Good Americans Distrust Government—And they are the Majority

16 Mar

English: * Title = Gilbert Stuart's Portrait o...

“Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.” George Washington (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I postulate that being a good American means living in harmony with the spirit of The Constitution of the United States.  If that’s true, should we ever trust government?

Absolutely not.

The reason we have three, separate and independent branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) is to keep those governmental branches fighting among themselves and thereby prevent the emergence of a single, dictatorial government that worked for its own interests rather than those of the people.  The mandate for three branches of government (separation of powers) is evidence that the Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

The reason we have “checks and balances” in the Constitution is to protect the people from the federal government.  The Founders didn’t trust the feds.

The reason we have the 1st Amendment right to free speech is to allow us to expose government corruption.

According to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the reason we have the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted under the Constitution to the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.

Insofar as the Constitution was intended to allow for only a “limited” government, that Constitution was intended to protect against government’s inevitable and insatiable appetite for more power, more taxes and less freedom.  The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

In fact, it can be argued that the genius of our Constitution is that it’s the world’s only “anti-government” Constitution; that its fundament purpose was not to empower, but rather to restrict, government.  The Founders recognized that, inevitably, there must be a federal government (a “necessary evil”)—but they never trusted that government and therefore enshrined their distrust in the limits imposed by the Constitution.

The Founders agreed with George Washington, who said, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.”  I.e., the best government you’ll ever get is a “dangerous servant”.  If you are ever fool enough to trust that “dangerous servant,” you can expect it to quickly morph into a “fearful master”—a dictatorship and police state.

Thus, if being a “good American” means living in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution, being a “good American” necessarily means distrusting the government.

And, as you’ll read, the vast majority—73%—of all Americans implicitly agree in that they don’t trust the government.  Today, only one American in four is sufficiently ignorant, naïve or treasonous to trust the government.

But, before we explore the statistics, let’s consider some evidence that distrust of government is reasonable, rational and warranted.


The New York Times reports (“Obama’s Backers Seek Big Donors to Press Agenda”) that,

“President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign organization into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.”

I.e., the President—whose job as highest officer in the Executive Branch of government is to execute the laws enacted by Congress—seeks to raise $50 million so he can influence or even control legislation.

But under our Constitution, we have three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) whose fundamental functions are supposed to be exclusive to each branch and beyond the legitimate powers of the other two branches.  Nevertheless, President Obama seeks to raise $50 million so he can influence legislation and arguably bribe congressmen and senators.

Thus, it appears that, just like George W. Bush, President Obama also regards the Constitution as nothing but a “g.d. piece of paper”.  It’s not enough to be the Chief Executive; Obama also wants to be the chief Legislator.  The S.O.B. is attempting to subvert the form of government declared in our Constitution.  By seeking to destroy our constitutional “separation of powers,” he is engaged in treason.

“But the rebooted [presidential reelection] campaign, known as Organizing for Action has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.”

President Obama seeks to influence Congress in a way that is outside the law and open to whatever influence or control Obama can muster.

“In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors. . . . At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more.”

Average Americans need not apply.  Obama will seek donations primarily from a few rich people.

But the rich seldom become rich by giving their money away without getting something in return. We can therefor presume that the rich will trade their cash quid pro quo for influence.  Whatever the rich want, Obama will seek to deliver.


“Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.”

President Obama seeks to turn his reelection campaign organization into a lobbying group that will be largely above the law, unaccountable to the American people, and subject only to whatever regulations it seeks to impose on itself.

Do you believe that such an unaccountable lobbying organization will work for the best interests of the American people or for the best interests of major corporations and the government, itself?

Does Obama’s proposal inspire you to trust the government?


The reason anyone votes for a particular candidate is that we think that candidate has a system of values that’s much like our own.  You might vote for the Democrat because you think his personal system of values is most like yours; I might vote for the Republican because I think his system of values is most like mine.  I presume that since my candidate (or political party) has a system of values most like my own, then, when a new bill is proposed in Congress, my candidate will read that bill and decide to support, reject or amend it pretty much as I would if I were sitting in Congress.

You operate under the same presumption.  You believe your candidate has a system of values so much like your own that you can expect him to vote as you would vote on proposed legislation.

The problem is that Congress no longer reads the bills that they vote for or against.  It’s common knowledge that no Congressman or Senator read the original “Patriot Act,” the “National Defense Authorization Act” or “Obamacare” before they voted to enact those bills.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shamelessly illustrated the congressional disinclination to read bills before they voted on them when she told Congress, “But we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what’s in it . . . .”  And the jackasses in Congress (that includes your favorite candidate and mine), voted for the 2,800-page Obamacare bill without even having seen it.

Given that Congress no longer reads or even writes most of our legislation, what difference does it make if your favorite Congressman has a system of values just like yours?  If they don’t read the bills, their system of values is irrelevant.  You could just as easily elect a child molester, serial killer or chimpanzee to Congress as a man who appears to embrace your system of values.  If none of them will read the proposed legislation, what difference does their personal system of values make?

Which brings us to the next question:  If Congressmen don’t read the proposed bills, how do they know which bills to vote for or against?

A:  Someone tells them.

That “someone” may be the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, minority “whip”—or some lobbyist.  But whoever tells your favorite congressman or mine how to vote, it’s not you or me.   More importantly, whoever tells our congressmen how to vote, that’s who our congressmen truly represent.  They don’t represent you or me; they represent whoever tells them how to vote.

Finally, we elect people to the Legislative branch of government for the purpose of “legislating” new laws.  The process of legislation goes something like this:  A congressman or senator sees a problem in our society or economy and believes that problem can be mitigated or eliminated by enacting a new law.  That legislator drafts a proposed law and then seeks other legislators to support his proposal.  Those other legislators read the proposed law and accept it, reject it, or insist on certain changes or additions.  A certain amount of bargaining and horse-trading takes place and then a final bill is submitted to the Congress at large to vote for or against.

But today, given that Congress doesn’t read or write most of the laws they enact, congressmen no longer function as legislators.  Instead, they focus as law “brokers”.  Lobbyist approach congressmen with proposed legislation that the lobbyists have already drafted.  Lobbyists offer congressmen bribes (a/k/a “political campaign contributions”) to “broker” the proposed laws.  If the money is right, the congressman agrees to broker the proposed law—without even reading that proposal.

It’s all about the money.

That description is not true in every case, but it’s true in a lot of cases, probably most cases.

Your congressman is for sale to the highest bidder.  He is a law broker and a treasonous whore.

Some congressmen are worse than others, but you’d be hard-pressed to find five men or women in the Congress (none in the Senate) who aren’t willing to betray this nation’s best interests if the money is right.  They’ve abandoned their tedious role as legislators to embrace the more profit role as law brokers.  In doing so, they’ve become laughing, grinning, treasonous whores.

Does that description inspire your trust for government?


You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who’s worked closely with our local, state and federal courts who doesn’t believe them to be corrupt, avaricious and self-serving.

The courts are famous for unilaterally amending the Constitution with “judge-made” law.  However, when it comes to issuing treasonous decisions, the Supreme Court may have topped itself with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (A.D.2010), wherein the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

The Moral Lowground described that case as follows:

“Citizens United freed corporations, unions and other monied interests . . . to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of American elections . . . effectively turning back the clock to the era of 19th century robber barons and wild capitalism.

“The Supreme Court’s perversely twisted logic boiled down to this: under the First Amendment, corporations are people and money is free speech.  [Because] deep-pocketed corporations [will] drown out the voices of ordinary citizens simply by virtue of their newly-endowed unlimited spending powers, Citizens United effectively gives corporations rights that ordinary citizens do not enjoy.

“In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that ‘the Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.’”

The simple truth is that corporations are legal fictions; they’re not “people” and therefore not entitled to the rights of “people”.   They can’t speak and therefore have no freedom of speech.  The first Amendment was never intended to protect the “speech” of corporations.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” and entitled to spend as much money as they like in support of whatever candidates or issues are in the corporation’s interests.

But as the Moral Lowground concluded,

“Historians may very well look back at Citizens United as . . . one of the pivotal events in the emergence of what can only be described as the coming corporatocracy; a time when “We the People” metastasized into “We the Corporations,” when “of the People, by the People, for the People” got twisted into “of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations.”

“Corporatocracy” sounds very much like fascism.  Does that prediction of a growing “corporatocracy” inspire your trust in the federal courts and/or the federal government?

•  When you consider the blatant violations of the Constitution committed by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, there’s little reason to trust the government and much reason to fear the government.

Unfortunately, those who have such fears and distrust feel themselves to be in a minority and so badly outnumbered that they’re afraid to express their concerns.

But as a recent study by the Pew Research Center discovered, those who fear and distrust our government are not a minority of “extremists”.

Instead, they comprise the majority of Americans

•  Here are excerpts from a transcript of a recent PBS Newshour radio program where Judy Woodruff interviewed Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center:

“Judy Woodruff: A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds the nation increasingly distrustful of the federal government. The findings show that about one-quarter of Americans trust government to do the right thing always or most of the time.  A whopping 73 percent don’t.

“So, Andy, you found that a majority think the federal government actually threatens their personal rights.

“Andrew Kohut:  Yes—for the first time since we have been asking this question, we have a majority, 53 percent, saying that they feel their rights are personally threatened by the government. . . . Gun control is part of their worries. I think you go back to Obamacare, many people complaining the government is telling me that I have to buy health insurance. They don’t have the right to do this. . . . distrust in government has been endemic since the end of the 1960s  . . .  many surveys show support for Congress stands around 10 percent, an incredible number for a representative democracy and one that signals enormous disaffection.

“Three-quarters of US citizens don’t trust the US government and some 90 percent don’t trust Congress.

“But bear [those figures] in mind when watching or reading the mainstream media to get a sense of just how disconnected modern political policy is from the actuality of voter sentiment.”

In other words, government and the mainstream media would have us believe that virtually only a handful of “extremists” distrust or even fear the “beneficent” federal government when, in fact, those purported “extremists” now constitute a majority of the American people.

It’s vitally important that we “extremists” know that we are not an isolated minority, but are instead the majority.

53% of America agrees with us that the government is “threatening” our liberties.  73% of America agrees with us that the government can’t be trusted.  As the majority, we have less to fear from government and should have more confidence in their ability to stand up, resist tyranny, and be supported by their neighbors.

Too many people–including me–have been deceived by government, the two major political parties and mainstream media into believing that the ideas we tend to embrace are only supported by a handful of fellow “extremists”.  As a result, we’ve been hesitant to act in public for fear of being misunderstood by the purported “majority” of Americans and possibly crushed by the government.

We can abandon much of that fear because we not a minority of “extremists”–we are the majority.

Yes, those of us on this particular blog may hold some specific ideas (“The State vs this state,” “man or other animals,” etc.) that most Americans may find “peculiar”–at least at first.  Nevertheless, most of America agrees with us that the government is threatening our liberty and can’t be trusted.

Actually, it’s pretty amazing,  In terms of a struggle for the “hearts and minds” of America, we’ve won.  Despite all the government’s resources, propaganda, and deceit, we’ve been winning.  For years.  We just didn’t know it . . . because we believed government when it declared us to a minority of “extremists”.

With blogs, websites, radio and public demonstrations, we are beating the government.   Despite government huge advantages in resources and media, we are changing hearts and minds.   Fair and square, we’re beating the bastards.

But, how strange.  Here we are, advocating distrust of government, and yet, we have allowed ourselves to have been deceived by government propaganda into believing we are a tiny minority.

But, as Shakespeare sad, “The truth will out.”  Sooner or later, the truth will be known.  Sooner or later the true “extremists” (the collectivists in government or those who support big government) will be seen, exposed and perhaps even pushed back to sanity or at least poverty and political impotence.

If you’ve ever considered running for public office or starting a third political party, now might be the time to fix your sights on the 2014 election.



•  If any other nation (say, China) inspired fear in 53% of its people, and distrust in 75%, we’d say that nation was at least a police state and probably headed for serious internal conflicts.

Could it be any different for the U.S.?

There is a political revolution in our near future.  It doesn’t have to be violent.  It could be as pacific as merely running for office with an openly anti-big-government philosophy–or starting a viable, anti-government, third party.

If the coming revolution is going to be violent, that violence will the instituted by the minority of “extremists” who favor fascism and big government, see their power withering in the face of the political majority who fear and distrust government, and know no other way to retain their power except by force.

It’s even probable that government’s recent orders for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, 2,700 armored personnel carriers, and blatant struggle to disarm Americans are all based on the government’s awareness that the majority of Americans now distrust government.  If so, it behooves us all to hang onto our firearms.

We should aim to defeat the big-government “extremists” at the ballot box.  But we shouldn’t be surprised if they initiate violence–like trying to effectively revoke our right to keep and bear arms or causing more “false flag” gun tragedies or even some sort of major, international war.  We should be prepared to 1) not be deceived; and 2) resist in kind.

We are the majority.

We are the majority!

We hold political power.  But we need to learn how to take that power and use to our and America’s advantage.


Tags: , , , , ,

18 responses to “Good Americans Distrust Government—And they are the Majority

  1. Sparky the dullard

    March 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    Re: >The Founders didn’t trust the feds.
    I thought the founders created the “feds.” I must be mistaken because no one in their right mind is going to create something they/he/she cannot trust.

    • Adask

      March 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM

      They recognized government as a “necessary evil”. They created the federal government believing it was “necessary” and knowing it would inevitably tend towards “evil”. They tried to draft a Constitution that would allow and encourage the people to resist government’s propensity to evil. If they trust any government, they trusted the State and local governments–but they didn’t trust the feds. If the resulting federal government wasn’t perfect, it was still deemed to be necessary. So they “constituted” it.

      As for “no one in their right mind is going to create something he can’t trust,” I wonder how many people have “created” a marriage to a partner that any fool could see couldn’t be trusted. How ’bout a spaceship to the moon, a new, super-fast jet fighter, a 120 story high skyscraper or a tunnel to mine for gold or a Corvette that can travel 140 MPH? We create things we don’t trust all the time. We often live to regret those creations, but they’re fun for a while. Kinda like my first marriage.

      • Sparky the dullard

        March 16, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        March 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM
        I see what you’re saying, at least to some degree.I just don’t like anything that is a “necessary evil.”

        @ > “We create things we don’t trust all the time.”
        I still say we do this unknowingly.. Till death do us part, for better or for worse? Somebody was insincere. Tell me about it. The only thing we can really count on are our fingers & The Eternal Creator of the universe. We do need to learn some things the hard way but as time passes we forget & make the same mistakes again, at least I do. When I say we, I mean most of us & no one in particular. I think I am hogging your Blog. Forgive me. I will do my best not to comment so much.

  2. Anon4fun

    March 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

    “The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.”

    A curious choice of words, considering one of the tenets of the Adask School is that the Constitution, by which the Founders created the federal government, is a trust document.

    • Sparky the dullard

      March 16, 2013 at 4:27 PM

      @ >A curious choice of words, considering one of the tenets of the Adask School is that the Constitution, by which the Founders created the federal government, is a trust document.

      WOW !!! cane git no plainner nat. Right Huey?

  3. Peg-Powers

    March 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    The majority still has decisions to make.

    To what extent are we determined to stand up for what is RIGHT?

    To what extent are we willing to aid and support our neighbors when the armed Govco Extremists show up to raid, capture, and confiscate without LAWFUL warrant? This is nothing less than an Act of War against Americans. This is already happening to people in the Pacific Northwest!

    As for me, I will NEVER forget Ruby Ridge. I will NEVER forget Waco. These were Acts of War.

    Reminder: “The opposite of LOVE is not hate—–it is INDIFFERENCE.” We must shake ourselves out of our stupor and lethargy. I say unto you, Love One Another.

    • Sparky the dullard

      March 16, 2013 at 4:44 PM

      March 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM
      Wow again !!! cain git no plainner or troofullern dat, evur. Right Huey? Self made reprobate ruthless barbarian savage bastards!!! Notice I said self made. Peg, when Yahshua threw over the stone tables, he was just being “indifferent.” I can buy that. So take what I said above as meaning it’s my way of INDIFFERENCE talk. Or what I call righteous indignation. Man or other animals can also have more than one meaning. The selfmaders described above ARE ANIMALS !!!

      • Sparky the dullard

        March 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM

        To Peg-Powers,
        I will never forget Gordon Kahl either. Wish I could say the same for Jerry Kane (<is that his name?) but he was fleecing the people & made his his son a sacrifice. What a tragedy.

  4. RonMamita

    March 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM

    We (as free people) do not align to a document, rather you document what you are aligned to.
    Aligned to freedom you document and protect that freedom. The fact that you and I never signed the document (United States of America Constitution) Means we are not a party to that agreement, however those in office are sworn to it and when they dishonor their oaths and that documented contract then that legal system is finished.
    The evidence is overwhelming and clear that the contract has been broken repeatedly over the decades and continue to be breached today. The majority of the people may not be aware of this fraud and that the social contract has been breached (and thus voiding it) and citizens are subjects rather than free people…
    I encourage everyone to research the documented evidence of rogue corporate-government(s) in America.
    Here are a few documents for a entry into investigating a deep region of institutional criminality that is protected by(ever increasing SECRECY) legislation, regulation, and court.

    Realize that “Free people don’t want to be governed from the left, right, or center;
    free people want to govern themselves”

    President Bush signed NSPD-51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51) and HSPD-20 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) on May 9, 2007

    The 1933 Business Plot – Fascists Coup d’état attempt in USA
    The 1939 Operation Himmler and its Gleiwitz incident – False Flag Terrorism by Nazi Germany in order to get a pretext for Invasion of Poland
    The 1939 Shelling of Mainila, False Flag Terrorism by USSR in order to get a pretext for Winter War
    CIA Operation Mockingbird, from 1948. In 1976, then CIA director George H. W. Bush ordered that paid media recruiting would be prohibited.
    The 1942 Wannsee Conference, 3rd Reich Nazis related to Final Solution.
    The 1945 OSS Operation Paperclip, the extraction of top Nazi scientists (incl. SS nazi Party members).
    CIA MKULTRA mind control program, from 1953 and continuing.
    The 1954 ‘Lavon affair‘- Operation Susannah; False Flag Terrorism by Mossad
    The 1962 CIA Operation Northwoods
    CIA Project Cherry, United States non-stop attempt to assassinate Norodom Sihanouk
    Gulf of Tonkin Aug.1964
    The 1969 Manson Family murders
    The 1972 Watergate burglary and cover-up scandals
    The 1980 October surprise
    The 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack
    The 1987 Iran-Contra Affair
    The supposed plot of Caucasians to regain control of and take over Washington, D.C.
    Breakup of Yugoslavia – To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia, Verso, 2000, ISBN 1859847765
    The Enron manipulation of the California Electricity Market during the California electricity crisis
    The Mafia
    Various CIA involvements in overseas coups d’état
    The 1991 Testimony of Nayirah before the U.S. Congress to rally the support of the U.S. public to launch the Gulf War
    The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[2]
    The General Motors streetcar conspiracy[3]
    The plot by some gaullists of the French Secret Service to destabilise future president Georges Pompidou, known as the Markovic affair
    The series of incidents in Italy connected to the so called “strategy of tension“
    CIA Operation Gladio, a NATO ‘stay-behind’ Operation
    The 2000 CIA Operation Merlin
    9/11 in 2001
    The 2002 Downing Street Memo
    The 2002 September Dossier UK and USA Governments Lies and Forgeries to Justify invasion of Iraq
    The 2002 Yellowcake forgery
    The 2003 Iraq and weapons of mass destruction reports in order to get a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 pretext to Iraq War

    • Adask

      March 16, 2013 at 6:36 PM

      The fact that you and I didn’t sign the document does not mean that we’re not party to the document. It only means that the documents is not a contract. However, we can be party to the document if it is an express charitable trust. We need not sign to become party to such document. The question is whether we are party to that document in the capacity of beneficiaries or fiduciaries. As beneficiaries, we have rights. As fiduciaries, we have duties. The “people” were intended to be beneficiaries. The officers and employees of the federal government were intended to be fiduciaries. However, over time, government appears to have reversed roles within the context of the express charitable trust. Today, those who identify themselves as persons, inhabitants, residents, and citizens are almost certainly presumed to be “fiduciaries”. It is uncertain but possible that those who identify in such a way as to allow themselves to be deemed “animals” may also be deemed to be property (res) of the trust.

      • Doug

        March 17, 2013 at 4:54 AM

        I suppose we should bumble, mumble, tumble and ultimately stumble upon the truth as it relates to our personal liberty. We should watch our like minded fellows die in prisons trying to address liberty issues “within the system” or watch our children die in whatever war the elites find profitable, while claiming to be free and home to the brave. These are the biggest lies our parents ever told us after Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We are not free nor are we brave. What we are is hypocrites by proxy.

        1. Hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

        Even though a certain amount of fraud has been perpetrated upon the populace by the government since its inception most people have ho-hummed incremental encroachment upon their rights, privileges, and liberties for so long that each generation has been born into a class of lesser personages with declining conditions that are more expensive.

        Al, when someone as intimately involved in a dedicated effort to live free as you have been for as long as you have toiled in your endeavour … (and I have read your intelligent publications for a very, very, long time) … yet, you and millions of others including myself are incapable of defining our rights, our courts, our Constitution … is an ABOMINATION, is INTOLERABLE, and despite the intentions of the founders is UNREASONABLE.

        Looking backwards it seems almost a “natural” that one of those great men would have stated – we should let the people know whether they’re a fiduciary with duties or a benificiary with benefits, (or both) dontcha think ???

        In defense of the founders I would aver that they didn’t have the double-mindedness disease that we enjoy today. They were fortunate to have the option to duel whereby they could eliminate con-men, smooth talkers, liars, thieves and political jackals (or possibly get eliminated) from the gene pool without spending 100 years in court.

        I applaud the peaceful attempts by so many for so long to restore a real state of freedom and liberty in America. I truly respect the sacrifices made by others more inclined to the pacifist actions of litigation, letters to congress, letters to editors, but in the final analysis these methods have accomplished little, if any, success.

        There’s a very sophisticated war being waged against Americans BY THOSE WITH SOPHISTICATION that enables them to have unsophisticated Americans buy their guns and pay their soldiers.

        I can’t accept the notion that we’re bound by the founders signatures or our ancestors apathy as things worsened. The more I ponder life and living, freedom and liberty, truth and lies, I see legal fictions as fraud – and I mean all of them.

    • Jerry Sparks

      March 16, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      @ > March 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM

      This is an excellent video, RonMamita, & I personally thank you for sharing it. I know KING Obamanation won’t or doesn’t like it but T.S. There are other people on this Blog who are aware of what you say. You just have not seen enough comments. This Blog has been in existence for several years. Thanks again for sharing it.

  5. Jerry Sparks

    March 17, 2013 at 5:42 AM

    Your entire message of/on March 17, 2013 at 4:54 AM
    We are kindred souls. I wish I had the ability to say what you did. BUT, I do understand & agree with what you say,yes indeed.

  6. Anthony Clifton

    March 17, 2013 at 5:55 AM

    Amen, Doug.

    one thing about studying History is like the TV show Perry Mason…there is always some GLARING FACT that if not included in the TRIAL will lead the defendant right into the BOP…instaed of out the front door with an acquittal…which is why we all get to “JUDGE” our ownselves…in Good Faith.

    I was “punished” for overactivity at “school” by having to copy the Constitution and Declaration of Independense on Saturday{s} in Ink with no mistakes…or the front page of the paper…

    Jefferson would lay waste to the panty waste so called Members of “Congress” the Kosher Crackhouse including Ron Paul…but what is Interesting to me is his use of the word Israel,…during his Eulogy of Washington…

    “On the whole, his character was, in its mass, perfect, in nothing bad, in few points indifferent; and it may truly be said, that never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have merited from man an everlasting remembrance. For his was the singular destiny and merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example. . . .

    “These are my opinions of General Washington, which I would vouch at the judgment seat of God, having been formed on an acquaintance of thirty years. . . .

    “I felt on his death, with my countrymen, that ‘verily a great man hath fallen this day in Israel.’”

    Fog Banks, Currency Printers, Money changers…SCRIBES….”Taxpayers”…looks like a swirling whirlpool of genuine insanity….

    define Irony :

    when as a child I was informed and could read about the Children of Israel wandering…

    “In the Wilderness”…

    for Forty years it was just about too difficult for me to comprehend how a people could be that deliberately stupid…

    when you study what is real….it’s pretty easy to spot a fake.

  7. Chris

    March 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    Well you have laid it all out in clear , concise terms . What time does the revolution start?? The pornagraphers in Washington are laughing at us … So now what , vote em out … It’s fixing to get real , and I say the sooner the better … God bless and good luck , this is all repiticious conjecture , and a moot point , the facts are in , and mr. Adask in my opinion you have never been wrong on one topic…. It all had to end sometime , history is replete with failures , of nations…

    • Jerry Sparks

      March 18, 2013 at 1:47 AM

      >…and I say the sooner the better
      Yeah,me too!!! I’m with you Chris.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s