Adask on Sovereignty

14 Nov

Earlier this week, I spoke to the Activists for Truth meeting at Dallas on the subject of sovereignty. The meeting was hosted by Regina Imburgia with support from Erin Davis. Here’s a 62-minute video of that presentation. The video is a little rough, but it was provided by using a little camera that looked like a cell phone. I’m surprised by the sound and video quality that were achieved with just that tiny camera.


Posted by on November 14, 2013 in "Man or Other Animals", Sovereignty, Video


Tags: , , , ,

100 responses to “Adask on Sovereignty

  1. Jim

    November 15, 2013 at 1:37 AM

    Thank you Mr Adask. What you have presented is definitely an eye opener to understanding how and where we are today….. vs where we should be in accordance with the founding principles of this country! (Just as you said it has taken you a few years of this rolling around in your head)… I have tried and tried to work out in my mind the basic key principles of what distinguishes our founding fathers republic from other republics… and from the form of democracy that we have today…. but I could never get there!…. I was focusing on Law…. and completely overlooking the key aspect of SOVEREIGNTY. Thank you very much for opening my eyes to this! This is THE very, very, very key principle that allows a man’s heart and mind to grasp all that it needs elsewise to take back this country.

    BTW….The key that was taken away is mentioned in proverbs 1:7.

  2. Ct3

    November 15, 2013 at 1:40 AM

    if i’d go on facebook then i’d be able to be aware of events like this in advance! this is one of those times when nobody thought of letting me know other than maybe a facebook notification.

  3. Pat Fields

    November 15, 2013 at 3:10 AM

    Mr. Adask, with no intent or desire to remove an iota of the magnificent insight you’d gleaned from your more meticulous and studious review of terms in these drug statutes, I hope to expand on your work by ranging exploration a bit in direction, taking my heading from pointers laid out in the mid 1860s.

    We know that a core contention between Northern and Southern States has always pivoted on the ancient institute of Slavery. So, might it be that the term ‘man or other animals’ has its roots in reference to legally definable Slaves, in the ‘care’ of the DC city-state? In Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages 471, 472 (1793), we see that “the people … are … sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called)”.

    From Jones v. Temmer, Fed. Supp., Vol. 829, pg. 1227 (1993), we learn that “Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government”. And, that the 14th itself defines “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

    Curiously, however, in Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855), it’s observed that “in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States”, which MUST have run against the 14th (1868), and … necessitated … the formation of the municipal government of the DC city-stste in 1871.

    Further we find that “The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287)

    Thus, ‘all persons … subject to the jurisdiction”, meaning, under the municipal jurisdiction of the DC city-state instituted in 1871, are on a par with slaves (subjects of the sovereigns) as held in Chisolm. What, after all, is a slave but a ‘person’ treated legally as an ‘other animal’.

    From this perspective, we see the Northern States are STILL placating the institute of Slavery in deference to the Southern States by fastideously obscuring its statutory ‘justification’ in convoluted ‘legaleze’.

    • Adask

      November 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM

      One of the most surprising discoveries I’ve made is to learn that the A.D. 1906 Pure Food & Drug Act defines food and drugs in terms of “man or other animals”. That’s the earliest instance of “man or other animals” that I’ve seen. There might be earlier instances that I haven’t yet seen, but I doubt it.

      In any case, A.D. 1906 is ONLY 41 YEARS after the end of the Civil War and enactment of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery. Thus, there were forces at work in the government within 40 years after slavery ended in the country, who saw fit to restore the basis of slavery (presuming all men to be “animals”) to our laws.

      Clearly, there are wicked forces that have captured and exploited our government to our great disadvantage for over a century.

      So far as I know, when the Good LORD let me see and understand the “man or other animals” insight in A.D. 2006, I was the first layman to have done so since A.D. 1906–in a century. Gives me chills to think about it.

      My “discovery” is not a testimonial to my own intellect (the Good LORD let me see), but it is a terrible indictment of the average American and virtually all ministers who didn’t see the implications for a century, as well as the majority of politicians who’ve had no understanding of “man or other animals” for over a century.

      Lincoln was almost mistaken when he said “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. You may not be able to fool them all forever, but you can certainly fool them for a century or more.

      The whole thing is really so damn simple, that it’s hard to imagine how the entire nation could’ve been bamboozled for so long. The “simplicity” of it all is recognition that we’re constantly engaged in spiritual warfare. We don’t really live in a secular world. We live in a spiritual world. But almost no American really understands that principle. Without that understanding, the rest of life and the world seems complex and confusing. With that understanding the world becomes knowable, less confusing and far less intimidating.

      We’ve lost our relationship to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym. We’ve lost even our national awareness of God. As a result, we’ve started to slide into a terrible decline. We could reverse that decline, but only if we once again began to see God in a meaningful way.

      I don’t mean that every American must rediscover God. Certainly if all of us turned back to God, that would be ideal. But, perhaps we could reverse our decline if at least a lot of us–who knows? Maybe 10% might be enough–regained our awareness of God and the spiritual warfare that’s been going on steadily for several thousand years.

      But if virtually no one this nation can see the glaring spiritual implications in laws on the books for a century or more, we’ve got some big trouble.

      • Jethro!

        November 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM

        “We don’t really live in a secular world. We live in a spiritual world… We’ve lost our relationship to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.”

        Bullseye, Al. I firmly believe that American restoration will have to begin in the pulpits and churches, not the ballot box (or even in the courtrooms). As such, the noble efforts of folks like the Tea Party — concentrating on political solutions only — will largely remain ineffective. Sadly, I suspect most pastors will continue to fear making their congregations mad (and getting less $$$) by preaching the hard-to-swallow Truth of repentance, and instead proffer a milktoa$t, feel-good “Gospel”. I pray for the opposite.

      • Martens

        November 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        The Tea Party is a political party, so of course it concentrates on political solutions. That’s its job.

        Spiritual and political solutions are not mutually exclusive. Nothing says you can’t pursue both. Unless your want to spend your time on Earth in bondage to those who do pursue politics, both solutions are necessary.

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 6:10 PM

        Jethro said Bullseye, & so do I. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
        This is my understanding. >The fear is, Reverence and obedience to God. Beginning is, The foundation without which all other knowledge is vain. Fools are, Those wicked men, & are so far from attaining true wisdom, that they despise it, and all the means of getting it.

        Oh what a wonderful world we have.

      • J.M.

        March 20, 2014 at 7:52 PM

        To who it may concern;

        Statute of 1776 -One people’-Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God – kind after kind = WE THE PEOPLE !!!! SEE ALSO the FIRST Naturalization act WRITTEN by Thomas Jefferson, & there should be no doubt as to WHO, ONE PEOPLE & WE THE PEOPLE, MEANT & STILL MEANS.. Natural Born MEANS Legitimate. But only those who understand the LAWS of Nature & OF “Nature’s God” KNOW what legitimate MEANS.

        Common Law VENUE, up & UNTIL 13th Amendment. Beginning with the 13th Amendment & AFTER = FEDERAL MARTIAL LAW VENUE. This is as simple as I am able to explain it. BUT, THERE IS A WAY OUT. Consider this.> Today, ANY of these “one People” aka We the People must be able to SHOW that he/she IS NOT a citizen of the U.S. per the 14th Amendment,. A good case to consider is, U.S. v. Slater, 545 F Supp.182 , & THEN, the appeal, 709 F.2d. 1496, where the appeals Court said what NEEDS to be done for Subjects, aka Defendants, NOT to be SUBJECT to what the lower Court said about Slater.

        THEN after this is understood, IF it is, consider, what Deuteronomy 4:9, SAYS. This message IS NOT intended for a FEW who may already know. I hope this is not regarded as just another ECHO.

        ALSO, I do not know what thread to put this message on other than this one.

      • Spade Koolie

        June 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM

        @ Lincoln was almost mistaken when he said “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. You may not be able to fool them all forever, but you can certainly fool them for a century or more.
        Ain’t that the TRUTH !!

      • Anthony Clifton

        September 6, 2016 at 2:04 PM

        eventually men will acquire stones and saddle up
        to HARVEST the TARES….

        then we can enjoy creation in a kind and loving

        Kingdom without little yapping ankle biters or


        and operate a crackhouse called CONGRESS

      • Adask

        September 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM

        I prefer to refer to Congress as the “cathouse on the Potomac”–but I suppose “crackhouse” is an equally valid description.

    • J.M.

      March 10, 2014 at 10:53 PM

      Hello Pat Fields,

      In case someone does not understand what you clearly showed to get a clear point across, the term, Citizen of the United States, in the 1789 Constitution simply meant, A Citizen of ANYONE of the several states. A 14th Amendment citizen simply means, A Subject of the Federal Government AND SUBJECT to ITS, not it is, but ITS Jurisdiction. Also, I do believe the proper noun of Citizen v the common noun of citizen mean two entirely different things. STILL, we have oppression & tyranny RULING, don’t we.

    • Spade Koolie

      June 13, 2015 at 6:44 AM

      Pat Fields,
      You are like a polished rare diamond. :-) @ Curiously, however, in Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855), it’s observed that “in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States”,
      It is my understanding that the term, citizen of the United States MEANT ORIGINALLY, a Citizen of ANY ONE of the “several States”. NOW, tho, what difference does it make? I honestly believe the more we KNOW what anything originally meant, the more we will be considered out of our senses by most people. :-(

  4. Jetlag

    November 15, 2013 at 3:16 AM

    “[B]y their votes the people exercise their sovereignty.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    • Pat Fields

      November 15, 2013 at 8:02 AM

      That’s all well and good, but try to have yourself listed on the Election Rolls as a State Citizen Elector, under your proper English Name, absent DC ‘district’ jurisdiction indicia like ‘DE’, ‘ND’, TX’, or ‘OH’, in conjunction with the tax ‘district’ ZIP coding. In eveny case I’m aware of, one has to declare one’s self as a ‘citizen of the United States’ just to ‘register’ at all.

      • Adask

        November 15, 2013 at 9:51 AM

        You can find the term “citizens of the United States” in the 14th Amendment ratified in A.D. 1868. I read the 14th Amendment’s citizenship to be of the SINGULAR (national) “United States”.

        But you can also find the term “Citizen of the United States” in Articles 1.2.2, 1.3.3, & 2.1.5 in the body of the Constitution which was first ratified in A.D. 1788. I read the term “Citizen of the United States” in the body of the Constitution to refer to a “Citizen” of the SEVERAL (federal) “United States”.

        I therefore suspect that there are at least two varieties of “citizens of the United States”. I don’t believe that the difference in capitalization between “citizens” and “Citizen” is significant. But, if the gov-co wants to me to confess to being a “citizen of the United States” I believe I have the option to decide WHICH “United States” the gov-co is talking about. There are at least two different “United States” implied in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court expressly recognized at least three “United States” in Hooven & Allison vs Evatt (A.D. 1945)–and never said there were only three “United States”.

        So, if I raise the issue of WHICH “United States” I’m claiming to be a citizen of, I suspect the gov-co might blight.

        More, if I expressly declared myself to be a “Citizen of the United States” as per Articles 1.2.2, 1.3.3, & 2.1.5 in the BODY of the Constitution, who will deny my claim? Once I make that claim, can I be equated with a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States”? I don’t think so.

        Therefore it seems possible to me that I might be able to register to vote as a “Citizen of the United States” as per those several instances in the body of the Constitution without consenting to the disabilities associated with the 14th Amendment.

      • Pat Fields

        November 15, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        Al, you’re correct …

        “There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia”. Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 790, 791, 160 Ala. 155]

      • Pat Fields

        November 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

        AL, I’ve made numerous attempts to change the record to my proper English Name, eliminating ‘PA’ and ZIP codong from association to my ‘person’ and met no success. No politician returns my entrieties on the subject and when confronted directly on the question, I just get dumb stares back. At this point, I’m disenfrancised as I’ve formally refused such ‘registration’ as imposed. Try it yourself. See what happens.

      • Jetlag

        November 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM

        Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already spoken on this matter and made a lot of speculation unnecessary.

        “…[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

        – Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

        So the “citizens of America” are the sovereigns.

        As of 1793, this could only mean the citizens of the several States of the Union, i.e. the “citizens of the United States” in one meaning of the phrase. These are the sovereigns whose will is expressed by voting.

        This is not surprising, since these are the same people who, through representatives appointed by voting, established the nation’s governments.

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:05 PM

        Pat Fields,
        AL, I’ve made numerous attempts to change the record to my proper English Name, eliminating ‘PA’ and ZIP codong from association to my ‘person’ and met no success. No politician returns my entrieties on the subject and when confronted directly on the question, I just get dumb stares back. At this point, I’m disenfrancised as I’ve formally refused such ‘registration’ as imposed. Try it yourself. See what happens.

        You are Right Pat Fields. I tried it & I saw what happened. Same results

    • Doug

      November 18, 2013 at 7:54 AM


      “[B]y their votes the people exercise their sovereignty.”

      That was then this is now … voting in FEDERAL RESERVE BANK GOVT elections is nonsense for slaves of the credit/usury system of deception and lies.

      The problem is not political – it’s the money or better stated – lack of it … God instructed us to adhere to equal weights and measures and prohibited usury. “THEIR” money can only exist outside of the CONstitutional jurisdiction and common law – and that makes it their law that binds us, not God’s.

      The rulings handed down to we the people (living down here in the abyss) by the fake courts are nothing more than a confused conglomeration of opposite opinions that really never settle anything.

      End the FED and end the FRAUD !

      • Anthony Clifton

        November 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM

        end the “Jew” worshipping…

        worshipping the dung god…produces diminishing returns…

        explained fairly simply @ Deuteronomy 28…

    • Martens

      November 19, 2013 at 7:05 AM

      SOVEREIGN. A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers. 2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people.

      SOVEREIGNTY. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

      Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

    • Spade Koolie

      June 13, 2015 at 6:57 AM

      @ “[B]y their votes the people exercise their sovereignty.”– Thomas Jefferson
      Same difference in saying by his vote he exercises his sovereignty, isn’t it?
      There were a lot of, his-izs, Right? I would like to know why the brackets are around the B letter in the word, “[B]y ????

  5. FL GIRL

    November 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    I believe what Al has demonstrated is all our rights come from God! This country by being named by man, created by man, and governed for man, and then converted into a “legal person” “fictional person” or “animal” by man, etc… is a result of man violating the 10 Commandments which is the sovereign’s true law. We are to be under “Royal Law” only. We have placed false Gods (Government or ourselves above God), and this is the true sin of the people. We were only asked by God to keep his 10 Commandments, otherwise, he would allow man to rule over us; We must return to scriptures, least we be deceived and believe a lie! We must know we are God’s children, under His protection and His Government, doing His business on earth, not man’s. Even in the pledge of allegiance we pledge allegiance to a Flag??? Why not God?

    The only way evil could usurp the word of God, and gain CONTROL was to create a “mockery” system of the word. Everything established in the legal system is a corruption and form of the word, but not the word. God created the Constitution in Genesis when He created all things; look up the definition of Constitution. God’s word is the Supreme Law, and this is what must be used to defeat them. He even patented and copy written his property, and “his people,” so none of these man made courts can have jurisdiction over any of his people.

    • Adask

      November 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

      No, I haven’t demonstrated that all of our rights flow from God. I’ve tried to demonstrate that our MOST IMPORTANT right come from God. There may also be LESSER rights that flow from our fellow sovereigns (by agreement) and rights that flow from our government which we may have the option to claim or ignore. But the big rights, the most important rights, flow from our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

  6. FL GIRL

    November 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

    How then do you serve two masters??? Where in the word does it say to start your own Government, create your own laws, and believe only what you want??? I’m confused, every man made Government claims to base their creations on God, but God already created the law, how do you recreate that which is already created???

    • Adask

      November 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM

      The New Testament contains two Commandments: 1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind; and 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

      I read these commandments to mean that first and foremost you not only “love” the LORD, you also obey all of his laws.

      But there are a bunch of things in modern life (like how fast can you drive in a school zone, how tall your grass can grow in a residential area, and whether you do or do not need to fasten a seat belt every time you ride in a car) that God did not apply His law to. I believe it’s the second commandment that allows us to decide among ourselves on the “law” that governs those activities that aren’t directly mentioned in the Bible.

      If we only had the first commandment (“Love the LORD”), we’d live in a theocracy every bit as arbitrary and sometimes idiotic as one of the theocracies we sometimes see in the Middle East.

      If we only had the second commandment (“Love thy neighbor as thyself”) we’d live in a purely secular democracy without regard to God.

      But, because we have both commandments, the Christian faith recognizes that God has his “venue” and mankind has it’s venue. The Christian faith recognizes that God is THE “master,” but it also recognizes that there’s a legitimate place for local or national politicians to deal with issue that God did not expressly address.

      We aren’t dealing with “two masters” here. God controls most things. Those things He doesn’t expressly control, he leaves to us to control. That human control may be as much of a test as a power, but it’s not clearly a matter of two masters–unless the earthly masters begin to deny God’s existence and intrude on His venue.

      • Yartap

        November 16, 2013 at 2:45 PM

        Al, I’m confused with your belief about the Two Greatest Commandments deriving rights and lesser rights from God and other sovereigns found in Matthew 22:37-39. But in Matthew 22:40, Jesus further states, “On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.” [Emphasis Mine].

        Our unalienable rights trump many of the examples you mention. And I do not consider “privileges and immunities” as rights (Thu, this is debatable).

        Can you give an example of where a sovereign has received rights from other sovereigns by contract or trust. Do you mean that the organic laws of the U.S. are the rights granted by a collective of sovereigns?

        I do not believe in a “collective in the sovereignty” or “joint tenants in the sovereignty;” but rather, I believe in a collective of sovereigns jointed for a common cause. The subject of unalienable rights held by a single sovereign are not subject to legislation. A collective or joint tenant in a sovereignty implies and is a democracy; it further implies just one sovereign and not many sovereigns, to my way of thinking.

        Thanks, Yartap.

      • Anthony Clifton

        November 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM

        before the children of Israel allegedly called the administrative personnel as so-called

        Politicians…they were instructed to think and behave as Kings & Priests.

        consider the possibility that men with stones could comprehend what that actually means

        in REAL TIME.

  7. Adrian

    November 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM

    Sovereignty relies on the people as a whole.Man as an individual is not a sovereign.
    Within the group he is a sovereign.
    To be a sovereign means no to depend on any one.
    Man does not live alone.
    Gods,kings,popes etc. are not sovereigns.They are persons.
    Is like a colony of honey bees,is a live unit.A honey bee alone cannot survive.
    GOD and religion are subject to man sovereignty.
    When it comes to man made law,like the public law,man’s best status is that of sui juris.
    Those who accept the concept of GOD are free to do so as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.

    • Adask

      November 15, 2013 at 3:44 PM

      If you watched the video on this post, you can see why I disagree with virtually everything you just wrote. “GOD and religion are subject to man sovereignty”? Never was that true in the past 3,000 years of western history. The western concept of sovereignty has always emanated from God. That concept may be unnerving for atheists, but that’s the way it’s been for 3,000 years.

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 6:36 PM

        I say Adrian is an Athiest. No, not agnostic, Athiest.

    • J.M.

      March 10, 2014 at 11:04 PM

      Ain’t no sense in telling YOU where to go. You’re on the RIGHT road to that place anyway. What upsets me about you, IS you are doing your utmost to take other people with you. You are a CREEP.

  8. FL GIRL

    November 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

    Al, I believe you won your litigation, or they disappeared because you used “Royal Law,” God’s words that you were not an animal, in a man made court who did not have jurisdiction over you. You are a brilliant man with great insight. The point I’m trying to make is, the legal system does not have God in it; its fiction. We the people are his people, and have been given a set of rules to live by, what would you call a “legal person” with your name in all caps like, JOHN DOE? Maybe a graven image? Especially since we are created in His image. Also, read Exodus 20 KJV, 1- 26.

    The Ten

    Ten Commandments

    The commandments

    I am the LORD thy God
    Thou shalt have no other gods
    No graven images or likenesses
    Not take the LORD’s name in vain
    Remember the sabbath day
    Honour thy father and thy mother
    Thou shalt not kill
    Thou shalt not commit adultery
    Thou shalt not steal
    Thou shalt not bear false witness
    Thou shalt not covet

    What kind of society would we have if we lived by these rules only? Today, we have a globalized corporation/banking empire ruling the world, I don’t see God in it, do you? However, I do respect your point of view, and I apologize if you felt I was speaking for you in my above comment.

    • Adask

      November 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM

      I suspect that, at the top, today’s legal system is Satanic. I don’t allege that all the prosecutors and rank and file judges are Satanic–although they may not be particularly opposed to Satanism.

      But, if they are Satanists, then they definitely believe in God. They oppose God, but they believe in him. But I suspect that they don’t want us to know about their belief. They want us to think they are just secularists.

      I believe my religious freedom arguments worked because even the Satanists respect the “rules” written by God. If you can raise God’s rules–and do so sincerely–I think they’ll fold on a regular basis.

      • Anthony Clifton

        November 21, 2013 at 9:10 AM

        Satanism oooozes or is a manifestation of the Talmud. – Jesus @ John 8:44

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 7:02 PM

        @ > I believe my religious freedom arguments worked because even the Satanists respect the “rules” written by God. If you can raise God’s rules–and do so sincerely–I think they’ll fold on a regular basis.

        I know you said sincerely but some people can be sincerely wrong, including me too. Here is what I’m trying to say

        I don’t believe this will work for people who openly say they are not Christians & even IF they “say” they are for the purpose of “winning” & are sincere about it, the case, or having the charges dropped, I think they will lose. Remember the incident in the Holy Bible where this one guy attempted to cast out a demon from another by saying In the name of Jesus who Paul teaches, I command you to come out. The demon responded by saying Jesus I know & Paul I know but who the hell are you? The demon did come out beat the living crap out of the “exorcist” ripped all his clothes off of him & the exorcist was beaten into a bloody mess. I think the “exorcist” was “sincere” but he was sincerely wrong in what he attempted to do & probably sadly regretted it.As far as I can tell, or say, this “exorcist” should have known he was not “called” by YHWH ha Elohiym. to do this kind of deed, work, etc.

      • Spade Koolie

        June 13, 2015 at 7:20 AM

        It is written, I thank you Father for concealing these things from the wise & prudent & revealing them unto babes. I SEE this applying to YOU, Alfred Adask in many of your articles & comments.:-)

    • J.M.

      March 10, 2014 at 11:14 PM

      FL GIRL
      @ >You are a brilliant man with great insight.

      Yes I agree but I believe his heart exceeds his intelligence & this is why he has the insight he does

      Yes indeed & he DID use Royal Law. Wish there MORE people like YOU, FL GIRL and LESS ADRIANS,

  9. Martens

    November 15, 2013 at 11:48 PM

    The likely reason the “man or other animals” argument worked is that Texas was unwilling to go on the record as opposing explicit Biblical doctrine. The Attorney General’s office conferred about it, consulted an expert, and concluded they’d better cut their losses and walk away.

    Regarding sovereignty, here’s a few from Black’s Law, 7th ed., for consideration by the student:

    sovereign. 1. A person, body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority. 2. The ruler of an independent state.

    sovereign people. The political body consisting of the collective number of citizens and qualified electors who possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their chosen representatives.

    sovereign power. The power to make and enforce laws.

    sovereignty. 1. Supreme dominion, authority, or rule. 2. The supreme political authority of an independent state.

    • J.M.

      March 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM

      @ >The Attorney General’s office conferred about it, consulted an expert, and concluded they’d better cut their losses and walk away.

      I wish YOU, Martens OR Jetlag, either ONE of you “two” would have been the expert AND the Judge. It would have been all over rover FOR YOU.

    • J.M.

      March 10, 2014 at 11:18 PM

      @ The likely reason the “man or other animals” argument worked is that Texas was unwilling to go on the record as opposing explicit Biblical doctrine

      How did it go from being explicit to being non explicit? Ohhh that’s right, You are a WAS been.

  10. Adask

    November 16, 2013 at 5:52 PM

    Yartrap, I don’t know that I can give an example of sovereigns GIVING rights to other sovereigns. Your questions depends on a very precise use of language and also on you and I using our words in an identical manner.

    But I can give an example of sovereigns AGREEING among themselves to recognize and secure certain rights granted by God. The Declaration of Independence is the classic example. As I read that document, all of the rights declared therein are expressly or implicitly granted by God. That Declaration does not GIVE us rights, but it recognizes the existence of God-given, unalienable Rights and holds them to be “self-evident” in what later came to be called the “republican form of government”.

    And perhaps most remarkably, the third sentence of the Declaration declares the purpose of government: “That to SECURE these [God-given, unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among Men . . . .” That might be an example of men “giving” rights to others or even “creating” rights. I have the right under the Declaration to call on my public servants to “secure” my God-given, unalienable Rights. I’m not sure that’s ever before been declared/agreed by any people to be true. It’s a fine line. Did any previous nation ever before declare that its government’s purpose was to secure to every man his God-given,unalienable Rights? How many previous governments ever even recognized the existence of God-given, unalienable Rights? Insofar as any previous government recognized the existence of God-given rights, did that government enforce those rights or was the enforcement left up to the individual man or women?

    The Organic Law of The United States of America includes the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and The Constitution of the United States. Insofar as those instruments are ratified by the PEOPLE they are the “sovereigns’ laws”. Ultimately, the primary purpose for all of those instruments should be to “secure” our God-given, unalienable Rights.

    I don’t know that I’ve answered your question, but that’s the best I can do for now.

    • Yartap

      November 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM

      Al, I concur with your thoughts.

      When we speak of a sovereign or sovereignty. I have formulated, in my mine, from a stand point that a sovereign’s sovereignty is/as a single ruler or a single man made in God’s Image. A one man’s sovereignty comes from a simple point of receiving God’s promises, which no other man can remove. Thus, one becoming a child of God and a heir. Further receiving the unalienable rights from the Creator.

      For the protection of our rights granted to each sovereign by God, the sovereigns have made a compact/trust (as you have taught me). This trust compounds the protective powers of the simple single sovereign into many.

      The belief or thought that a sovereign must give up some of his or her sovereignty to a collective/state/government/king goes against the institution of a sovereign. This is what the Israelites did in 1st Samuel 8 when they called for a king to rule over them. God states in verse 7 that “they have rejected me,”. So God allowed a king to punish His people and allowed Samuel to warn them of the consequences of their desires in having a king, which the people rejected and did not believe. Read verse 6 and 20 for the reasons why the Israelites wanted a king. As I read and understand them, it means that the people did not want to be independent and responsible for themselves. Thus, they gave up their sovereignty. This is the same thing we are falling into these years with our lives.

      To give up the smallest amount of sovereignty within one’s realm leads to the “receiver” of the small sovereignty becoming the master/lord (owner) over the giving sovereign, in my mine. My thoughts are that a sovereign’s rule or power come from his or her receiving unalienable rights from God. Thus, giving up a little right to a compact/collective/state/government/king allows the collective to rule over my God given rights, which I must reject. My compact is made for the protection of my rights received from God. Why do I have to give up some or any of my rights/sovereignty? I can only lose my rights if I do not adhere to the belief and compact of protecting other sovereign’s rights/sovereignty.

      Al and others let me know how you think about my statements.

      Thanks, Yartap.

      • FL GIRL

        November 17, 2013 at 8:35 AM

        I was recently forwarded this man’s website, I encourage all of you to view it, listen to his explanation of the law. He has videos on the site called the Confusion Program and the Unraveled Programs that I think will help clarify everyone’s understanding about the law, here it is:

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 7:17 PM

        @ God states in verse 7 that “they have rejected me,”
        @ >So God allowed a king to punish His people and allowed Samuel to warn them of the consequences of their desires in having a king, which the people rejected and did not believe.

        And the beat goes on. God is allowing it to go on. It ain’t hard to understand

  11. Jetlag

    November 16, 2013 at 7:21 PM


    Thanks for posting those definitions. We should remember to stay close to the generally recognized meaning of words, lest we end up talking to no effect (a win for the NWO).

    I especially note the definition of “sovereign power”, the power to make and enforce laws. This function is characteristic of sovereignty, as one discovers by taking the time to look things up. Dictionaries are wonderful tools.

    You could even simplify the concept by saying the sovereign is the lawgiver and the lawgiver is the sovereign, across all political systems. Who does this describe in the American system?

    • Martens

      November 16, 2013 at 9:01 PM

      The “sovereign = lawgiver” equation makes sense.

      If laws are being imposed on you, you’re obviously not the “supreme political power”, i.e. the sovereign, in your system. The sovereign, on the other hand, is necessarily above the law, because the sovereign, by definition, makes the law.

      So you asked the right question to reach an understanding of this topic. Who makes the law in the American political system?

      In the Republic, (representatives of) the People make the law. The Constitution itself is proclaimed in the name of, i.e. by the power of, “We the People” of the States of the Union. Thus, the People (of the States) are sovereign. However, in the territories, Congress is apparently not bound by the Constitution and is therefore sovereign in that context.

      Perhaps we can interpret the discoveries of Prof. Adask regarding “The State” vs. “this state” as distinguishing the general sovereignty of the People and the special sovereignty of their government.

      • Jetlag

        November 17, 2013 at 2:36 AM

        This works well with my earlier quote from Chisholm v. Georgia to the effect that the “citizens of America” are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.

        The Supreme Court meant that sovereignty is an attribute of State citizenship, specifically, since this was the only type of citizenship around at the time.

        In other words, Chisholm v. Georgia confirms the conclusion you draw from the Preamble to the Constitution: the People of the States are the sovereigns.

  12. Adask

    November 17, 2013 at 5:47 AM

    It appears to me that only the governments of the States of the Union are required to have a “republican form of Government” and only the governments of the States of the Union are required to recognize individual sovereignty. Washington DC and the territories are apparently not obligated to recognize individual sovereignty. If so, then it would follow that if the federal government could convert the States of the Union into territories, the governments of those territories would have no obligation to recognize or secure the individual sovereignty of their “state citizens” and “state residents”.

    • Pat Fields

      November 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM

      Al, are you aware that on March 4th, 1791, George Washington received permission of the Senate to lay 12 jurisdictional ‘districts’ over the States? While not ‘Territories’ in the physical sense, they are synonymous ‘Property’ (defined as Rights attendent to a thing) exclusive to Congress under directive of the Executive in his Law Enforcement function.

      The States were thus overlaid with this ‘federal jurisdiction’ co-extant with their own intrinsic jurisdictions, encompassing that under which the federales (and subsidiary rump ‘district’ legislatures) conduct their ‘affairs’. Before he died, Dan Meador had begun ‘fleshing out’ this perspective, which I’ve since been contemplating and as its fullness unfolds, it more perfectly fits all the seemingly un-Constitutional actions Congress comits.

      The creation of a formal government over the District of Columbia, realizing a city-state municipality capable of having unique subject population (regardless of where residing), was the ‘capstone’ of Congress’ obsession with centralization efforts. Here were exclusive jurisdictions expandable over all the States, Territories and Possessions (still just those original 12), under which its municipal subjects could be presumed to hold Lawful Permanent Domicil, that it could rule as provided by Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2, such that … “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

      By government’s entry of ‘evidence’, quietly recognized by the courts, attesting that an accused is a ‘district subject’ conducting his affairs under district jurisdiction, the ‘Person’ of the accused is alienated from that of a State Citizen possessed of unalienable Rights reserved to such Citizens and treated ‘accordingly’.

      • Adask

        November 18, 2013 at 5:48 AM

        I don’t recall having previously heard the story about George Washington. But the fact that an alternative (and arguably fictional) venue is present does not defeat the existence of the States of the Union. The government might silently presume that we have voluntarily entered into the venue/plane of “this state” (a territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union). But if we expressly declare that all of our activities take place with a State of the Union (“The State of Texas,” for example), what’s the government going to do–expressly deny that I and the jury are within the borders of “The State of Texas”?

        No matter how many alternative venues/lanes are created by the federales, they cannot deny the existence of the States of the Union without sparking national confusion and then outrage.

        I’ve heard unconfirmed stories that when a judge considers the outcome of a case, he first looks at the addresses on the envelopes and/or documents sent or served in the case file–especially Green Cards. The reported object is to confirm that one or both of the litigants are using a Zip Code and thus voluntarily identify themselves with “this state”.

        I don’t know that these stories are true, but they’re consistent with my notions about claiming to conduct your affairs within a State of the Union.

      • Pat Fields

        November 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        “(T)he fact that an alternative (and arguably fictional) venue is present does not defeat the existence of the States of the Union.”

        I don’t suggest that. In fact, were they to ‘dissolve’ the original, ordinary States, they’d simultaneously remove the Lawful authorities and offices they administer. What I’m trying to point up is the surreptitious circumvention State Legislatures have taken to evade Constitutional constrictions. By silently re-situating the visible operations of their offices (INvisibly) under federal district jurisdiction, provision at Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 facilitates their practices according to it.

        Similarly, by creating a foreign state municipality with a subject population of confiscated slaves, then adopting a near identical charter as the 1789 Trust Constitution (minus the genuine 13th Amendment), the federal body too, ‘slipped the chains’, by proceeding exclusively under its city-state and extended district jurisdictions … without making distinction of that fact.

        “I don’t know that these stories are true, but they’re consistent with my notions about claiming to conduct your affairs within a State of the Union.”

        I assure you they are essentially valid contentions, Al. I’ve researched the original statutes and they ‘check out’. Empirical evidence bears this out too. intentionally omit Zone Improvement Plan codes on a piece of experimental mail and bring it to the post office. The clerk will ‘do back-flips’ to avoid being witnessed applying that number. Read the originating statute. It makes use of the code mandatory on … businesses involved in inter-state and international commerce … it’s ‘voluntary’ for use by all others. Are you not mandated and concede? Ask a ‘State Representative’ if a Bill can be introduced to unilaterally change a ‘State’ district indicia; in the case of Texas, to say ‘TS’. No jurisdiction, you’ll be told. Why? Because the federales were authorized to … establish … post roads? It’s that ‘interpretation’ which ‘stretches credulity’.

        You’re perfectly on target affirming that you inhabit your original, ordinary State’s jurisdiction, that you’re a Citizen of Texas existing as a Man of God’s creation and that you pursue your affairs in Sovereign capacity; I do too, further documenting such into public records and duly cutting all ties conceivably muddling my Standing.

  13. pop de adam

    November 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM

    Just a thought.

    It would seem if there is this concept of sovereignty and also the concept of sovereign immunity. It might be interesting to exercise it. I mean if the government can use this excuse and we by extension are the government than it would be proper for us to use also. Imagine telling the government you can’t answer certain questions as the answers might reveal matters of national security or you aren’t certain person questioning you has the proper security clearances. If questioned on how these security clearances are attained, explain that this again is a matter of national security and violating it would be a crime.

    Practice what they preach. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • Yartap

      November 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM

      pop de adam, I like your thinking.

      I believe that our sovereignty is generated by our God given unalienable rights. Once an unconstitutional claim/law is made against you and/or others, the defense is to call the cause or claim/law as unconstitutional and to claim your “sovereign immunity” from the law.

      Yes – we do have sovereign immunity!

      Thanks pop! Yartap

    • johnbernays

      November 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

      Why do Americans believe such lies? (Founders never Meant You to be Free!)
      The foundation of the neofeudal economy is this: the right of ownership still exists in name, but the actual ownership of political and financial power is concentrated in the hands of a few.
      The core of American liberty is widespread private ownership of property. The Founding Fathers were quite clear on the necessity of protecting private ownership from encroachment by a covertly created monarchical Empire or a financial Aristocracy. Private ownership protected liberty and the distribution of wealth by enabling widespread ownership of “the means of production” (land, tools, intellectual property, enterprises) and home ownership. Thus the correlation between prosperity, widespread ownership of small businesses and homes and a relatively modest disparity of private wealth.When ownership of property becomes concentrated into a rentier class (i.e. a financial Aristocracy) that is protected by a Monocrat Central State, income disparity shoots up and prosperity is concentrated in the hands of the political and financial Elites. In other words, the Founding Fathers understood that financial servitude precluded political liberty. Liberty in a neofeudal economy was ultimately liberty in name only.
      Quote by: James Madison
      The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

      • johnbernays

        November 20, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        A Republician Form of Government = Corporation. The Ben Franklin/John Dees “Treaty of Paris” granted ONLY freedom to the “Fighters against the Crown.” All Taxes, all Gold, Silver and all Profits from the “Virginia Land Company” [of whom Geo. Washington was the Esquire of…] was Not Forgiven. The IRS still remits Our Income Tax Monies to “The CIty Of London.” American is Subject to the Black Pope, the Vatican, and are under Ecclesiastical Law.
        The body of jurisprudence administered by theecclesiastical courts of England; derived, in large measure, from the canon and civil law.As now restricted, it applies mainly to the affairs, and the doctrine, discipline, andworship, of the established church. De Witt v. De Witt, 67 Ohio St. 340. 66 N. E. 136.

      • johnbernays

        November 20, 2013 at 10:41 AM

  14. Adrian

    November 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    In today society no one is sovereign.Specially in America.No one is totally independent and free.
    We all rely on each other.An ideal society does not exist.
    You may think that an absolute ruler may be sovereign.Think again,such a thing never existed.
    You may think that GOD is sovereign.Think again,IT relies on living men for ITS existence.
    Another thing,a citizen is a member of a religious group.
    Are you amember of such a group?

    • pop de adam

      November 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM

      If kings are granted sovereignty from “the divine right of kings” otherwise known as “bestowed upon them by their creator”, do we all share in the same lineage that began with Adam and through his desendants arriving at some point to these kings and you and I also? Logically then we are either all sovereign or their is no such thing. The fact that that this mode of thinking persists is the issue, some people wish to be ruled and are quite comfortable with it, perhaps even dependant upon it. A problem arises though when these sorts expect everyone else to adhere to the choices these people have made, here we have some people comfortable being completely ruled in every aspect of their life attempting to rule everyone else. Do they rule or are they ruled? Democracy does appeal to many as a compromise over what had existed before its widespread implementation, however it seems many are coming to recognize it as being able to occasionally exercise some control over who their ruler or dictator is. Many when confronted with conflicts such as these will fume and steam and attempt to make you take a stand with one choice or another suggesting they are the only two choices that exist. “Not choosing is not an option?” is one set up foisted upon me once, which really struck me as funny since what is an “option” but another word for “choice”, if their are no “options” then their are no “choices”.

      “Excuse me sir, that is not permitted here.”

      “Thats great because I haven’t got one.”

      Pardon the ramble.

      • Adask

        November 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM

        The idea that all men–or at least all Israelites–were directly under God and directly endowed by God with certain rights/duties was embraced by the Hebrew people from the time the left Egypt in the Exodus, through the era of “Judges” (when all were equally subject to God’s law) until 2nd Samuel (if I recall correctly) when the Hebrew people opted to abandon the “Judges” lawform and instead embrace the monarchy era (“Kings”) that started with Saul.

        When the people demanded a “king” (like the other, surrounding nations), Samuel complained that the people were rejecting him. God corrected Samuel by saying, “No, they are rejecting Me.”

        I believe that when the Hebrews sought to take a singular king, they confided all of their former individual “sovereignty” into a single “sovereign” (Saul, later, David, etc.). God warned ’em that the king (single sovereign) would inevitably take their young men to fight in his wars, take their young women to work as scullery maids in his palace, and take their vineyards and other properties. The Hebrews ignored the warning. God essentially told Samuel to let the damn fools have the monarchy they wanted.

        With that change . . . with the Hebrews’ voluntary abandonment of the rights/duties and individual sovereignty with which they’d been endowed by their Creator . . . the nation of Israel began a descent towards national destruction. It didn’t happen overnight. They had a few good “kings” but also a bunch of bastards. Eventually, the nation of Israel was defeated and dispersed and ceased to exist as a political entity.

        Much like Old Testament Israel, America started with the principle that we were all directly endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights and thus acting with the “republican form of Government”. Later, not so much due to our choice as our indifference, we allowed this nation to become a democracy (much like the Israelites allowed themselves to become a monarchy). Must like the Israelites rejected God when they accepted a monarchy, the American people have rejected God when they abandoned their status as individual sovereigns.

        I won’t say that comparison is exact, but it’s close enough to suggest that, having ignored our own individual sovereignty (rights from God), Americans may be emulating the destiny of Old Testament Israel.

      • Yartap

        November 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM

        Al, I agree totally.

        Something further to think about: When the Bible says that “God is God of gods and Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:17) and that “God, the blessed Ruler, King of kings and Lord of lords,” (1st Tim. 6:15) the question that should arise is WHO are these gods, lords and kings the Bible speaks of?

        The answer is the children of God, the sons of God, the inheritors of His promise, His people. Each are a single king by birthright. Each are a single lord by birthright. And each are a single god by birthright. This birthright will be passed on to our offspring. Our God is the Sovereign of sovereigns. It is our birthright which has been given up freely involuntarily by us and unknown to us.

        My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

  15. Martens

    November 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM

    SOVEREIGN that which is preeminent among all the others. For instance, in a monarchy, the king as sovereign has near absolute power, while in a democracy, the people have the sovereign power. Blackstone, the eighteenth century legal theorist, defined sovereign power to mean “the making of laws.” In ancient England, the king’s word was law, in today’s democratic governments, the law-making function has been taken over by representative bodies such as Congress. Other incidents of sovereignty in addition to law-making power are sovereign immunity, which prohibits lawsuits against the sovereign without its permission, and eminent domain, which allows the sovereign to take private property and put it to public use.

    Barron’s Law Dictionary, Steven H. Gifis, 2010

    • Yartap

      November 18, 2013 at 7:59 PM


      Another element in the definition of a sovereign is: Who owners the property. A sovereign owns ALL the property. This is one of the fallacies of our system. The state owns the property and is subjected to the national government. He who owns the property rules.

  16. Adrian

    November 18, 2013 at 12:07 PM

    Again,sovereignty comes with the territory.If the people on a given territory can prove that they can manage their own destiny without interference from outside,then they are sovereign as a group.
    In America we do not have that kind of scenario.
    America it is ruled by a foreign military corporation named Washington D.C. and nicknamed
    The law of the land,as THEY see it,it is the law martial.
    America is overlaid by a web of districts=counties which have municipalities=corporations that are all tied into the Washington D.C. corporation.
    Almost all Americans are corporations under THEIR legal system.
    Very few live in America.
    These corporate districts are owned by the international bankers.
    Vatican believes that it has alodial title over it.
    The rest belongs to the land of OZ.

    • Adask

      November 18, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      It’s a shame that I can’t speak well enough for you to understand my argument concerning sovereignty–or that you can’t hear well enough to understand what I’ve said. In the American lawform envisioned by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence, each of us is sovereign by virtue of an endowment of unalienable Rights by our Creator and without regard to our “territory”.

      Note that the Declaration of Independence (DOI) did not say that “All AMERICAN men are created equal,” etc. It said “ALL men are created equal.” That means all men on the face of this earth. It has nothing to do with any national territory. As such, the DOI is a statement of global implications that might even be viewed as a statement of universal faith.

      Under the DOI, if I were the only man at the South Pole I would still be a sovereign. Not “the” sovereign. “A” sovereign. One of many. American sovereignty was not intended to be “sovereignty” as a group. It was intended to be sovereignty as individuals. That was the basis for “land of the free” and “American exceptionalism”.

      By advocating that our only sovereignty is as a group, you advocate a collective sovereignty and support the de facto system. You support the very system that you profess to despise. I presume that your support for that system is inadvertent. But your arbitrary rejection of a theory that might be a spiritual basis for escape from the de facto system is curious.

      You don’t really argue that we are only sovereign as a collective. You INSIST that our sovereignty must be collective and can’t be from God.

      If I understand correctly, you are an atheist. If so, can it be that you are so strongly dedicated to atheism, that you feel compelled to reject any spiritual argument–even if that argument might help to regain your liberty?

      Are you so biased against the existence of God, that you would prefer to live in slavery–and condemn all others to do the same–rather than accept an idea that might free us if that idea was based on God’s existence?

      I don’t know what your truth is, Adrian, but you comments tend to be extraordinarily disturbing to me. I don’t mean that I want to reject your comments. I mean that I cannot conceive of what it might be like to embrace your system of values. If I believed as you seem to believe, I think I’d be half terrified almost every moment. You not only seem to live in a world that’s based on nothing more than “survival of the fittest” and “might makes right”–you seemingly refuse to leave that world. You seemingly won’t help yourself, even when help is available.

      Your system of values and my own are so fundamentally opposed that I am awe-struck..

      I understand your comments, but I don’t think I can understand your motives.

      You appear to be a man who would rather live in fear in a society based on brute force than achieve some liberty if that achievement required you to even pay lip-service to God.

      Do you reject the idea of God on a rational basis, Adrian? Or do you reject the idea of God on an emotional basis?

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:22 PM

        @ > I don’t know what your truth is, Adrian, but you comments tend to be extraordinarily disturbing to me.

        Same here. AND I would appreciate it if you ever fell uncomfortable with me in any way, let me know. You have more adversaries on this thread than you do “associates” or those who are friendly to your understanding.

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 9:00 PM

        Alfred, you say to Adrian, “If I believed as you seem to believe, I think I’d be half terrified almost every moment.”

        Adrian doesn’t FEAR ANYTHING…………….YET, But, IF he keeps thinking the way he IS, he IS in for a terrifying awakening.

  17. Martens

    November 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    “Whenever I use the word republic with approbation, I mean a government in which the people have collectively, or by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty.”

    – John Adams

    “[G]overnments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.’

    -Thomas Jefferson

    “The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge and to execute it. It is the will of the nation which makes the law obligatory…”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    “In republics, such as those established in America, the sovereign power, or the power over which there is no control, and which controls all others, remains where nature placed it—in the people; for the people in America are the fountain of power. It remains there as a matter of right, recognized in the constitutions of the country, and the exercise of it is constitutional and legal. This sovereignty is exercised in electing and deputing a certain number of persons to represent and act for the whole, and who, if they do not act right, may be displaced by the same power that placed them there, and others elected and deputed in their stead, and the wrong measures of former representatives corrected and brought right by this means.”

    – Thomas Paine

    • Adrian

      November 19, 2013 at 1:38 PM

      I fully agree with Thomas Paine.The leaders are not sovereigns by themselves,their sovereignty
      comes from that group of people who recognize their existence.
      In a true democratic society the leader has only one purpose in mind: to serve the community.
      His authority derives from the ones being served.
      Sovereignty belongs to the group.
      Sovereignty=power, power exists in numbers. One individual can’t stand up against many.
      This is a natural concept of order.
      In nature things evolve from simple to complex and backwards.
      Some people like the cult of personality.
      Any personality emerges from the group,it owes its life blood to that group.
      GOD and religion came out of the “ancient city”.
      Men created the city.

  18. Adask

    November 19, 2013 at 9:56 AM

    I’ve seen a number of dictionary definitions of sovereignty provided in previous comments. These definitions often tend to support the “collectivist” version of sovereignty rather than the concept of individual sovereignty that I’m trying to advance in this video presentation on sovereignty. But, in my defense, these definitions are often fairly recent and their source is usually that of a dictionary supposedly edited by private and honorable men.

    I, however, am relying on text provided by The Supreme Court of the United States (not a mere lexicographer). My text carries more authority than a mere dictionary.

    More, I’m relying on on statements made by the Supreme Court in A.D. 1793–just 17 years after publication of the “Declaration of Independence” and just five years after ratification of The Constitution of the United States. The people comprising the Supreme Court at that early date had to know, as clearly as any man ever could, the fundamental concept of sovereignty as it was intended by the founding generation at the time of the American Revolution.

    Since then, we’ve lost our understanding of the spiritual genius inherent in our original revolution. Part of this loss may be attributed the American people’s ignorance and indolence; part of it must be attributed to the government lust for power and consequent desire to strip people of their sovereignty in order to rule them more efficiently.

    So, it’s no surprise that modern dictionaries and perhaps even modern court cases will tend to support sovereignty of the government or of a collective, rather than the sovereignty of each and every man or woman.

    The text I rely on is in the Chisholm v. Georgia case of A.D. 1793 wherein the Supreme Court of the United States declared in part, that:

    “The same feudal ideas run through all their [European] jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the PEOPLE; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS (unless the African [2 U.S. 419, 472] slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as JOINT TENANTS in the sovereignty.” (Bracketed and upper-case text my additions.)

    I read “sovereigns without subjects” to mean that each American man and woman was deemed to be a sovereign. If so, the government is our public servant rather than our master. Individual sovereignty is the primary (perhaps only) “limit” in “limited government”.

    More, if my understanding that the source of sovereignty is God, Himself, then no subsequent government can legislate so as to deprive the people of whatever rights–and duties–they received from God. Once We the People are declared to be the sovereignS, we cannot be legally deprived of that status except by revolution waged by deception or force.

    If sovereignty is, as I argue, a spiritual concept, then no earthly force can lawfully deprive you of your status as a sovereign without first denying the existence of God and the existence of the unalienable Rights declared in our “Declaration of Independence”.

    I doubt that government will or even can publicly deny the existence of God.

    I therefore reject the authority of more recent dictionary definitions that support the idea of a collective sovereignty (a democracy) rather than individual sovereignty and the “republican form of government”.

    • Pat Fields

      November 19, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      Wholly agreed, Al. Nicely put. Though the post-Declaration dis-enfranchisement of colored folks that arose in the Articles was in defiance of our Founding, the Court nevertheless presented the essence accurately. We ARE Sovereigns … among equal Sovereigns … voluntarily conscribed by our Common Law, high and low alike.

    • Jetlag

      November 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM

      Wait, the people are sovereign in their *individual* capacities? Perhaps you can explain further, because that doesn’t seem to work.

      If you reject modern dictionaries, will you accept Bouvier’s Law Dictionary from 1856? The definition of sovereignty found there is “the union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state” including the power to “make laws, to execute and to apply them”. Are you claiming the Founders intended everyone to wield such power in his *individual* capacity?

      Also, it’s unclear how “sovereigns without subjects” in Chisholm v. Georgia could be taken to imply *individual* sovereignty when, further on in the same case, the Supreme Court clarifies their meaning to be exactly the opposite. They speak of a *singular* sovereignty, “the” sovereignty, of which the people share ownership:

      “…the citizens of America are…joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

      The term “joint tenancy” means *collective* ownership of an *undivided* entity. It has had this fairly precise meaning since medieval times.

      If you have a definition of “sovereign” or “sovereignty” from an older dictionary that supports your usage, please post it here.

      Thanks for sharing your views.

      • Pat Fields

        November 20, 2013 at 2:27 AM

        Jetlag, write and consummate a contract as an individual. If it’s in accordance with Common Law, it’s Private Law which the courts are obligated to enforce in its Spirit and Letter. Establish a ‘Law’ for your household. However ‘silly’ or ‘inconvenient’, again, if it isn’t outside Common Law and posted for all who enter your exclusive jurisdiction to see and understand … it’s Law the Constabulary and Judiciary is obligated to enforce at your behest. So, yes, Sovereignty is an individual attribute.

        Along that construction, we often litigate against organs of ‘the state’ in our individual capacities … authorized as co-equal Sovereigns … for transgressing Common Law, despite its internal statutes. We do not, in those instances, first secure permission of our ‘commune’ to do so. That’s because ‘joint tenancy’ means of equivalent Power. Co-owners of any object have personal Power to sue out a damage in its connection, whether or not that damage is singularly or severally applicable. That’s a Power of Sovereignty.

        Since we’re considering dictionary definitions, it’s apropos here to point up their definition of ‘State’. As I recall, Bouvier’s provides it to be ‘a People of shared language and culture who inhabit a definitively bordered territory under claim of exclusivity’. Thus, States exist in reality apart from any governmental structure and only by leave circumscribed under that State. In fact, a State exists antecedent to formation of government apparatus. Each inhabitant claiming a territory to be ‘his State’, possesses Private Property therein.

        So, the underlying construction plainly leads to logical conclusion that the phrase ‘Sovereigns without subjects (save one’s self)’ can only mean that all are Sovereigns in private right, where each or together they’re obligated to arrange their interactions accordingly … as none can be Lawfully held as Subjects.

      • J.M.

        March 4, 2014 at 3:08 AM

        Once upon a time the highest office in our “common Law land” were 12 Citizens comprising a Jury. The could make any act of Congress an annulment if they so desired. State meant the PEOPLE too.

    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 9:20 PM

      @ > Jetlag and Martins,

      @ > Now, both of you are getting into the deception perpetrated ………..”

      I,J.M. think I made a boo-boo re: the above. I thought Pat Fields said what is stated above. I think Yartap is the one that said this to Martens/Jetlag, NOT Pat Fields. I try to be fair & honest. I made a mistake, if not worse. I am at a loss as to how I thought it was Pat Fields who said the above statement.

  19. Martens

    November 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM


    Indeed, the Supreme Court’s use of “joint tenants” in Chisholm v. Georgia makes it a slam-dunk that they considered sovereignty to be collective, not individual.

    The term “joint tenancy” expresses the essence of collective ownership. The court did not have to use such emphatic language. The fact that they did must be significant.

    As worthy as Prof. Adask’s contributions can be, saying a man having unalienable rights implies he is individually sovereign is a non sequitur.

    • Yartap

      November 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM

      Jetlag and Martins,

      Now, both of you are getting into the deception perpetrated upon the American people by our Founders on the subject of sovereignty. When I speak about sovereignty, I am talking about what should be and not what is.

      So, what is the truth? You, I and all have no sovereignty, jointly or individually -PERIOD! It is a lie, a deception to make us feel free and the boss. We have traded one feudal system for another feudal system. It is impossible to be “joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Remember: a sovereign OWNS property and a tenant does not.

      To explain sovereignty, let’s make this “joint tenant in the sovereignty” on the simplest terms. Let’s say that there are two sovereigns who join each’s sovereignty together. Both are rulers (law givers), both own property. Do you see the problem with this arrangement? Only one will/can rule, but which one? One will have to cede his power/authority over to the other, thus the one will lose his sovereignty.

      Great political scholars of the past, like John Locke and others, which our Founders read and studied, always used the words in describing rights to be “Life, Liberty and Property.” Whereas, the Declaration of Independence says that our unalienable rights are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” What happen to the use of the word: property? And why not the use of the word, property? I believe that it was because the states had ownership of the property and it would remain that way. The citizens were only left with “to have and to hold” as a “tenant.” It was the states that had true sovereignty, until they ceded sovereignty by way of the Constitution.

      Don’t look to the deceivers for the definition.

      • Martens

        November 19, 2013 at 10:55 PM


        Possibly there was deception going on by some of the Founders, though I don’t think Jefferson and Hamilton were in on it.

        As far joint tenants go, they don’t “own each other’s shares” or whatnot. It’s more like a corporation. There is only one owner, namely the (singular) body made up of the (several) joint tenants. This is why Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856 states, in its definition of sovereign, “In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people.”

        In joint tenancy, the several tenants own a “unity of title” with “undivided interest”. That is, there’s one (indivisible) property and one owner: a “corporate” person.

        When the Supreme Court used the phrase “joint tenants” in Chisholm v. Georgia, they said a lot. This is legalese with a specific meaning, and a long history, in common law.

      • Adask

        November 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM

        Back in the early 1990s, in an old dictionary–perhaps Bouviers, but maybe some other–I stumbled onto a definition some word–I don’t remember which–which included a definition and/or description of “pursuit of Happiness”. I didn’t exactly understand the significance of “pursuit of Happiness” at the time, but the definition/description nevertheless stuck in my mind until years later when I began to grasp the significance of that “pursuit”.

        I’m paraphrasing, but the definition of “pursuit of Happiness” meant freedom of religion in the sense that SOME religion could guide us to our ultimate happiness: eternal salvation. But, whichever religion that might be was not absolutely known, and therefore each of had the right to pursue our ultimate-happiness/eternal-salvation with whichever religion we personally felt most likely to gain that “Happiness”.

        Thus, the unalienable Right to pursue your (ultimate) “Happiness” means your right to choose whichever religion you think most likely to achieve that result. If you don’t believe in God and therefore don’t believe in an afterlife, you are free to pursue your ultimate “Happiness” in this life (more money, faster cars and wilder women?) under the guise of atheism.

        But ultimately, the “pursuit of Happiness” declared in the “Declaration of Independence” means “freedom of Religion” (which right was later guaranteed in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

        Over the years, I’ve tried to find the original dictionary and the definition that explained “pursuit of Happiness”. But I’ve been unsuccessful. I have nothing to support my explanation of “pursuit of Happiness” other than my recollection.

        However, the definition I’ve described makes good sense. Imagine you were on a quiz show and you got to choose Door #1 or Door #2. Behind Door #1 was a blond with a big set of bazooms, a new Mercedes Benz and $1 million. Behind Door #2 was eternal salvation. Which “prize” would you choose? Which would make you “happier”?

        For most people the obvious choice is eternal salvation. If eternal salvation is your ultimate happiness, then it follows that the “pursuit of Happiness” should mean “freedom of religion”.

      • Yartap

        November 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM

        Al, I would not doubt that a definition for “pursuit o happiness” is the freedom of religion exist. Because to many PTB want us to feel that we are in control and sovereign.

        But stop to think. Do you believe that we have a God-given right to religious freedom? Do you really believe that God would give us a choice of what to believe?

        Once we obey God’s Law and commandments and obey God’s will, then our free will is allowed. This is seen in the parable about the father and two sons in Matthew 21:28-32. The first son rejected his father’s request, but reconsidered and did his father’s will. The other son said he would honor his father’s request but did not fulfill his will. Which one did his father’s will? Most will answer the first son. But Jesus implies that neither did his father’s will. The first son did not fulfill his father’s will because he rejected his father’s request, which was placing himself above his father’s authority. Further read Matthew 7:21-23 about doing the Father’s will.

        What is God’s religion? Does God have a religion?

        So, to say that God gives to us the freedom of religion is false.

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM

        @ > Jetlag and Martins,

        @ > Now, both of you are getting into the deception perpetrated ………..

        Pat Fields, They ARE masters at this “trade.”

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:31 PM

        You asked Alfred, > Do you really believe that God would give us a choice of what to believe?

        I,J.M. say, ABSOLUTELY !!! You betcha. No doubt about it.

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:36 PM


        You say, > “Once we obey God’s Law and commandments and obey God’s will, then our free will is allowed.”

        Huh?? our free will is allowed to WHAT ???

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:44 PM


        You, Yartrap say to Alfred Adask,> So, to say that God gives to us the freedom of religion is false.

        Yartrap, What is your definition of freedom of religion ? You, Yartrap say on another thread that if witchcraft works you are all for it, REMEMBER ??? I DO. Where do you REALLY STAND Yartrap??

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 8:52 PM

        Yartrap, YOU also ask Alfred Adask,> Do you really believe that God would give us a choice of what to believe?

        Who do you think you are dealing with Yartrap, A FOOL ?? Ohhh dear LORD IF I could only have 1/10th of the PATIENCE of Alfred.

      • J.M.

        March 2, 2014 at 8:44 AM


        @ So, what is the truth? You, I and all have no sovereignty, jointly or individually -PERIOD!

        In the eyes of the powers that be TODAY, I agree. BUT it seems you are saying it has ALWAYS been this way. IF this is true, Ain’t no way BRO.”Once upon a time” the HIGHEST office in the “Land of the FREE & the home of the BRAVE was, 12 Sovereign Citizens comprising a JURY. THEY had the POWER to ANNUL an act of Congress IF they so desired. CHEW on that or spit it out. Take your choice. AND SPARKY, the “pursuit of happiness” INCLUDED PROPERTY. The pursuit of happiness meant MORE than just property, hotshot. Do you STILL feel & say if witchcraft works you are ALL FOR IT? betchah do.

        @ I believe that it was because the states had ownership of the property and it would remain that way

        Those States THEN were the PEOPLE THEMSELVES, Yartap, aka SPARKY.

  20. Adrian

    November 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    Colective power and sovereignty goes back to the stone age.Individual rights did not exist then.
    So is the case with gods and religion.
    Man has individual rights,his ability to exercise them relies heavy on the community.
    Sovereignty is an expresion of power and rights.
    The realization of human rights has evolved with time.
    ” All men are created equal ” it is an utopian concept.
    In nature there is no equality but diversity.
    The best form of allegiance is to reality.

  21. Adask

    March 1, 2014 at 6:57 AM

    Yartrap & J.M.: Of course, God gives us freedom to believe or not. But He also retains his own freedom of choice. My understanding of the Bible is that if we turn away from Him, He will also turn away from us. That turning is a choice. We are free to choose to reject God, but if we do, He is free to choose to reject us.

    In my opinion, this is a matter of personal choice, but not a matter of external control. If I choose to turn my back on God, I do not control God. My choice to reject him doesn’t cause, in a direct sense, God’s choice to turn way from me. I am absolutely free to make the personal choice to turn away from God. God is absolutely free to also choose turn away from me. But without evidence, I have a hunch that even if I turn 180 degrees away from God, that He may confine his “turning” to, say, 45 degrees away from me. Even if He’s not facing me directly, I think He may still be “keeping an eye on me” to see if I choose to turn back and He can also choose to turn back to me.

    While the Bible says that if I turn away from God, He will also turn away from me, the Bible does not say that God will turn away from me to same degree as I turn away from him.

    In any case, insofar as Bible allows that we have the freedom to turn away from God, it would seem to follow that we also have the freedom to choose whichever religion we like. If we choose to follow a religion that rejects the true God, we thereby “turn away” from Him. If we make that choice, we can expect Him to turn away from us. But it appears to me that while we are free to “turn” however we choose–we are also held responsible for our choices.

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 4:49 PM

      @ >Yartrap & J.M.: Of course, God gives us freedom to believe or not.

      I was trying to say this AND in addition, say, I believe that “God” gives/allows ALL people of ALL races to believe ANYTHING we, as people want to believe This should be self evident My understanding of Yartap’s question meant this is not true, OR, How can anyone believe that “God” can do this, give or allow people to have the freedom to believe anything he/she wants too. It’s as tho Yartap is saying, “God” will NOT allow any such thing. I, J.M. aka Jim, concluded my understanding of Yartap’s question WAS & IS also based on this statement from Yartap to Alfred Adask: Yartap says to Alfred, > So, to say that God gives to us the freedom of religion is false.

      UNLESS, I, Jim, am misunderstanding, AGAIN, Yartap is saying to Alfred Adask, Alfred your belief or saying that God gives to us the freedom of religion is false. I asked Yartap, Yartrap, What is your definition of freedom of religion? I don’t see where he HAS answered that question. ALSO, Yartap has given me the “cold shoulder” for quite a while. He must have a reason for doing this. It WAS not always this way. Something has “changed.” IF it’s my fault, I need to know what to do to HOPEFULLY correct this. I need to be given at least a chance.I don’t think this is unreasonable.

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM

      @ ” But it appears to me that while we are free to “turn” however we choose–we are also held responsible for our choices.”

      It appears to me, that, You, Alfred, are bending over backwards trying get a CRUCIAL point across in a gentle as possible way. Or, let’s put this way, what appears to you IS the way it IS. IF we have the knowledge of “God” & do the 180 turn WE WILL REAP THE RESULTS.

      • Adask

        March 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM

        I won’t normally try to hammer an idea down into people’s minds. I don’t claim to be providing “God’s own truth” on this blog. All I’m doing is expressing my opinion. If others reject my opinion, that’s OK with me–especially if they do so in a manner that’s logical and civil. But if they insist on “hammering” their opinion into other people’s minds, I will try to resist that hammering when I have time to do so (as recently, with Jetlag). I don’t regard this blog as a place for persistent fools. If readers want to insist that they’re right, they’re right, they’re right! regardless of what I and others on this blog try to communicate, they may have a problem.

        If readers wants to persistently insult each other, I’ll put up with it for a while. But those who seek to persistently insult others will probably wind up being banned from this blog.

        Those who want to insult me on this block will probably find themselves banned I regard this blog as my home. Anyone is welcome to stop in. I provide the equivalent of free chili and beer to my “guests”. The chili is canned and not so tasty. The beer is cheap and war. I don’t claim that anyone should like my “chili” and “beer”. But I provide it for free. So, if anyone wants to stop in at my home to eat my free chili and beer, and then insult me, should expect that they’ll be banned.

        There’s no reason why I should go to effort of hosting this blog for free, and then be expected to put up with personal insults from some moron who probably can’t even write his own articles. If there is a reason why I should put up with personal insults in my blog, I won’t recognize it.

        I get so tired of seeing blog after blog, and website after website, where comments are allowed and many of those making comments behave like 7th grade kids with a can of spray paint who think it’s cool to write four-letter words on someone else’s wall. Those kinds of comments are self-indulgent and juvenile. They’re embarrassing.

        This is a pretty good blog because 1) the people who comment here tend to do so in a civil and respectful manner; and 2) some of the people who comment offer real research, not just personal opinions. Readers can learn a lot on this blog, and not just from me. I learn a lot on this blog from some of the comments posted by others.

        This is a small, but semi-valuable blog. I intend to protect as best I can. I can’t really stop the trolls. I can resist the trolls, but I can’t absolutely stop them. I can ban them under one name, they can come back under another.

        On one level, I’m flattered that there may be trolls on this blog because if government-paid trolls are really making comments on this blog, they wouldn’t waste their time doing so, unless this blog was making a positive contribution to American resistance to big government.

        So, what do you do? You trust in the Good LORD and do the best you can. I also trust in the people who comment on this blog to recognize trolls and perhaps avoid them. None of that is easily done. There’s a fine line that separates those who are merely foolish and obnoxious from those who seek to be disruptive. Deciding which is which is largely subjective. But if I come to the conclusion that someone is here on this blog to be disruptive, I’ll ban him.

        Ohh, one more: I have people who post comments from time to time that include text in their comment that predicts that I will “trash” their comment because I refuse to expose their “brilliant” critique. Wrong. With only a couple of exceptions, I won’t ban anyone’s comment if it’s well-reasoned and sincere. The exceptions are people who think this is a place to advocate satanism or child molestation or some such. I’m not having it. Not in my home.

        But if anyone wants to draft a comment that includes a prediction that I’ll refuse to publish their comment, I will trash their comment. Not because it’s brilliant, insightful or devastating to some argument that I’ve been advancing–but because it insults my integrity and my intelligence. Anyone who thinks that their comment is so devastatingly brilliant that my only possible response is to delete their comment, will find their comment trashed–but not because of their idea–instead, because of the insult to my integrity or intellect.

        “Martens” is a recent example. He and Jetlag defied what I and other deemed to be reasonable arguments in favor of the MOOA idea I’ve advanced on this blood. It reached a point where I judged Jetlag’s intent to be to disrupt (and also insulting) rather than to illuminate some truth. I banned Jetlag.

        Martens posted a comment that said something like, “Since I [Martens] agreed with Jetlag, I suppose that I’m banned, too.” I replied, “Sure, why not?” But I didn’t ban Martens for agreeing with Jetlag, I banned Martens for insulting me by implying that I was petty enough to do so. That example may seem like a pretty fine line to most people, but it’s not to me. If anyone predicts that I’ll trash him comment or ban him from my blog, I’ll probably do just what he predicted.

        If Martens hadn’t predicted that he’d be banned, I wouldn’t have banned him at that time. I might’ve banned him later if he persisted to act in ways that I deemed to be “disruptive”. But I wouldn’t have banned him for merely agreeing with Jetlag.

        I won’t ban someone for simply disagreeing with my ideas. But I will ban them for 1) insulting me or persistently insulting others; and 2) behaving in a way that seems to me to be intentionally disruptive.

  22. J.M.

    March 4, 2014 at 1:15 AM

    Exchanging Holy Bible understanding is a serious serious matter to me. It IS the word of God Almighty & it is something I cannot take lightly. As far as Martens/Jetlag being insulting to you, I was stunned, repeatedly. But maybe you understood things they said different, in a different way. I think you, Alfred have a heart of Gold. Ohhhh when I say > YHWH ha Elohiym < to you, I am not doing so to impress you, I am doing it out of respect for you. I do not know IF this is the correct name. But, I know you are comfortable with it & I do believe you are referring to the one I address as Father, the Creator, Life giver & Sustainer of the Universe. I do not really know what the correct names of our Father & Jesus are. I have done a lot of research on this subject. BUT IF he IS our Father, I think calling him Father is sufficient. He KNOWS our hearts. It seems to me that Emanuel is the correct name of Jesus, but I don't know for sure about this either. Anyway, I think there are precious people on your blog, your home, there's Julie, Applessence, donmako, & Jethro, seems to be "true blue." At least he is fair. I don't want people using the word of God to lead them astray. There ARE children of the Devil deceived & trying to deceive others. I did not see ANY love whatsoever proceeding out of the hearts & minds of Martens/Jetlag. I saw arrogance & haughtiness that was mind boggling.It made me angry to put it mildly to see what they were attempting to do to you. AND others. Anyway, I cannot express my thoughts in writing very well. I write what is on my heart & mind as best as I can. We are supposed to be a family & CARE for each other. I saw Martens/Jetlag only caring for themselves. You may not like what I'm about to say, but there is no doubt in my mind that they ARE agents of Satan. I cannot say that they know this but I know enough about "God's" word to say this. There IS power in prayer when it IS for another. I pray for you & everyone I can think of on your blog YES, even Martens & Jetlag. I ask for whatever is NECESSARY to do for each of us to come to a knowledge of what is good & right & to HOLD FAST to same. Unless I am asking amiss, PLEASE pray for me to YHWH ha Elohiym to proclaim ONLY what is GOOD & for the strength to do this. Shalom, my dear precious Brother.

    • J.M.

      March 4, 2014 at 1:21 AM

      P.S. I read everybody’s comments so I know what you said to Martens/Jetlag & every one else too, at least to the best of my knowledge.

  23. J.M.

    March 4, 2014 at 1:25 AM


  24. J.M.

    March 4, 2014 at 1:44 AM

    p.p.s dejure WAS a good poster too but THANKS to ADRIAN the ATHIEST dejure stopped leaving comments. Adrian, Who I do not like, said dejure was clogging & cluttering up your blog with CRAP. dejure left, dejure IS a sensitive man AND he loves Almighty God TOO !!! I keep in touch with him. SO FAR, he & I Understand the scriptures EXACTLY alike. dejure has love in his heart. He is a gentleman. gentle-man He is KIND & caring.


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