RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Cops, Queers, Affirmative Defense and Gun Laws

22 Jul

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

I hope you’ll listen in.  I hope you’ll call in.

 
6 Comments

Posted by on July 22, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

6 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Cops, Queers, Affirmative Defense and Gun Laws

  1. david arnold

    July 22, 2014 at 6:42 PM

    Hope can get this in archives. One up there now is July 1st, and I get to go to work in a few minutes.

     
    • Jethro

      July 22, 2014 at 7:27 PM

      Yes, the archive hasn’t been updated in a while.

       
  2. Adask

    July 22, 2014 at 8:12 PM

    You may not have to worry about archiving this week’s program. AmericanVoiceRadio.com (which hosts and produces the program) is apparently not functional tonight. I can’t reach them. They haven’t called me. I can’t hear any program up on the internet at this time. I don’t know what the problem is, but it appears that I won’t be doing to program tonight. Regrets.

     
  3. Peter

    July 29, 2014 at 9:44 AM

    My question, can it be argued that even though working for a corporation created under the laws of the United States, can one make the declaration that one is domiciled on the soil and acting on the soil of The United States of America? Not benefiting from the laws of the United States, but asserting standing and opportunity equal to your co-workers who are arguably possibly individuals, persons ect. . Can I be treated unequally to them? They may receive reasonable consideration under the A.D.A.in their jurisdiction, I cannot, therefore I must pursue “equality under the Law”. That being The Laws of the United States of America .Does a corporation I work for have to recognize me as an actual man made in the image of YHWH Elohiym’s image as per Genesis 1;26-28 within one of The States of the Union.

     
    • Adask

      July 29, 2014 at 12:52 PM

      I can’t prove it, but logic tells me that the entire system of “this state” operates on the presumption that each of us has “voluntarily” entered into “this state”. If you and I were forced to abandon the States of the Union to enter “this state,” those responsible for the compulsion would be guilty of treason and subject to being hanged.

      Today, that “logical conclusion” doesn’t seem very compelling. We look around and it’s almost impossible to imagine that we have any choice. “This state” has become so predominant and so oppressive that the idea that we might have some capacity for voluntary choice seems farfetched and improbable.

      But I believe that when “this state” was launched, the perpetrators were terrified by the possibility that the people of the States of the Union might “wake up” and hang the “this state” advocates for treason. Therefore, the perpetrators built “this state” on the presumption that the people had voluntarily chosen to enter into it as a kind of “convenience”. The gold was removed from domestic circulation within the States of the Union. The silver was removed. Under the guise of an “emergency,” we were provided with the “choice” of using a fiat currency (FRNs) in “this state” to conduct commerce rather than gold- and/or silver-based money. So long as the FRNs seemed to spend like real money, the American people had no objection and seemingly entered into the territory of “this state” on a voluntary basis.

      I can’t prove any of that hypothesis. It could easily be mistaken.

      But if that hypothesis were roughly correct, it would be true that the original proponents of “this state” tried to create plausible deniability for having engaged in treason by being able to argue that the people were not compelled into “this state” but were instead presumed to have entered voluntarily.

      If so, I believe that remnants of the original “voluntary” nature of “this state” still exist in whatever law or policy supports “this state”. If so, if we make an intelligent and express choice to live outside of “this state,” we can do so.

      But it’s not easy. “This state” has become so all-consuming that you and I can be at least presumed to have voluntarily entered by our conduct, alone. Do you have drivers license? I believe it was issued by “this state” and probably only required in the venue of “this state”. No one forced you to get a drivers license. But by having a drivers license, you’ve created evidence by your conduct that you have voluntarily entered into “this state”.

      How ’bout a bank account? Do you have one? You weren’t forced to take a bank account. You did so voluntarily. But if you did, did you sign a bank signature card whereby you pledged to be subject to all federal laws? Well, congratulations! You’ve just pledged to be subject to all of the federal government’s territorial laws and, by doing so, you are now presumed to have voluntarily entered into “this state”.

      If you’ve signed up for public utilities, cell phone service, vehicle licensing and registration, and occupational licenses, by doing so, your conduct supports the presumption that you’ve voluntarily entered into this state and are therefore subject to the laws of a territory rather that a State of the Union.

      I understand how bizarre this hypothesis sounds. I understand that the hypothesis might be mistaken. But when I speculate on how and when this “problem” began, and then subsequently “evolved” into the monstrosity we face today, the hypothesis seems plausible.

      More, my hypothesis is optimistic in that it leaves open the possibility that we can still “volunteer out” of “this state”. If the hypothesis is wrong, then you and I are trapped in a full-blown dictatorship/police state where government reigns supreme and we have no choice but to obey or take up arms against that government.

      Neither option (obedience or civil war) is pleasant.

      But neither is the idea that we can volunteer out of “this state”. Can you get by without a drivers license, bank account, cell phone or public utilities? Can you even imagine life without those “conveniences”? We are truly caught in a dilemma wherein we have no painless choices.

      For example, you’ve asked if the corporation you work for has to recognize your status as a man made in God’s image. I believe that the answer is Yes–if you can properly assert that status, I think they have to recognize you as such. But, while they may have to recognize you in that status, they don’t have to hire you or continue to employ you. The corporation is almost certainly “located” in “this state”. By voluntarily choosing to work there, your conduct supports the presumption that you’ve voluntarily entered into “this state”.

      This speculation does not necessarily mean that you can’t take a drivers license, bank account, cell phone, utilities etc., without being condemned forever as a member of “this state”. All of those acts may support the government’s presumption that you’ve voluntarily entered into “this state”. But what if the “The State vs this state” hypothesis were true, and although your conduct would support the presumption that you’ve voluntarily entered into “this state,” you were sufficiently knowledgeable and courageous to produce an effective, sworn declaration that all of your actions take place within a State of the Union and that you have have not ever knowingly and voluntarily entered into another political venue or territory? Would the government’s PRESUMPTION that you’ve entered into “this state be refuted? I think it would. Would the government dare to put witnesses on the witness stand to testify on the record and in front of a jury that you were not within the venue of, say, “The State of Texas” when you signed up for a drivers license, drove your car, signed up for utilities or opened a bank account, etc.? I don’t think so.

      I suspect that the Achilles Heel in “this state” (if “this state” exists) may be the fact that it’s been imposed in secret and appears to operate based on silent presumption. If you can expressly challenge that presumption, the government can’t support that presumption with testimony on the record without exposing the scheme, losing the secret and silent presumptions.

      If all of this conjecture seems fantastic and unbelievable, bear in mind that this conjecture has apparently worked in at least one instance–when I and six other defendants were sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million per year). I devised a defense wherein in identified myself and one other defendant as “men made in God’s image,” and the Attorney General (after investing six years and nearly one half million dollars on pretrial investigations and hearings) dropped the case. (See https://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/)

      Thus, as fantastic as some of this hypothesis may seem, it’s true that it’s worked at least once under circumstances wherein the defendants should’ve expected to be crushed by the government. We expressly challenged the government’s fundamental silent presumption that we were “animals” and rather than argue to the contrary, the government non-suited the case.

      Just as some people would easily argue that the “this state” hypothesis is lunacy, they might also argue that trying to defend myself against the Attorney General by arguing that I’m not an “animal” is also lunacy. But if my case, that defense worked and in retrospect is not lunacy so much as brilliance and, more truthfully, blessing. Given the dimension of that blessing, is it still necessarily true that the “this state” hypothesis not only false but crazy?

       
  4. Peter

    July 29, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    Thanks, for man or other animals and the insight into sections (jj) (mm) (oo) and(rr), powerful subject. I did not realize tobacco fit in until now.

    Over the years I recall you saying one would be better off with dictionaries instead of guns.
    In the book of Wisdom I found something that resonates with that ideology, 18:22 “He overcame Hostility, not by physical strength, nor by force of arms; but by word he prevailed over the Punisher, by recalling the oaths made to the Fathers, and covenants.”

     

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s