The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written – something we know as the Constitution. And that leads us to the end of our story. George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.

    Hence, the only thing knew…is the his-story we don’t know!


    • Don

      October 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM

      @ “…he is one of those great men that are lost to history. If you’re extremely lucky, you may actually find a brief mention of his name” (John Hanson)

      You sure have a ton of information on all this lost in history BS. I guess YOU were one of extremely lucky “individuals.” I knew sooner or later you would show your true colors.

  22. Anon4fun

    October 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM


    “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation…” or something close to it is used again several times after the 13th Amendment. Maybe the purpose is only to specify whose job enforcement is, in case there are conflicts or questions.

    Alex Jones sure does churn out those police state videos. I can find them online and watch the one with Jesse Ventura. This I will do free of charge.

    {Treason can only be levying war, etc., against an “intangible thing” ???}

    Treason is levying war against, or adhering to the enemies of, an intangible thing which can be destroyed like a tangible thing.

    {Please define for me the “State” you are referring to for I don’t believe you are referring to “That intangible thing called a State/state.”}

    I mean whatever the source documents mean by the word, which could be a range of meanings. The point is only to show an apparent inconsistency in how “State” is used.

    Notice how Texas v. White, the US case, refers to a State as a “community,” which is a corporate entity. This is different than equating a State with its people. Each one of the people has a more important quality, i.e. life, than anything due to his or her membership in a collective.


    It would be interesting to know whether they added John Hanson for the $2 bill or erased him from the original painting.

  23. sem

    October 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM


    It would seem highly unlikely that they would remove such a painting from the retunda for the purpose of defacing it. Seeing how the Note is fairly-newly created, it is very likely that the former occurred.

    However, the gist of the reply is in accordance your above statement:

    …On the other hand, in the Constitution, the elements of the union are States and not individual Americans…

    It is also interesting that the other seven(7) Presidents are not illustrated.

  24. todreigus

    October 10, 2012 at 11:57 PM

    I’m not sure how appropriate for the thread this is but, you know those silly email you get “if you forward this to x # blah blah blah,… you have great fortune or luck …” they drive me up a wall, I can’t stand them. but how do you politely tell your Aunt or family member to knock it off! Well I just got this one with a pick of a money tree 7 if I pass.. blah blah; well the first thing I noticed was it only had 1 dollar bills on it & wondered hell, where’s the fifties & hundred’s? Then instantly Mr. Adask popped into my head & his “Fiat Dollar” & got my answer; how to softly let my Aunt know I think these chain things are silly & replied back

    “No thanks, I’ll pass on the money tree, especially with today’s “Fiat Dollar” in a another year or so, I’d be better off with an apple tree. But if she ever hears of a bean stalk I can climb, I might be interested!
    Love Todd”

  25. sem

    October 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM


    I believe you have the right idea, yet…you could be more impactful, as;

    Is Legal Tender Next?
    Editorial of The New York Sun | October 8, 2012

    It’s going to be illuminating to see whether the government appeals the big ruling on judges’ pay that was handed down last week at Washington. The case is called Beer v. United States. The Sun has written about it here and the editor of the Sun here. The plaintiffs are Judge Peter Beer and a rainbow coalition of some of the most distinguished judges on the federal bench. They have just won a ruling that prohibits Congress from suspending a system of automatic pay increases designed to protect their honors from inflation.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, handed down the ruling on Friday. The ruling hasn’t received much coverage in the press, though — at least in our view — it’s one of the most important cases of our time. The reason is that it has to do not only with the question of need for Congress to keep its promises and the need to attract a first class judiciary but also the question of constitutional money.

    The judges turn out to be a special case because it is unconstitutional ever to diminish their pay. This is American bedrock that was laid down by the Founders because of the British tyrant George III. The king made judges dependent “on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries,” as America’s revolutionaries put it in the Declaration of Independence. So it was written into the United States Constitution that the compensation of judges “shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    In Beer, the judges sued under that clause after Congress suspended automatic pay increases it had established to protect their honors from inflation. What the appeals court just ruled is that Congress, in suspending the automatic pay increases, diminished the judges pay, particularly because when Congress legislated the automatic pay increases, it also established limits on the outside income judges are permitted to earn.

    More broadly, at least by our lights, the ruling says, in effect, that the legal tender laws don’t apply to judges’ salaries. That is, the court is suggesting that, at least in the case of judges, 100,000 dollar bills will not suffice in 2012 for a contract to pay $100,000 that was entered into in, say, 2000. The Appeals Court packed its opinion with some prime language from the founding era.

    “[N] othing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support,” the Court quoted Alexander Hamilton as writing in 79 Federalist. It noted that at the constitutional convention at Philadelphia, where the Founders sat that summer in 1787, James Madison urged that variations in the value of money could be “guarded agst. by taking for a standard wheat or some other thing of permanent value.”

    Send that msg as a reply. Pray-tell the result.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s