RSS

About

The Tetragrammaton Yahweh intended to be prono...

Image via Wikipedia

I’m Alfred Adask and the author of virtually all of the text published on this website.

I worked construction (ditch digger, truck driver, heavy equipment operator, miner, etc.) before a divorce compelled me to become a student of the legal system. One thing led to another and I wound up publishing the AntiShyster News Magazine for 12 years, running for the Texas Supreme Court in A.D. 1992 (I received 201,000 votes), motivating and hosting this coutry’s biggest legal reform meetings (an average of 325 attendees, twice a month), and being identified by the Federal government as one of the top dozen anti-government activists during the 1990s. I was a big fish in a small pond.

I’ve also been jailed for 344 days in a level 5 maximum security jail without ever being charged with a crime. And I’ve been sued for $25,000 per day ($750,000 per month; over $9 million per year) by the Texas Attorney General–it took about two years to run them off.

I wouldn’t be here, I wouldn’t be writing, publishing, talking or thinking if our Father YHWH Elohiym didn’t want me to.  If you see anything on this blog that seems true, well, that’s God’s work—I don’t make the truth, I just try to perceive and report it.  That which you see on this blog which is false is my work, my mistake.

In the final analysis, the entire problem with government is a spiritual war.  It took me decades to understand that fundamental truth.  My understanding is still imperfect and growing, but there’s no a doubt in my mind that we are engaged in Holy War against a government, against a system, that is, at bottom (or more properly, at the very top), ungodly and arguably Luceferian.  I am a watchman and a witness.  It is not merely my duty to expose this ungodly system, it is my privilege, my calling and my blessing.  Praise our Father YHWH Elohiym!

 

132 responses to “About

  1. satirebureau

    June 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM

    Would love to see you tackle the term “government” in more depth. We all seem to use it as a catch-all for that amorphous group of politicians that seek to keep us a subjects. But who are they? Naturally, the visible characters at the very top, like the President, Congress, etc. come to mind. But what about senior and mid-level bureaucrats – are they in on the con, too? How about the lower levels? The postman is part of “government” but surely he is not seeking dominion over us non-government citizens.
    What about those in the shadows of power, like the CFR? And how about some corporations and countries that spend big bucks on politicians at various levels? If we don’t succinctly define the enemy, who do we fight? “Government is simply far too vague. The reason I ask you to take this on is because of your obvious brain power and communicative skills.

    Thanks, John – Tennessee

     
    • hal

      September 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM

      Good Question, John! … May I offer, what I’ve found to be at least the beginning of a good answer: Do an Ixquick search for a work called “The Thirteenth Tribe” – which shall provide a quite extensive history of a very obscure element in world history (the 4th – 12th century Khazaria Empire), but one with extensive enlightenment, in re a populous element known as, Ashkenazim Jewry – which also identifies the ethnic character claimed by a great bulk of Cabinet / Departmental movers & shakers in this U.S. Inc. enterprise we call “government”! … World Jewry IS NOT what we Christians have been left to believe it to be – at least these now 7.5 decades I’ve been around and involved in this world’s history.
      God Speed,
      YoPalHal

       
    • enlightened

      December 28, 2011 at 4:04 AM

      If you really want to know start by attending the monthly commission meetings where you live. Then try budget commities and utility meetings. You will soon find they are not there to govern your county for anyone other than themselves. Once you see you will probably wish you were back not knowing. All politicians are good at twisting words some really think they can change the system some bail quickly others join the crowd. Money is the root of all evil and the basis of their agenda. Small town TN have their own rules and ways. The postman is doing a job he is not government. Corporations are big enough they can pay elected officials who make up the laws by which we are governed.
      Now I believe that TN has at least a couple of congresmen and Senators who are active here and want our state to improve. But they are politicians first. I think you might want to start with TCA codes then warm up to CFR. Pray to God for guidance.

       
    • John Lakeman

      June 4, 2014 at 8:44 AM

      Dear John ………………..

      Check out http://www.die-nadel.com. Die Nadel means “the Needle in German.

       
    • hogorina1

      January 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM

      BASTARDISED STATE OF NATIONALIZED SYOPHANTS

      As an every-day layman with little formal education, i find that Adask law is a God send in sounding off as to society is a composition of numanity caught in a spiritual war—good vs evil. God has given Adask an insiight into a little world, spiritual, that mass humanity is fully unaware of. I’ve been around all walks of civil and political life. This whole sytem is set up on lies and corruption as the legal system is set in place in order to watch over stolen wealth and property from helpless people, of whom live in fear of organized crime, is a mandate in order to labour in the field of civil and legal robbery of the helpless souls depend on God to come to the their aid, when such bastards as mentined rule a nation run by Beezlebub and his family of devils. God bless Adask !

       
      • Adask

        January 10, 2015 at 1:04 PM

        Thank you. I always appreciate blessings.

         
      • hogorina1

        January 20, 2015 at 5:45 AM

        GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT MANIA FOR THEFT BY VOTING WAS CONTRARY TO BILLY CARTER’S INSTINCTS : BILLY CARTER, UNSUNG AMERICAN, and no polished sycophant, not ignored during life, as brother of a president, was a self-made man. This gentle personality was no brush off, when meeting preselected political whores huffing it off at tax payer’s expense in D.C., nor a sucker to be glorified by many curious tourists. He was a man of men. He made it clear, in so many utterances, that he would rather sleep in his filling station than the White House! Yes, far ahead of his time, a bottle of beer was more precious than being forced into shaking hands with some low-life creep serving within the State Department, or meeting scoundrels strolling along Pennsylvania Ave. In essence, the vast majority of Americans could care less in staggering around the White House in viewing portraits of past presidents. Billy was compelled to question political whores, of whom actually made it to the the top during the yesteryears. We can begin with Woodrow Wilson, a troubled man that sent our flowering young men over seas to be slaughtered, in the attempt to sell out our nation to the European League of Nations. Failing, brought him a miserable death. And there was the late Franklin D. Roosevelt, a traitor, in allying with Communist red Russia in 1933. His follow up was the late Harry Solomon Truman, who tried to conceal his ancestral background with an S for a middle name. The old saying, ” What’s in a name.?” Ask Harry. Harry worked well with his buddies, red Russian agents, in laying the ground work for a then future United Nation’s Organization, of which basically is a front for an approaching global socialism. And this goes on for ever, when a political hack is wheeled into office .Now getting back to Billy Carter. He knew as to what specific nation in the near east that was up to its neck in fighting off international banksters. No matter who makes it to the White House, and even before the present, all are merely tools of universal gangsters, using the global empire as a front for an ancient religious order, that needles its octopus like methods to gain control of any and all lulled into its net. A man like Billy Carter would never betray his manhood, by grasping hold of one octopus tentacle that reached from afar, right into the center fold of Washington’s political whoredom. Incidentally, it was rumored that Billy was hauled via a military aircraft to a clinic for a rest, being forced against his will, to be socially indoctrinated, politically. Nevertheless, Billy was faced with a hive of his brother’s insiders. Many Americans believe that Billy had received a chemically devised lobotomy from the identical better part of professional of hoodlums that originally drove him to the bottle. Mr. Billy Carter should have been Secretary of State; for this gentleman could have met more alcoholics, passive-pseudo intellectual bandits and fraudulent personalities. Billy would never have pro-scripted any [deadbeat] or absent-minded fool, as an ambassador at large, in lugging a briefcase filled with torts. True indeed, most alcoholics within the State Department would marry the Devil for a shot at visiting some of Europe’s red-light districts. America says heil to the late Billy Carter, as a man of his word.

         
  2. Little Bo Pip

    July 13, 2008 at 6:06 AM

    Hey!!!

    Glad you are back on line! You were sorely missed!

     
  3. Brian Lutes

    October 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM

    As a former police officer in PA, having first hand knowledge of the inner-workings of the “justice” system, I can honestly say that if someone were to make a movie based on how things really work in government, no one would go see it because they would all say “it is just too ridiculous to be believed”, but it is true.
    The work you have done here is just incredible and I thank you for it.
    I will be returning to your site very often. If I may ever be of service to you in any way please do not hesitate to call upon me.

     
    • hal

      September 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM

      IF, somehow, just 20% of these so-called “Patriotic American’s,” could be convince to just ONCE, REFUSE to roll-over and pay that UNLAWFUL, yet LEGAL fine – when THEY KNOW the injustice they’re exacerbating by doing so, is MORE CRIMINAL than the act for which the fine is being levied – such that THEN, they EXPERIENCE that 72-hour trip through their city / county lock-up process: I have NO DOUBT this nefarious system OF FRAUD, we so callously endure, could be extirpated WITHIN ONE ELECTORAL SEASON!!!

       
      • adask

        September 20, 2010 at 12:04 AM

        You’re right. In fact, the traffic fine system could be crushed if even 10% refused to pay the fine in the mail and instead opted for a court trial. The burden on the courts and jails would be insurmountable. The “system” would crack if just one man in ten–one in ten–were willing to resist. We are not being overpowered. We are losing because we surrender without a fight to the little men behind the curtain.

         
  4. Laura Harden

    April 6, 2009 at 9:03 PM

    I am here because it was on a website and I found it interested. I’ll visit longer next time

     
  5. Sally Thayer

    January 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM

    Loved the most recent broadcast on LRL. I invited my grandaughters over to hear why women are more valuable . When I raised goats, I knew this to be true but never put it together with hue mens.

    Now we are all listening. Love it.

     
    • adask

      January 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM

      In the natural order of things, women are more valuable and men are disposable. In today’s society, however, where women have fewer and fewer (and even no) children, women are becoming less valuable, less honored and more “disposable”. 100 years ago–even 50 years ago–it would’ve been unthinkable to put a woman in the military in a combat position. Her fertile womb was too valuable to risk in war. Today–thanks to taxes raised so high that people can’t afford to have children and the birth control pill that prevents pregnancy–women have been “neutered” of their greatest intrinsic value, rendered “disposable” and now allowed to be shot and killed as a soldier in war. The gov-co will tell women, “You’ve come a long way, baby!” but the gov-co is lying. Big government and the pill haven’t “liberated” women; they’ve degraded today’s increasingly infertile women to the status of disposable. I doubt that many women understand this degradation but I’ll bet that most women sense it and are frightened. As women become increasingly man-like (“disposable”), there will be fewer and fewer men on which women can rely for protection. Government will offer to provide that protection and substituted for men. In return for that protection, government will raise taxes and make children even less affordable, liberalize divorce laws so as to drive men/protectors out of marriage and away from women, and ultimately make women even more disposable and even less protected. Thanks to big gov-co and the pill, American women are fast becoming America’s “niggers”–despised by all, even themselves. A relatively small group of women will revel in this “brave new world,” but for the vast majority of American women, I suspect that this is an increasingly terrible time to be a woman.
      It’s easier being a man in that we are no longer so “disposable,” but it’s no picnic for men, either. Our natural relationships to women have been badly compromised. I’m not sure that many modern men know how to relate to a woman except sexually. A century ago, Sigmund Freud asked “What do women want?” Freud seemingly assumed that someone (probably a woman, even most women) knew the answer to that question but were keeping it secret.
      Today, no one asks what women want because most of us no longer believe such answer is possible.
      It may be true that “traditional man-woman” relationships were difficult and even unpleasant for many women. But before long, I suspect that it will be commonly recognized that our modern “liberated” women have, on average, an even worse condition and more than a few women will dream, hope and even demand a more traditional relationship. I know men will.
      Unfortunately, such traditional relationships be possible so long as we have big government and the pill. Until women wake up and realize that their would-be “protector”–the big gov-co that passes increasingly pro-female legislation–is actually their nemesis, women will only become increasingly disposable. Despite an increase in feminist legislation, “liberated” American women will find themselves increasingly vulnerable to violence, rape, exploitation rage and their own despair. Why? Because nobody will care about them. Why? Because, increasingly, women only care about themselves.
      So long as women are unwilling to engage in the self-sacrifice required to bear and raise children, why should any men engage in the self-sacrifice required to protect women? Increasingly, if women are raped, beaten, robbed or even killed, that’s their problem. So long as women are more interested in fornication than reproduction . . . so long as women prefer the protection of a gov-co pimp like Obama over the protection of a husband . . . women will be increasingly regarded as little more than whores and subject to all the violence and contempt associated with that profession.
      Women have NOT “come a long way, baby”–at least not a long way in a positive direction.
      On one hand, I feel sorry for women. On the other, they make me mad. I feel sorry for them because they have come a “long way, baby” but that way is down the toilet. I feel mad at them because the vast majority are so intoxicated by their “liberation” and vanity that they are frantically, mindlessly pulling the flush lever on the toilet. Most modern American women seem dedicated to the proposition that it’s better to rule in an artificial Hell than serve in a natural Heaven. Therefore, women seem to be marching in lockstep towards destruction. While many women seek to blame men for their destruction, I believe their principle adversaries are either big gov-co or women themselves.
      If you want to understand this world, instead of asking (Freud-like) “What do women want?!” you might ask “What does big gov-co want?”
      Does anyone really believe that our gov-co wants to provide Liberty to the people of this country? If not, why would anyone be dumb enough to believe that our gov-co wants to provide “liberation” to blacks, poor, or even women? Gov-co uses the promises of “liberation” and even special privileges to beguile the unwitting into supporting even bigger government, higher taxes and more bondage. Women seem to insist on their right to be as stupid as they like in following the gov-co pimp into Hell.
      That makes me mad. I doubt that I’m alone in that sentiment.
      On the other hand, it’s encouraging that some women (like the author of the previous email) are beginning to “get it”. Perhaps the pendulum is beginning to swing back towards something “natural”.

       
      • TE Davis

        July 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM

        You are so right the double standard was the ploy , the vitrifaction of women was the result. Did I see a link on doing our own radio programs. Tommy of YHVH

         
      • tiffany267

        May 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM

        Heaven does not exist.

        My liberation is not a product of big government.

        I wish that irrational supernatural-worshippers did not get wrapped up in the liberty movement – you make us look like wackos.

         
      • Adask

        May 28, 2013 at 3:02 AM

        I wish that atheists would understand that the only legal foundation for liberty in this country is God. Read the Declaration of Independence. If there is no God, there is no unalienable Right to Liberty. If there is no unalienable Right, the government has no duty to acknowledge or enforce that right. The irrational atheists would reduce all of to the status of mere animals, and elevate the government to the status of god in a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest world.

         
      • 01slinky07

        October 5, 2015 at 7:42 AM

        It seems we, as a species, are on a path leading us away from (the father of the lie)the current captain of this ship earth, & back to our origins. Blessed be all giving praise to YHWH. May your journey prove fruitful in aiding many to find deliverance. I wish you peace & much sucess on your path.
        May you have YHWH”s blessing in all of your work.
        Steve

         
  6. JMarie

    May 1, 2010 at 12:48 AM

    Just found your blog and love it. Thanks for being here. Praise Jehovah!

     
  7. Josie Wales

    July 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

    The American Declarations of Rights and the American Declaration of Independence are the political fruit of the Reformation of West European Christianity. The written Constitutions of North America are the fruit of those declarations. But time has shown that it is the spirit of holy wisdom which administers faithfully and fruitfully and words alone, written or otherwise, assure nothing.

    This Government will pass away when the world passes away, at the latest. The spirit of wisdom endures. But divine love lasts forever.

     
    • Barton Springs

      July 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM

      You put your finger on it. The “rights of man” and other Enlightenment hogwash must go! Just obey God (mine, not the other guy’s) — and the divinely chosen king that He appoints to rule us (any thug will do). In fact, you can already in live in such a place — Iran.

      I can’t help remembering how the Nazis used their “religion” to divide and conquer Germany. In other countries, their Fifth column subversives used Christianity similarly. The plan: soften up a potential enemy through social disruption: sow distrust of institutions; exacerbate class/culture/race differences; infiltrate officialdom; form private militias; ally with the ownership class of the target nation, etc. “Total war” is what they called it: Thanks to softening up, France fell to Hitler’s invaders in just six weeks.

      Does any of this remind you of the psychological climate in the USA during the past 50 years? Folks, WW2 never really ended. Only the labels changed. My question for Mr Adask: are you a willing fascist collaborator, or just a useful idiot?

      Our institutions are fine as designed. And I include the Fed in that statement, since it’s not a private bank as you guys continually claim, but a “quango” (you know that, right, or do you just accept “Jeckyll Island” at face value?) Seriously, who would you want sizing the money supply — bankers with skin in the game or feckless politicians????? You need to study up, amigo. The Fed is a huge source of income for the US Treasury, which gets 94 percent of the Fed’s seigniorage profits.

      The problem is not the institutions; it’s the people running them. Josie, I agree completely with you: words on paper are no guarantee of anything. Only a generous and honorable people can guarantee your freedom. Whether Americans, on balance, remain the generous and honorably intentioned people who rebuilt the world after WW2 is questionable, but one thing is clear: God is leaving this problem to us. How else to explain the tragedy and shame of Vietnam?

      Our problem is not theological. Our problem is THOUSANDS of fascist agents are doing their damnedest to turn America into a corporate-feudal state. They are using the methods listed above. Just what the Nazis had in mind for us, way back when. And that’s no coincidence.

       
      • Adask

        July 23, 2011 at 3:24 PM

        Dear Mr. Springs,

        I am much surprised to hear anyone call me a “fascist”. In 28 years of political activism, that is an absolute first–and an absolute foolishness. In 28 years of writing, speaking publicly, and hosting radio shows, I haven’t made a single statement that can be honestly construed as support for fascism. You might be able to find a sentence here or there that, taken out of context, might seem to vaguely support fascism. But, taken in context, you’ll find no evidence in my speaking or writing to suggest that I support fascism. You’ll have no more success calling me a fascist than you’d have trying to prove that President Obama was born in Canada and is actually an Eskimo. Anyone who calls me a fascist might be a “whipper snapper,” but can’t be “SmartAsaWhip”.

        Fascism involves a symbiotic relationship between government and big business (corporations) whereby the people are exploited to give government power and the corporations wealth. Insofar as I am the “theocrat” that you imply, I wouldn’t dare have anything to do with fascism because it involves corporations; corporations are legal fictions; legal fictions are lies; the Bible declares that the father of all lies is Satan. Thus, it could be argued that corporations are the spawn of Satan, fascism (big government + corporations) would be similarly tainted, and no Bible-thumper like me would have a damn thing to do fascism.

        Secondly, I do not favor a theocracy–I favor the “republican form of government” guaranteed at Article 4.4 of The Constitution of the United States and Article 1.2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas. That republican form is consistent with the fundamental principles espoused in the “Declaration of Independence”: 1) that all men are equally endowed by God with certain unalienable Rights; and 2) that the first purpose of government is to “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights.

        I believe the “republican form” is also consistent with the two “commandments” of the New Testament: 1) Love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, strength, mind and soul; and 2) love thy neighbor as thyself.

        The republican form of government recognizes that God comes first; that where God has declared His will, we must follow it as Law (“love [obey] the LORD thy God,” etc.).

        But the republican form also recognizes that there are a lot of secular things in this world that God did not expressly legislate. For example, God said nothing about how fast you can drive in a school zone. He didn’t command how often mechanics must perform maintenance on a Boeing 747, or whether we must consent to be groped by a TSA employee before we board one. For those matters that are fundamentally secular, the republican form allows us to “love thy neighbor as thyself”–that is, you should get a vote, and I should get a vote and the opinion of everyone within the “neighborhood” (community, county, state, nation, etc.) should be equally valued (probably by a voting process) to decide how fast we want to drive in our school zones and whether or not we’re willing to be groped by government employees as condition to board a commercial aircraft.

        Part of the genius of the republican form of government is that, while it has a theocratic foundation, it is not a theocracy. It recognizes the place of both God and man and tries to allow the two spheres to function in harmony.

        As for your “rights of man hogwash,” I know of only two recognized sources of rights in this world: God and man. The rights that flow from God are based on moral concepts of right and wrong. The rights that flow from man are based on power (guns). In fact, it wouldn’t be too unreasonable to declare that there are only two sources of rights in this world: God and guns. Under God’s laws, “right makes might”. Under man’s law, “might makes right”. Perhaps you feel more comfortable in a world of man’s law and gun power, where “might makes right”. I prefer a world under God’s law where “right makes might”.

        Your rights either flow from God or they flow from guns. Take your pick. I choose God. More precisely, I choose our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

        If you won’t also make that choice and encourage your “neighbors” to do the same, then you and they will live in a police state where “might makes right”.

        Thus, it appears to me that your philosophy is more conducive to fascism (police state), than my faith. If so, then if there’s a “willing fascist collaborator” and/or “useful idiot” in this dialogue–it’s not me–it’s you.

        Al

         
  8. tracy

    September 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM

    Hello Sir,
    I discovered your site today in a quest to discern the difference between Inalienable and Unalienable. I found your discourse to be very enlightening. Thank you very much. I will be back often.

    Tracy

     
  9. Bobby Goodwin

    September 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM

    Hello Alfred. Greetings in the sacred name of Yahweh Elohim (God). You are doing a great service by informing us laymen of certain truths relating to law, rules and regulations.

    Law today (statutory) is not always in harmony with the Common law, which is based on laws in the Old Testament. The Almighty YHWH set up a fair system of law. As He told us; “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hos. 4:6) Unfortunately, over the years, attorneys have fabricated their own “legal” system which uses the Latin and English language with words that have two or more meanings. A classic example is the legal definition for the word “person”. Generally speaking it denotes an individual human being. However… in statute terms, it means a “corporation, estate, partnership, trust…”. When a statute begins it says “No person shall…” Question. What type of “person” is this indicating? (Individual or corporation?)

    You should know Alfred (you being a lawyer) that common words such as “yes” or “no” have no legal definition (check your Black’s Law Dictionary). In fact, there is no longer a legal definition for the word “America”. There is, however, a legal term for the term “United States”, which has two different meanings. “America”. The average man or woman cannot understand all the laws, which thereby prohibits them from navigating the court system. Trickery and deceit are the foundations for modern statutory rules (colorable laws), codified in terms that only trained attorneys can understand, thereby making the layman dependent on Bar attorneys.

    Best wishes.
    Sincerely, Bobby Goodwin.

     
    • adask

      September 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM

      Hi Bobby,
      Thanks for the compliments.
      One correction: I’m not a “lawyer”. At least I’m not a “licensed attorney”.
      The problem with the definition of “person” is that we can presume that all “persons” are legally “equal”. That is, a “living human being,” a corporation, and a trust can all be deemed to be “persons” of equal standing. The first problem is that corporations are “legal fictions”; “legal fictions” are lies. They may or may not be “white lies,” but they are LIES. The Bible declares the father of all lies to be Satan.
      Men and women, on the other hand, are (according to Genesis 1:26-28) made by our Father YHWH Elohiym’s and in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image. We cannot be “lies”.
      The Declaration of Independence declares that “All MEN are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” There is no similar endowment for legal fictions. The God of the Bible would not dream of endowing a “legal fiction” (child of Satan) with those “unalienable Rights”.
      Thus, insofar as 1) the modern definition of “person” includes corporations; and 2) all “persons” have equal legal status; then 3) it appears that no “person” (including “living human beings”) can claim to be made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image, nor can any “person” claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in our Declaration of Independence.
      Thus, the argument and/or presumption might be made that if you accept any designation, lable or description other than “man” (or “woman”), you may have consented to have the legal standing of an animal, a legal fiction or perhaps a child of Satan–and you will have abandoned your standing to claim unalienable Rights.
      Thanks for your comments and thanks for reading my articles.
      Al

       
      • Bobby Goodwin

        September 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM

        Hi Al.
        Before I respond to your reply to my post, allow me to blow your horn. I am impressed by your knowledge of law, legalisms, procedures, etc., etc. I particularly like the way you break things down and explain them in simple forms. I can tell by your written articles that you have spent countless hours, days, weeks, months, and years studying the law system in the United States and the United States of America. You definitely have a knack for teaching and are very well informed. In addition, you let the cards fall as they may in your conclusions.

        When I referred to you as a ‘lawyer’, I did not mean a Bar attorney. As you know, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, but without a license. In my thinking, an attorney’s represent others, whereas a lawyer (in propria persona) only represents one’s own proper person, i.e. them self.

        On the subject of attorneys. If a Bar attorney represents you, they cannot demand your rights in court. They are only allowed to protect your rights! The individual man or woman must demand their own rights.

        Like you, I have studied law for over twenty years. It is a hobby that I find oddly interesting, much like being a criminal investigator (gathering clues, piece by piece).The following is something I just recently discovered, relating to statements signed regarding the law of Perjury.

        There are two variations for sworn statements. One is for persons “within” the United States (meaning the federal corporation, i.e. federal government). The other is “Without” the United States. Notice in the wording that the oath used for individuals “without the United States” uses the word “America”, whereas the other oath does not mention America. Below is the perjury statute, pursuant to USC TITLE 28, PART V, CHAPTER 115, § 1746.
        § 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of per­jury

        Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

        (1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
        (2)If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

        Al. I’m sure with your knowledge of law, you can elaborate on this seemingly deceitful way to trap people into unknowingly admitting they are “within” the federal corporation by simply signing the wrong form. What a sneaky way to gain federal jurisdiction on a tax form, huh?

        Waiting for your reply and observation.
        Bobby
        ______________________________________________________________________
        Personal note. Al, if you ever wish to contact me via email, my address is: bobbygoodwin44@gmail.com) 479-434-4264 (City of Fort Smith,
        County of Sebastian, State of Arkansas. Zip Code for postal purposes; 72901

         
  10. MickeyG

    February 5, 2011 at 4:58 PM

    Al,
    I have, over the last few years, began to study our government, what it is, and what has gone terribly wrong with it. I have come to the conclusion that out government is not only repugnant to the constitution, but also to God. It is a great sea of deception and it as a whole wants to sit on the throne of God. I am consistently shocked at finding the truth and how that truth has been suppressed. The truly believe that the beast is reveling itself today. Jesus said the He is the truth. That truth, as we all know, was crucified and killed by the state. Truth will return and I think we all play a role in that.

     
    • Adask

      February 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM

      Amen.

       
  11. Dan Willaims

    March 29, 2011 at 10:55 PM

    Glad I found your site, very informative. I gave my all to the matrix almost all of my life, am angry and will not play their game anymore. Thank you, respect your sacrifice and suffering and accomplishments.

     
  12. Cody

    April 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    Hey Al,
    I used to make copies of the Anti-Shyster and give them to the Marines at Yuma, while I was still on active duty. Your life is living proof that the Truth cannot be hidden.
    Would you, please, post your memorial to the cartoonist who made the editorial illustrations in the Anti-Shyster. I think his name was Carroll.
    Thanks, for continuing to fight the good fight.

     
  13. sam massengill

    May 15, 2011 at 7:11 PM

    Just found this site and I am already in agreement with the content.Even those that disagree with the content are informing others. GOD IS GREAT!

     
  14. Mark

    May 16, 2011 at 4:41 PM

    Read the AntiShyster years ago. Not interested in any of this any more as knowing God is now my only goal in the world. Would only comment that whatever happens in the world it’s ok. God is spirit and eternal and unchangeable by anything in this world or the universe of form/space/time. God and all His creations (us) are beyond all that. This is all just a silly dream. We truly are made in His image and that image is NOT physical, it is Spirit/Light/Love. Peace to you.

     
  15. Buster Brown

    May 17, 2011 at 2:34 PM

    I just heard/saw you on the Alex Jones internet show (www.infowars.com).
    You are a true patriot and appear to know the subject of our Founding Fathers Constitutional government-Our Constitution……

    I am also a student of our Constitution.

    I will pray to our GOD to awake our People of their duty to apply our Constitution to today’s situation.

    As it has been said (I paraphrase): All that evil needs is for good Godly people to do nothing to stop evil.

    This is a wake-up call for us Godly people!

    We praise our GOD always.

    Buster Brown

     
  16. Barbette

    May 30, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    Amen. It’s all true. George Gilder writes about this in his books “Sexual Suicide” and “Men & Marriage”.

    You have a typo I believe: You write: “Unfortunately, such traditional relationships be possible so long as we have big government and the pill.”

    It should be “RELATIONSHIPS BE IMPOSSIBLE”.

    Thank you for your work.

     
  17. Susan

    July 24, 2011 at 11:09 AM

    Just saw you were going to be on C2C coming up and clicked on your site: I’m a staunch believer in what you put forth is happening with the gov’t. It’s all Ephesians 6; thank you for your work and efforts.

     
  18. Steve

    July 29, 2011 at 3:01 AM

    Great info on your site. We as a nation need more people like you to to figure out exactly what is going on in D.C.. It is getting worse by the day. The infighting among our elected officials is causing much worry. keep up the great work.

     
  19. Rose

    July 29, 2011 at 3:48 AM

    I first heard about Alfred and his opinions about our goverment and court system on Coast to Coast AM. Oh my God… he is saying what I have been believing/feeling, esp after my recent custody battle It is with this court battle when it finally hit me.. how our beloved country has declinned and is pre- terminal.. I do Love my country and dont what to see us die.
    I am eager to learn more…..

     
  20. rosalie mondaccci

    July 29, 2011 at 4:21 AM

    JUST HEARD YOU SPEAK ON COAST TO COAST…..FOUND OUT YOUR NAME AND GOT ON MY LAP TOP I WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU ……….I AM 74 YRS OLD 16 YRS AGO MY YOUNGEST SON FOUND A GIRLFRIEND 7 YRS OLDER THAN HE WAS……..THAT WAS THE FIRST SHOT TO MY HEART ITS BEEN 16 YRS AGO………I HAVE LIVED A HELL AND SO HAS HE FOR 16 YRS AND A BUNCH OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND MONEY.HORRIABLE WOMAN GAVE BIRTH TO A MONSTER LIKE HER MY SON HAS BEEN BAGGERED UNTIL UP TO TODAY. IT WILL GO ON UNTIL HE TAKES HIS LAST BREATH AND THIS MESS IS KILLING ME SLOWLY. SHE NEEDED A CHILD SO MY SON WAS HER SPERM DONER.. IT GOES ON AND ON. THE CHILD LIVES WITH HER MOTHER MY SON GIVES HER WHAT EVER SHE NEEDS AND THEY BOTH BAGGER HIM.ALL THE TIME. PLEASE TRY TO STOP ME FROM KILLING MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. MY SON IS NOT HAVING A GOOD LIFE BUT HE TRIES LIKE HELL AND I ADMIRE HIM FOR ALWAYS TRYING HIS BEST AND NOT GOING BONKERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EVERYTHING I WILL CONTINUE TO BE THERE FOR MY SON. IT HAS NOT BEEN NICE. I WILL NEVER LET HIM DOWN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WONDERFUL WORK…………RM

     
  21. Tom TB

    July 29, 2011 at 9:06 AM

    I may be the only person who lived at Earth People’s Park in Norton VT, and worked at One World Trade Center 10048. I agree with what you said on coasttocoastam.com: I don’t know whether the ever increasing government will imprison me, re-hire me, and whether I will know the difference…

     
  22. TW

    July 29, 2011 at 7:30 PM

    I heard you on C2C last night, when you talked about doing a search on the words — internal revenue service — at manta.com. You said there were 47,187 entries, and you proceeded to use this as evidence of an empirical IRS since manta.com is a well-respected D&B business resource.

    Well, I did a fact check on your claim. My search came up with 47,188 (even better for your cause, right?). However, I looked at a random selection of the search results and found that many entries had nothing to do with the IRS, as many companies that were found had these words scattered within their descriptions.

    Then I noticed that my search had some refinement links for the results, and one of them was “Government” with 1,156 entries found. I drilled down and found government refinement links for these words listed by state. Looking at several state links. I found that, on average, just under half were IRS listings. That brings the number of actual IRS entries on manta.com to about 500 or so.

    Quite a distortion of the facts, Mr Adask. It took me about 45 seconds to debunk your right-wing-nut drivel.

    You have ZERO credibility.

     
    • Adask

      July 29, 2011 at 9:40 PM

      I didn’t claim and didn’t mean to imply that all 47,000 entries were associated with THE “Internal Revenue Service”. I only meant to imply that SOME were associated with the governmental “IRS”. More, I meant to imply (and I think I did, but I don’t recall clearly) that is was damned “odd” that there might be 47,000 entities that were labeled as or associated with the “IRS”. I would expect the “real” IRS to take steps to prevent the kind of confusion that might be caused by 47,000 “wannabes”. If there are 47,000 entities that might be an “IRS”–and some of them clearly are not the “real” IRS, how can I tell whether my next letter from an “IRS” is from the “real” IRS or not?

      The Coast To Coast radio program moves rapidly and there’s not always an opportunity to explain everything about every assertion or observation. I may not have explained the 47,000 “IRSs” clearly, but there was no intentional distortion of the facts.

      I didn’t know how to research the Manta.com info more thoroughly so I had to make do with the 47,000.

      But you did a better job than I did at researching that data and you found the “number of actual IRS entries to be 500 or so”. That averages out to about ten “private companies” acting as the “IRS” for each state.

      Thus, instead of having one “IRS” with a host of offices located in various states and cities, we appear to have 500 “private companies” scattered about the country. Which, if any, of those 500 “private companies” is the REAL “IRS”? And what th’ hell are the other 46,500?

      How do you justify the discovery of 500 private companies called the “IRS” as “right wing nut drivel”?

      If there is even one “private company” called the IRS, is it THE governmental entity with real authority, or is it merely a private franchise something like H&R Block? What is my obligation to pay income taxes to a “private company”? What is my obligation to respond to administrative notices of the tax laws sent by a “private company”? Do any of those 500 private companies have any more authority to enforce tax laws than H&R Block or Walmart? If they do have authority, is that authority limited to States of the Union or to some territorial venue? Do I have a right to demand that my alleged tax liabilities be administered by the “real” IRS–and which, if any, of the 500 IRS “private companies” is the “real” IRS?

      The question of my own credibility is irrelevant. The first question is What’s the truth? The second question is What’s the significance of that truth?

      According to you, the truth appears to be that there are (roughly) 500 private companies that are acting as “the” IRS. What does that mean? Do these 500 “private companies” have authority to kick in doors, seize property, and initiate criminal proceedings? Or, like most “private companies,” do these 500 “Internal Revenue Services” have no more power and authority than H&R Block or Walmart?

      These questions are not evidence of “right wing nut drivel”. They are evidence of genuine concern to people who give a damn about this country and don’t automatically believe everything the “government” says or declares.

      Thanks to you, the next time I bring up the Manta.com issue, I’ll do a better job of explaining how many of the 47,000 “IRSs” are truly associated with the government. Thanks to you, that should increase my “credibility” somewhat.

      By confirming that there are, in fact, 500 private companies called “IRS,” you have helped to validate–rather than “debunk”–that “right wing nut drivel”.

      Finding 500 private companies acting as the “IRS” doesn’t diminish my credibility–it diminishes the credibility of “the” IRS (whatever that is) and the federal government.

      Again, thanks for your research. You are now an honorary member of the “Right Wing Nut Drivelers Society”–an organization that sprung up just 60 seconds ago and has already been labeled by the FBI as a right-wing, terrorist, gun-toting, bomb-building, extremist, racist, hate organization whose members are known to not change their underwear every day.

      Don’t be concerned by the label. The FBI pastes that label on everyone who challenges or even doubts governmental authority. That includes about 60% of the American people–and the number is growing. In fact, just about everyone is in that group except for governmental employees–and even some of them are signing up.

      We hold our annual meeting in Las Vegas each January. We get 10% off on tickets to Cirque du Soleil. I look forward to seeing you there.

      Thanks again for your research and thanks for joining the “Right Wing Nut Drivelers Society” (RWNDS).

       
      • TW

        July 29, 2011 at 11:05 PM

        Here’s the transcript of what you said on C2C:
        ———-
        You can go to manta.com. Manta.com is a list of something like 60 or 70 million private corporations. And they have a search engine right there on manta, m…a…n…t…a.com. You go, there’s a little search engine right there on the front page, type in the name of any entity you want to chase down. If you type in the…if you type in the name internal revenue service, you’ll find that there are something like 47,000 separate entities in this country which have the n…47,187 US companies matching internal revenue service. This information is not coming from some nutcase sovereignty movement, this is from Dun & Bradstreet. It appears that every individual IRS office may be a separate and private corporation. What does that mean?
        ———-

        Based upon your reply above, it is clear that you still do not understand the structure of manta.com, as well as the functionality of its search engine, EVEN AFTER I BROKE IT DOWN FOR YOU.

        Manta.com also lists government agencies, as well as private corporations. And those 500 IRS entries are their local, regional, district, collections, and investigative offices around the country. It’s that simple, but you appear to be too lazy to do the proper research to get your facts straight.

        My purpose here is NOT to join you, and your ilk, in questioning everything our government does. I am here to expose you for the fool that you are.

        BTW, your reply had the sarcastic attitude of a petulant 12-year-old, and it speaks volumes about your true self.

         
      • Adask

        July 30, 2011 at 2:05 AM

        Well, last August, when I was in another of my 12-year old, petulant moods, I wrote an article entitled “Somthin’ Funny’s Goin’ On” that discussed the Manta.com data base and some of the findings. I look forward to your expose’ of all the “right wing nut drivel” in that article.

        Incidentally, I’m flattered that you’d take the time (on a Friday night?) to transcribe some or all of my comments on Coast To Coast. You seem to be going to great effort to expose me, and/or “right wing nut drivel”. I’m curious about your motives for making such effort. Nothing else to do? Are you personally obsessed with “right wing nut drivel”? Does your employer pay you to expose “right wing nut drivel”? What is your interest in this subject? Forgive my inclination to “conspiracy nut” paranoia, but it’s hard for me to tell if your interest in this matter is truly to expose “right wing nut drivel” or if you’re actually writing to discredit a theory that, if true, might be adverse to the interests of the IRS and/or the federal government.

        In any case, reading your transcript of the C2C radio show confirms my recollection of what I said on the show. I’m usually pretty careful about my choice of words. I did not say that all 47,187 entries referred to “the” IRS. I said that “It appears that every individual IRS office may be a separate and private corporation.” In other words, of 47,187 entries, it “appears” (I’m not declaring this to be God’s truth; I only said “it appears”) that those entries that are associated with the agencies that currently pass for IRS offices “may ” (again, I’m not declaring my statement to be God’s truth; I said “may”) be a “separate and private corporation”.

        I stand by that statement. You can see from my use of the terms “appear” and “may” that I was presenting a possibility–an hypothesis. My own uncertainty was further illustrated by my question “What does that mean?” In other words, I’m not sure what’s really being reported at Manta.com.

        However, your research has tended to reduce my uncertainty and perhaps even prove my hypothesis. I.e., you verified (much as I hypothesized) that buried in that list of 47,187 “IRSs,” there were some number of apparent “IRS” entities (500 +/-) that D&B describes as “private companies” but which nevertheless function as if they were part of the federal government.

        You’re absolutely right when you say that I do not understand the structure of Manta.com–nor do I expect to find time to learn it. My job is not to analyze everything I see or hear. My job is to discover and report anomalies (like Manta.com) and then hope that someone (like you) will take time to do a more thorough analysis. Then that second person will (hopefully) report his findings on this blog and everyone–including me–will be edified. See? The research on this blog is a kind of community effort that relies in large degree on contributions from people like you.

        As for me failing to understand the Manta.com structure “EVEN AFTER YOU BROKE IT DOWN FOR ME” (thanks very much), I can only say that in addition to having that “petulant 12-year-old” thing going on, I’m also a senior citizen, sonny, and you know how “slow” we old folks can be. Sometimes, we just can’t keep up with the intellectual speed of you young whipper-snappers. But, again, thanks for trying to educate this “old timer”. (I’ll put in a good word for you at the next AARP meeting.)

        But here’s a problem that I hope you can “BREAK DOWN” for me: You wrote,

        “Manta.com also lists government agencies, as well as private corporations. And those 500 IRS entries are their local, regional, district, collections, and investigative offices around the country. It’s that simple, but you appear to be too lazy to do the proper research to get your facts straight.”

        I understand that Manta.com seemingly lists both “government agencies” and “private corporations”. My problem is that, in the relatively few entries that I’ve read, Manta.com does not appear to distinguish between “government agencies” and “private corporations”. Instead, Manta.com lumps ’em all under the single heading of “private companies”. It seems to me that if anyone needs to “get their facts straight,” it’s D&B.

        As I pointed out in the transcript (that you were kind enough to provide, thanks again!), “This information is not coming from some nutcase sovereignty movement, this is from Dun & Bradstreet.” Thus, I’m not the one who’s claiming that the 500 IRS offices are “private companies”–D&B is. All I’m doing is reporting D&B’s claims. Contrary to your assertion, these are not “my facts”–they are D&B’s facts.

        So, technically, your complaint may not be with me so much as D&B. In fact, it’s beginning to look more and more as if D&B may be a cover organization for a bunch of “right wing nut drivelers” bent on using extremism, terrorism and deception to overthrow the ‘Merican way of life”! I suggest you instantly alert Homeland Security (whose company song,m incidentally, is “Homeland! Homeland! Uber alles!”)

        You might also be interested to know that a search of Manta.com for “Homeland Security” produced a list of 489 “private companies”. Given that I’m too old to understand the Manta.com search engine, if you have time, could you do me favor and please sort the “Homeland Security” companies to figure out which ones are truly private and which ones are governmental? I promise that AARP will bless you, sonny.

        In any case, can you explain to me why D&B falsely identifies the various IRS offices as “private companies“? How hard could it be for D&B to identify each of those governmental entities as “government office” or “government agency” and delete any text that falsely describes IRS offices as “private companies”? Can’t D&B afford a decent computer programmer who’s competent to correct this persistent inaccuracy?

        More, while you may dismiss D&B’s confusion of private and governmental with “It’s that simple,” it doesn’t seem that simple to me.

        Why? Because, although I’ve only looked at three or four dozen Manta.com entries, every one I’ve seen has a tab labeled “Reports”. If you click on that tab, there’s a list of seven different reports for each entity. These reports are produced by D&B and are available for sale for prices ranging from $13 to $139.50.

        It seems to me that the sale of these reports complicates the situation considerably because these sales are consummated by wire (over the internet) or through the mail. Thus, if Manta.com and/or D&B were selling reports on “government offices” or “government agencies” that were each falsely labeled as a “private company,” wouldn’t Manta/D&B be liable for charges of mail or wire fraud?

        What about “fools” (your term) like me who believe D&B’s report that the IRS offices are actually “private companies”. If I relied on D&B’s description and made statements claiming the IRS to be a conglomerate of “private companies,” and if I am later exposed by folks like you as a “fool,” do you think I might have grounds to sue D&B?

        In any case, I find it hard to believe that:

        1) D&B would be so incompetent as to falsely identify each of thousands of government offices as a “private company”; and,

        2) D&B would be so incompetent as to risk being sued for mail fraud and wire fraud for selling reports that falsely assert that government offices are actually private companies.

        As you know, I’m just an old man, but the only way I can make sense of the facts I have observed is to suppose that D&B knows exactly what it’s doing and has correctly labeled thousands of entities that appear to be government offices as “private companies“.

        When it comes to D&B’s seemingly inexplicable behavior, perhaps you’ll be able to “BREAK IT DOWN FOR ME” so it will become as “simple” for me as it is for you. Sweets to the sweet? Simple to the simple?

        As for my “sarcastic attitude,” it’s just a defense mechanism that I resort to when I’m “attacked” by a whipper-snapper. You’ve attacked my “credibilty” as “zero”. So, I’m using sarcasm to attack your “credibility”. Fair is fair, right? Besides, given that your motive is to attack and discredit me–it’s at least a little ironic that your research into list of IRS “private companies” and your transcript of what I said on the Coast To Coast radio show, tend to support my hypothesis and my recollection of what was actually said and intended on C2C–my resort to sarcasm is almost irresistible. Given the facts of your “attack,” whipper-snapper, how could I not be sarcastic?

        As for your claim that “My purpose here is NOT to join you, and your ilk,” I think your lips say No, but your conduct says Yes. After all, you have helped me and “my ilk” by providing evidence that there are roughly 500 entities identified as “private companies” that are functioning as if they are part of the government. Your acts belie your words. You implicitly claim to despise me and my “ilk” as “fools,” and yet you contribute important research in support of our foolishness. Based on your contribution, you are a closet “right wing nut driveler”–just as I said my first reply.

        Welcome to Our Gang, Spanky!

        I look forward to your analysis of “Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On“. Please do “BREAK IT DOWN” for me. (Incidentally, that article was the single most-read article on this blog. In terms of popularity, no other article has come close.)

        By the way, do you suppose I could get a complete copy of your transcript of the C2C radio interview?

         
  23. Dan Willaims

    July 29, 2011 at 10:42 PM

    I do not know mr. Adask, have not even read what you are talking about, it is good that you brought some facts to the table, but, I would imagine he had good intentions and calling someone a right wing nut job, well, you just lost any credibility with me. I will call a murderer a murderer, and really lambast some people, but, right wing, left wing, we are all in this mess together, let us try to work for the common good. Together we stand, divided we fall.

     
    • TW

      July 29, 2011 at 11:22 PM

      And I will continue to debunk any right-wing-nut drivel that I encounter. Sorry if that offends all the Alex Jones types here, but it’s time for the rest of us to stand up and say enough is enough.

       
    • w.t.

      July 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM

      THis is a consistent pattern with Adasak, look into his history of putting forward inaccurate climate data which he pushed for years as a basis to deny climate change. When it comes to credibility there are few with less. Adasak,. in all your rallying against big corporations do you include multinational oil companies, and have you ever had work funded by them?

       
      • Adask

        July 31, 2011 at 4:16 AM

        Multi-nationals are the worst. I regularly rail against Global Free Trade and low tariffs on my radio shows.

        So far as I can recall, the only multi-national corporation to ever “fund” me was Peter S. Kiewit–one of the biggest multi-national construction firms in the world. I was working for them as a hard-rock miner in Colorado back in the 1970s. I think they “funded” me to the tune of about $5/hour.

        It’s interesting that someone writing under the name of “TW” has been criticizing me in last few days. He gave up and ran away. Now, I’m getting criticism from “w.t.”. TW criticized my “credibiility”. Now, “w.t.” criticized my credibility. Interesting coincidence, hmm?

        It gets better. TW’s email address included the phrase “sea.of.holes.005″. w.t.’s email address includes the phrase “seawolves1″. Another interesting coincidence, hmm?

        In fact, I don’t mind people criticizing my credibility. Regular listeners of my radio shows can attest that I regularly warn people “not to believe it because you hear it from me”. I’ve been issuing that warning for years. I don’t want anyone to automatically believe whatever I say. I don’t want that kind of credibility. All I want is for people to consider what I say or write. I don’t want my audience to believe; I want them to think.

        If you’re actually capable of reading and understanding the meanings of words, you should notice that I almost never tell people that a particular idea or statement is true. I habitually qualify my opinions with the words “if,” “appears,” and “may”. Thus, your recommendation that folks look into my “history of putting forward inaccurate climate data” strikes me as probably a lie. (“TW” liked to lie, too.) I could be mistaken, but I don’t recall writing more than one article that dealt with climate change. That’s hardly a “history“.

        I have a list of “categories” on the right side of my blog. These categories list the topics I’ve written about that I think are significant. If you scroll through the list, you’ll see that I don’t have a “category” for “climate” or “environment”. I do have a category for “Environmental Protection Agency,” but that’s for a focus on a governmental agency rather than environmental issues. My point is that, given that I have not yet added a “category” for “climate,” that’s more evidence that 1) I have no “history” of “putting forward inaccurate climate data”; and 2) you are a liar or fool–or perhaps both–and possibly a government stooge.

        Depending on whether “w.t.” and “TW” are the same anonymous person, I’ve had 3 or 4 different people suddenly criticizing me in the past few days. I’m flattered. Perhaps I’m finally having an impact on the gov-co. I don’t mind criticism, but I do mind lies and propaganda. I’m spending too much time answering your lies. From here on out, when I see someone lying on this blog, I won’t bother responding. I’ll just delete their comment.

        I have a question for you “TW”/”w.t.”: how the hell do the fascists plan to win the war of ideas that’s being waged on the internet with lamebrains like you who are too dumb to do anything but tell lies and sling insults? To win the war of ideas, you must be capable of dealing with ideas. You can’t. You guy(s) are really comical.

        Next time you want to disguise yourself, why don’t you get one of those sets of eyeglasses, funny nose and mustache?

        You guy(s) really is(are) incompetent.

        And y’know what else? I’ll bet that before it’s all over, you don’t collect on your government pension. All your lies and villainy, and no pension. Quelle dommage, hmm?

         
  24. Dan Willaims

    July 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM

    Thank you brother for all that you do, sincerely, you just got a compliment! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWoVAC9RG5Q

     
  25. TW

    July 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    My my, Mr Adask. You certainly make a lot of ASSumptions (please note the emphasis). There are so many things in your last post that I could address. But, unlike you, I will stick to the original issue.

    You continue on this IRS rant without checking any of the facts. You insist on muddying the waters by using Manta.com and D&B interchangeably, as if they are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    From the Manta.com FAQ page:
    ———-
    Where does Manta get its company data?

    The basic company information on Manta is collected by third-party publishers through multiple sources, including public company financials and trade records; public records such as business registrations and government registries, and direct phone calls to businesses. When a company profile is marked as claimed, the data has been provided by a representative of the company.
    ———-

    It is not D&B’s internet incarnation, and you damn well know it!

    You do nothing but play games with semantics to create doubt and confusion where none actually exists, spouting an endless stream of fecal matter. People like you are a scourge upon our country.

     
    • Adask

      July 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM

      Dear Whipper-Snapper,

      I’ve never said Manta.com and D&B were identical. Insofar as I’ve repeatedly referred to both entities, I’ve implicitly recognized that they are probably not one in the same. But what difference does it make if the two entities are separate or identical?

      The fact remains that one or more entities with considerably more credibility than I have, have described thousands of apparent offices of government (including 500 from the IRS, The White House, Congressional offices, and even courts) as “private companies”. These descriptions are either true or false. Insofar as Manta.com and/or D&B sell this information by wire and/or US mail, if the information is false, they would appear to have engaged in widespread mail and/or wire fraud.

      I don’t know what the truth of those descriptions is, and I have not claimed to know it in regard to his matter. But, insofar as it seems improbable that Manta.com and/or D&B would knowingly risk being charged with mail or wire fraud, until I see evidence to the contrary, I presume that Manta/D&B are telling the truth and those thousands of apparent governmental offices really are “private companies”.

      You, on the other hand, have ASSumed (please note the emphasis):

      1) that I was making false statements about our beloved IRS (Wrong. I was only reporting on allegations made by Manta.com and/or D&B);

      2) that I intentionally made false statements and was therefore lying (again, you were wrong–the statements you quoted in your “transcript” were true);

      3) that my “credibility” is “zero” (Wrong, again. My credibility isn’t really an issue. All I did was report that seemingly credible entities (Manta & D&B) had described thousands of apparent governmental offices as “private companies”. Your own research has independently verified my reports and also my “credibility”.)

      4) That my reports of IRS offices as “private companies” were “right wing nut drivel” (Wrong. It’s doubtful that these reports are “drivel” of any kind, but if they are, they’re the “corporate drivel” of Manta.com and D&B.)

      5) that your attack on me and other “right wing nuts” of my “ilk” was justified (Wrong. I’m just the messenger, or in this case, something like a journalist. If you had any intelligence and integrity, you wouldn’t be attacking me–you’d be attacking Manta.com and D&B. Let me know if you ever find the balls to attack them.)

      6) you assumed that you had sufficient intelligence and integrity to criticize me on this issue. Wrong. In fact, judging from your last comment, your entire attack has been largely reduced to ad hominem arguments that I’m a “fool” who “does nothing but play games with semantics to create doubt and confusion where none actually exists, spouting an endless stream of fecal matter. People like you are a scourge upon our country.” I think there’s plenty of confusion here–as to your intelligence and integrity. More, I think anyone who reads my blog or this exchange with you can see that I’m not “playing games” at all. Sure, I do some sarcasm and attempts at humor from time to time, but a close reading will reveal that I am deadly effing serious. If you ASSume I’m just a game-player, you’re a liar or a fool–and, of course, an “ASS” (please note the emphasis).

      7) And perhaps most importantly, you ASSumed (note the emphasis), that I’d let you off the hook with your ego intact. Wrong. It is my intent to illustrate that a) You are an intellectual lightweight; and b) you lack the integrity and courage to simply admit when you’re wrong. You don’t have the brains or the balls to be on this blog. I don’t say that as insult. I say it as a fact. I want you to understand that you are an intellectual incompetent and more than likely, you will never rise above that level.

      I regard you with amusement and some contempt–not because your intellect is weak–but because you lack the courage to admit you were wrong. A real intellectual is not defined by his brains, but rather by his balls. It takes courage to seek the truth. The reason is that, usually, the search for truth uncovers more mistakes or lies than truth. Usually, that search invokes your own passions and you commit to ideas that may later be found to be false (as may be the case with your opening attack on my “credibility”). When you discover a truth that contradicts your previous false assumptions, you’re called on to admit and relinquish those falsehoods. Most people can’t do that. Most people can’t really admit when they’re wrong. Most people are more concerned about defending their ego than discovering the truth. Therefore, most people will never really get close to the truth. You appear to fall into that category.

      I gave you a link to my article about Manta.com’s “private companies” at https://adask.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/somethin-funnys-goin-on/. If you read it, you have so far failed to “BREAK IT DOWN” for me. Why? Could it be that you found the article persuasive? Did the article cause you to get YOUR “facts straight” in way that contradicted your original assertions?

      On the other hand, maybe you haven’t read that article. But if so, why not? Think of all the “right wing nut drivel” you could find. Think of all the ammunition you could gather for your attack against me and others of my “ilk”. Didn’t you say something about your dedication to exposing “right wing nut drivel” and “Alex Jones types”. Was that just rhetoric, or do you have an obligation to “do your research” to “get your facts straight” to eliminate this “scourge from our country”?

      Judging from your most recent comment, it appears that your attack has been reduced to mostly name-calling and insults. If that’s all you’ve got, you’re beat, and you know it. Your original insults to my veracity and credibility were false–and you should know it. So, if all you’ve got left is more insults, it seems to me that if there’s a “12-year-old petulant child” in this exchange, it’s more likely to be you than me.

      Y’know when I first knew you were a lightweight? When I saw your first comment. You didn’t mind using my name to post your insults, but you didn’t use yours. You preferred to sling your insults from behind the veil of your “TW” and the anonymity of an email address. That’s not proof, but it’s good evidence that you’re a coward. Show me 100 men who sling insults without using their own names, and I’ll show you 98 cowards. It’s not always true that cowards never win–but it’s true about 98% of the time. I knew you’d lose this argument from the beginning because 1) you’re wrong; and 2) more importantly, you don’t have the balls to go the distance.

      You make me smirk, sonny-boy.

       
      • TW

        July 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

        I perused your blog and found it to be just another right-wing extremist/secessionist/survivalist/conspiracy crap-fest wrapped in delusional religious/god/jesus/yahweh/bible ramblings, with an unhealthy dose of guns/weapons thrown in for good measure. Nothing new, just the same old stale, fear-based arguments previously put forth by such lunatics as Jones/Savage/Limbaugh/Beck/Ingraham/Boortz/Hannity/Gallagher/Celente, etc.

        I’m not going to debate you any further. But, not because I’m a LIGHTWEIGHT. One thing I’ve learned in my 58 years (yeah, that’s right) is to never argue with anyone who is irrational, delusional, or a drunk. And you, sir, fit into at least two of those three categories.

        Buh-Bye!

         
    • SweaterCups40

      February 9, 2013 at 5:13 AM

      TW, YOU & wt FIT WELL WITH QUATLOOS MEMBERS.Tell me you don”t KNOW who QUATLOOS IS. TELL ME !!!

       
  26. Adask

    July 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM

    Either you’ve reached your conclusion after reading my whole blog, or you have reached that conclusion without reading my whole blog. If you mean to imply that you’ve read my whole blog, you lie. There are currently 572 posts on this blog and you visited for the first time less than 48 hours ago. There’s no way you could read it all and thereby make a reasonable judgment as to the overall content.

    On the other hand, if you haven’t read the whole blog, your conclusion that it’s “just another right-wing extremist/secessionist/survivalist/conspiracy crap-fest wrapped in delusional religious/god/jesus/yahweh/bible ramblings, with an unhealthy dose of guns/weapons thrown in for good measure” is based on your prejudice rather than an accurate assessment of the evidence and facts. For a man who insists that I “get my facts straight,” that seems hypocritical. I.e., you’re reaching a conclusion without getting the facts. In fact, your description sounds more like propaganda than a reasoned conclusion.

    Besides, you screwed up. You neglected to accuse me of “hate speech”.

    Do you think that your apparent aptitude for propaganda might diminish YOUR “credibility”?

    You can spit all the insults you like, but in the end, you have little or no facts to support your conclusions–only biased opinions issued from behind the anonymity of “TW”.

    I may fit into a bunch of categories that are less than flattering, but you fit into the category of coward. You are running away because, in the end, you have no way to defend your conclusions or your integrity but by slinging insults. You are weak.

    But I will give you this: Insofar as you compare me to “Jones/Savage/Limbaugh/Beck/Ingraham/Boortz/Hannity/Gallagher/Celente,” you may have intended that as an insult, but I regard it as pretty high praise. Just as your original “expose'” of my allegedly false claims concerning the IRS as a “private company” turned out to support my claims, your last alleged insult turns out to be something of a badge of honor.

    You write without knowledge. You don’t even understand what you’re writing and thereby open yoursefl to ridicule. You support when you intend to destroy. You praise when you intend to insult. You’re a buffoon . . . and a coward, of course.

    But you also imply that you have significant familiarity with “Jones/Savage/Limbaugh/Beck/Ingraham/Boortz/Hannity/Gallagher/Celente”. How and why do you find so much time to study those you disagree with? It’s like your having transcribed some or all of my interview on Coast to Coast. You seem to invest an unusual amount of effort investigating your perceived adversaries. Are you a fed? Are you paid to make these investigations? Are you paid to post your insults?

    If so, whoever is paying you is not getting their money’s worth. Your analyses are weak. Your insults are childish. As I wrote previously, you’re incompetent. Maybe you should be put back on guard duty or something sufficiently menial to suit your limited abilities.

    But if you’re convinced that you must run away from my humble blog, don’t let the door hit you in your cowardly ass on the way out. You won’t be missed. We’ll find something else in government to laugh at. And you can go look for flies to pull their wings off.

     
  27. TW

    July 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

    Just who the hell do you think you are, Adask? Your extremist website states that blogger-provided email addresses are not published, but yet you publish a significant portion of my address.

    Let me make this perfectly clear. You are in violation the T&C of your own website. You are in violation of my right to privacy. You are in violation of the law with your action.

    No doubt you think you are immune to the law, and you can run and hide from legal responsibilities under your Sovereign Citizen status, as you have in many times in your past (who’s really the coward?), while you do whatever you damn well please. Well, I’ve got news for you, Adask.

    Remove from your website any partial or full publication of my email address IMMEDIATELY, or face legal action. GOT IT???

    PS…I don’t know or care who “w.t.” is. Your latest rant proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are nothing more than one sick, paranoid, and demented individual.

     
    • Adask

      August 1, 2011 at 8:14 PM

      1. Who th’ hell do I think I am? I think I’m the guy who you’ve been libeling in your past several comments. I’m the guy who publishes his name and mailing address on this blog for the world to see.

      2. Who th’ hell do I think you are? I think you’re the guy who heretofore has persistently made libelous statements about me on this blog without revealing your name or address, or now, even your email address. I think you’re the coward who refuses to identify himself.

      3. I don’t know what you mean by “T&C” on my own website. It’s true that I don’t collect names and email addresses of people who visit my blog, but WordPress does collect email addresses–presumably as as means to identify and thus inhibit people who are inclined to make libelous statements without being identified and held accountable.

      3. I also think you’re the incompetent who thinks revealing part of your email address is some sort of an offense. How much of your email address am I allowed to use? 90%? 50%? 10%? For example, “sea” is part of your email address. Are you trying to argue that I can no longer use the word “sea” on my blog? How ’bout the word “of”–that’s also part of your email address. Do you own the rights to “of”? How ’bout the five periods (“.”) and one ampersand (“@”) in your email address–they are also “parts”–do you claim an exclusive right to use those characters? In fact, given that your complete email address consists of “sea.of.holes.005@wolleybus.plus.com,” would you please tell me which parts of your email address can be used and which parts cannot?

      4. Your email address (“sea.of.holes.005@wolleybus.plus.com”) is curious because when I did a search for “wolleybus.plus.com,” Google Chrome reported both times that it “could not find wolleybus.plus.com”.

      4. Insofar as you are using the internet to warn me that you may soon initiate “legal action” against me, I understand your most recent comment to be a threat sent by means of wire. I suspect that such threats may constitute evidence of “paper terrorism,” criminal acts or simple thuggery. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, I am publishing your complete email address to create evidence of who said what and when in the event that there is “legal action”.

      5. Despite your best efforts to “make this perfectly clear,” I don’t get it. I.e., are you trying to claim a “right to privacy” as a defense against being identified and held legally liable for committing public acts of libel against me on this blog? As you may know, I’m not a licensed attorney, but claiming a “right to privacy” as means to avoid accountability for committing public acts of libel strikes me as novel and quite creative (some might say “delusional”) legal theory. Do you suppose that others could commit criminal acts and then complain that the police violated their “right to privacy” by identifying them in the complaint or indictment? I.e., could I hold up a bank, and if caught, claim that by identifying me they violated my “right to privacy”? Could you please make your novel legal theory even more “perfectly clear”.

      6. Contrary to your assertion, I don’t think “I’m immune to the law”. I think I’m immune to some of the law. For example, insofar as I have no dealings in China or South Africa, I’m immune to the law of those countries. Similarly, insofar as I have no meaningful transactions within The State of New York or The State of Oregon, I’m also immune to their laws. Insofar as I work and act within the borders of The State of Texas, I am absolutely subject to the laws of that State of the Union–but I am not subject to the laws of “this state” as defined at Article 1.04.(d) of the Texas Penal Code. I am subject to all laws within The State of Texas; I am not subject to the laws of any territory.

      Thus, I don’t claim to be “immune to the law”.

      You, on the other hand, with your brilliant legal theory about your “right to privacy” seem to think that you should be immune to personal liability for committing acts of libel. Who do you think you are? A “sovereign”?

      7. Believe me, I do not do “whatever I please”. But I do, I do in the open. I declare my name and my location. I do not hide behind pseudonyms or anonymity. I make my name, my location, and my email address available to all. Thus, I at least have enough balls to take responsibility for whatever I say or do. You, on the other hand, demand a “right to privacy” to prevent the world from knowing who you are and holding your responsible for any libelous statements. You have been the coward in this exchange and, so long as you insist on anonymity, you will remain one.

      8. Of course, I’m inhibited (I might even be “terrified”) by your threat of “legal action”. But I can’t be sure whether you’ll actually follow through with that threat because, in order to sue me, you’ll have to identify yourself. Your name, your address, your occupation, your education level–some or all of that information would have to be revealed in order to file and/or prosecute a lawsuit. Given your previous reluctance to identify yourself, I’m not convinced that you’d risk filing a lawsuit if doing so meant exposing the “little man behind the curtain”. More, if you carried out your threat to sue me for violating your alleged “right to privacy,” it’s not impossible that I might counter-sue you for making libelous statements about me, in public, on my blog. Then it would be up to the jury as to whether I were guilty of violating your right to privacy by publishing part of your email address, or if you were guilty of having repeatedly made false, libelous statements about me.

      9. You may or may not know who “w.t.,” but describing my previous comment regarding “w.t” as a “rant” strikes me a false statement. Whether it is or is not a “rant” might be a fact-issue for a jury. Likewise, whether I am, as you claim, a “sick, paranoid and demented individual” should also be a fact-issue for a jury. Insofar as your allegations involve psychological evaluations, the jury might be interested to discover if you are licensed to practice medicine or psychiatry.

      10. In fact, when I think about it, unless you’re a licensed attorney, your claim that I am “in violation of the law with [my] action” may constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

      11. Given that you impress me as a coward and your threats of “legal action” are unpersuasive; and given that I don’t know who you are or where you live (you could be just down the block from my home); I am concerned that you might resort to physical acts of violence against me. I am therefore publishing your complete email address as an act of self-defense.

      12. Just in case you decide to sue, I hope you have a nice home. I would like to have a nice home, too.

       
      • J.M.

        March 23, 2014 at 2:54 AM

        Alfred,
        @ >12. Just in case you decide to sue, I hope you have a nice home. I would like to have a nice home, too.

        Me too!! Would you consider renting one of the rooms to me? In addition, I like to plant flowers, have a garden, etc. & keep it looking nice. If I should ever become a burden, I will move. I promise. Honest injun.

         
  28. TW

    August 2, 2011 at 4:20 AM

    Mr Adask, let’s address these points, shall we…
    (Note: “website” and “blog” refer to adask.com in this text)

    == Points 1 and 2 ==

    Interesting that you play the “libel” card, ONLY after you have illegally published my full email address against my strongly expressed wishes. So, a rather opinionated blog discussion on both sides is now libel, is it? Well, since you wish to go there, you should know the score, as it does work both ways. Examining our exchange, (plus your reply to “w.t”), you directed 65 unique insults toward me which I could construe as libelous. By contrast, I have directed only unique 15 insults your way. I suspect, from a legal point of view, it would be a moot point. Also, I have read several examples of other bloggers insulting you on your blog. Did you threaten any/all of them with libel, too? Have you sued any of them? Don’t you think playing the “libel” card might discourage future bloggers from expressing their opinions on your philosophy?

    == Points 3 and 3 (you have two listed) ==

    The “Email (required)” entry box in the “Leave a Reply” section of your blog specifically states “(Not published).” This is an explicit statement, under privacy laws, which constitues a binding Terms & Conditions (T&C) agreement that the email address provided will not be released to the public. You are legally bound to preserve that privacy.

    My email address is both my legal property, as well as my identity. By initially publishing the first part of my email address, you violated your legal obligation, and privacy laws. My explicit demand for you to “Remove from your website any partial or full publication of my email address IMMEDIATELY” was clear beyond any possible alternate interpretation, and fully within my rights to demand of you. Not only did you ignore my request to remove my partial email address, you willfully and deliberately published my full email address. You are liable for any expense and distress which I have incurred due to your action. Do you really think your playing with semantics with regard to the components of my email address stands up as a legitimate defense?

    == Points 4 and 4 (you have two listed) ==

    My email address has been in use for over 8 years. It is perfectly legitimate, and easily verifiable by sending a test email. Why you would question this?

    I was/am perfectly within my rights, and the law, to inform you of the legal remedies available should you fail to honor my legal demand. It was not a threat, it was information for your consideration.

    == Point 5 ==

    And I quote, “Remove from your website any partial or full publication of my email address IMMEDIATELY.” I fail to see how this statement could be made any clearer. Another play with semantics, please see Points 3 and 3 above.

    I’m curious, since you state you are not a licensed attorney, how were you able to get on the ballot for the Texas Supreme Court in 1992, when the Texas Constitution states:

    “No person shall be eligible to serve in the office of Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court [of the State of Texas] unless the person is licensed to practice law in this state and is, at the time of election, a citizen of the United States and of this state, and has attained the age of thirty-five years, and has been a practicing lawyer, or a lawyer and judge of a court of record together at least ten years.”

    == Point 6 ==

    I abide by all the laws of the United States of America. I am not a member of the Sovereign Citizen movement, although you have tried to associate me with your organization in two of your posts.

    == Point 7 ==

    Whether you go public, or remain anonymous, on your own blog is your decision, and has no bearing on your legal responsibilities to the privacy of guest bloggers when the wording on your blog explicitly states email addresses will not be published.

    By posting to the blog, I am legally granted anonymity to the public for as long as I wish to remain anonymous, because of the wording related to privacy displayed on your blog. You, as moderator of the blog, basically have three choices. You can engage me, as a blogger, by exchanging replies. Or, you can delete any or all my posts because you don’t like what I say. Or, you can ban me from posting to your blog at all. You DO NOT, under any circumstances, publish guest blogger email addresses without their permission.

    I find it extremely disingenuous that you chose to engage, and after four exchanges of insults on both sides, you want to claim “libel” as a defense for violating my right to privacy.

    == Point 8 ==

    All you had to do was honor my demand, which is fully within my legal right, to remove my partial email address from your blog, which is your legal obligation. Instead, you chose to escalate the situation, by publishing my full email address. If you are inhibited (or maybe terrified), it is your own doing. Please review Points 1 and 2 above.

    == Point 9 ==

    As I have already stated in my previous post, I do not know who “w.t.” is. I can’t help it if the word “rant” is a problem for you. But, when I see someone repeatedly respond to relatively short posts, whether they are mine or not, with a wall of text, scattered with 15 or more potentially libelous (since you’ve decided to play that card) insults, “rant” is the first word that comes to mind.

    And in my book, ANYONE that violates another person’s privacy without his/her consent is a sick, paranoid and demented individual, especially when it involves a completely unassociated third party as justification.

    == Point 10 ==

    Yet another play with semantics. My knowing about privacy laws, with regard to websites, does not constitute unauthorized practice of law.

    == Point 11 ==

    Given that I have not, in any way, made any kind of physical threat toward you; and given that I only provided you with information concerning legal remedies at my disposal for your failing to maintain the privacy, per your blog, of my email address; it was unwarranted and unreasonable to use a completely fabricated scenario as justification to publish my full email address without my permission, citing an act of self-defense. It is an invalid circular argument.

    Second notice: Remove from your website any partial or full publication of my email address IMMEDIATELY. I reserve the right to utilize all legal remedies at my disposal should you fail to do so. (Hopefully, this wording is less threatening to you.)

    == Point 12 ==

    While all I want is for you to observe your self-imposed privacy policy, and remove all references (both partial and complete) of my email address from your website, you seem to be drooling at the prospect of taking my home from me. Shall I consider that a threat, Mr Adask?

    …in closing, I would like to point out that your post, which is the reason for this response, contained 12 insults directed at me, which I I could construe as libelous. You will be hard-pressed to find any insults thrown your way in this post. Please let me know if you concur.

     
    • J.M.

      March 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM

      TW
      @ > I suspect, from a legal point of view, it would be a moot point.

      Well, shoot. Darn. Heavens to fun-z-boo.

       
  29. Duncan Phelps, gov. 51st e-state "of mind"

    August 21, 2011 at 6:54 PM

    Sorry to change the lengthy subject matter for all the “WT & TW” fans, but….
    Alfred, do you have any comment on my e-mail to Jesse Ventura, Adam Kokesh, James Madison, Mike of perfecteconomy.com, etc. and you regarding a non-paid Cabinet appointment?
    As sent to your e-mail yesterday (I had last communicated with you during your AntiShyster days; I recall you printed some of the writing, but kinda forget exactly, as those where better days, Ha HA!):

    I am considering running for The President of both the united States of America and the UNITED STATES. This decision is the result of having come to the conclusion that many of us cannot wait any longer for someone with a little old common sense to take this action in order to save a formally once great country.

    Yes, I have only a four (4)-step program to bring on the alternative. I wrote about this in the first three months of 2009 in my book, ‘ENSLAVEMENT 2011?’ For those who think this is a publicity stunt to sell books, I did not make available to the public my 2009 book until the summer of 2010 and then only as an e-book via lulu.com. (My first book from 2003 is still not available to the general public.)
    At that time, this was a five-step program, but since then I have simplified it to four for reasons that it was too complex for many politicians, news reporters, and others to grasp or repeat to others!
    It is not that I necessarily want to become President, it’s that we have no other real choice. Perhaps, someone more suited for the job will get what I say here and copy this idea and we all can make a genuine CHANGE.

    In order to not become mired in this present Order, this would necessitate a-write-in campaign. This would be the beginning a new (non) party. Shall we call it the “P” Party? “P” is for Patriot, or Productive, or The Producers, or piss-on-you. “P” is for ___? This will grow by word-of-mouth. The days of penalizing the productive while rewarding the non-producers may at last end. Many of the elite and The-Powers-That-Be/Were that have become splinters will have a chance to reform and end the destruction and fire-sale of this once great nation; which for no other negative reason than it has become so corrupted that we almost all (including the so-called “poor”) have joined in on and un-officially agreed, by action, it had to be destroyed from within. Time is 12:01. Well, now we can rebuild a new.

    So you do not have to purchase an e-book, here are the 4 steps:
    1.) End the FEDeral Reserve (this includes its brother the IRS). Bring back Constitutional (non-usury and debt-less JFK, Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson asset-based) dollars, once and for all.

    2.) Officially recognize the already present two-tier make-up of people in this nation: the civilian, and the citizen-slave.

    3.) End the War on Drugs. Set up programs that allow those hooked to register in programs that recognize them as ill of ease and being helped rather than made to join elements as criminals and the jailed. Decriminalize the growing of all varieties of hemp plants. This will be a boom for our agriculture and related products and businesses. (Drugs, illegal and legal, are the last remaining fuel in our PRESENT economy. This is really big. Why not be honest with this and deal with it?)

    4.) Make a complete change in our present educational system, which since the early 1970s, has become based on propaganda of a false-pride. A new method would be like our once military training where what is necessary is taught, and on-the-job training is a great part of one’s education. Example would be the rule, not enforcement of what to repeat-after-me. The citizen-group would have programs made available where they could join a demonstration-via-action group, which would allow them to learn to become civilians under their own freedom, [with] responsibility, and care. The War on both Freedom and those seeking self-responsibility would end.

    Oh, another thing, as at this time our nation is in financial difficulties, neither myself nor my appointments will receive a salary, only the basic expense account payments. In the last year or 2 in office, as our country begins a road to recovery, we will be allowed to accept from anonymous donators only what this President or respective receive in one year via taxes now forced from the public.

    Duncan Phelps, gov’nor 51st e-state “of Mind”

     
    • Adask

      August 21, 2011 at 9:19 PM

      I am also exploring the idea of a 3rd party. That party’s platform would be the “Declaration of Independence”.

       
      • Duncan Phelps, gov. 51st e-state "of mind"

        August 22, 2011 at 1:52 PM

        A successful alternative party would have to be one that is not confined by the rules set by the rule-makers (controllers-of-the-status). That is why I used the words “non-party,” or a ‘write-in-campaign’ of some kind. Recall what happened at the early Nevada Primary with Ron Paul last election. When the other Republican candidates realized that RP was winning [and since this was one of the 1st Primary’s = early wins carry forth to a continued momentum of wins], they simply walked out and the Nev.Prim was not counted [this was not reported on main-line news & few realize what happened = the rest of election was a fraud!].
        I cannot understand why Ron is repeating his last case/plan/election, except that he is not in it to win or make real CHANGE (simply make the sheeple think they have a non-FED choice)!
        The Tea Party is funded by large corporations, so is another excuse for a joke. Last November, Bill Clinton also stated this in one of his most truthful statements.

         
  30. roblorinov

    September 28, 2011 at 8:31 AM

    I’ve heard you on the Alex Jones show and seen you as well. You are more than a simple witness. You are a Soldier for Christ and the world needs many more just like you. Indeed what is going on in the world today is nothing short of spiritual warfare. We are locked in a battle against Lucifer and his minions and that battle is becoming very dangerous now. My hat goes off to you. Keep fighting the good fight.

     
    • Duncan Phelps, gov'nor 51st e-state of mind

      September 28, 2011 at 3:47 PM

      I awoke this morning to pen the below, and having received an e-mail post of your comment above, thought this might give a larger view of this most deeply “warfare” dilemma:

      ITS ALL ABOUT DEBT
      Its about debt. You hear it is all about the money. But money is merely a token to maintain an accounting system. It really only matters whether it is a debt or an asset. This is what counts.

      It is a balancing act… a question of balance. The Universe is a balancing act-ion with all heavenly bodies spinning and orbiting in harmony. If one gets out-of-phase, too slow or on borrowed time, this out-of-time body comes under the influence of another and its course or account is altered. A balance is thus maintained.
      One single person can upset a balance in this whole. The degree [of sin] determines relevancy [revelations].

      If you owe someone, you are indebted to them. You are beholden to them. They have that control over your life until you make the score even again, by fulfilling the contract. In effect, they own you, until your debt is repaid. The more the debt, the greater the risk you make it a life-time effort at paying back that debt. Make the debt large enough and they own any children to fulfill your debtor’s efforts.

      This is slavery at its bare tally. The owner is responsible for the slaves under their care. If they cannot care for their property, they must dispose of it. As they own it, it is entirely their determination of what the method of elimination may be.

      This is the cold hard facts of life… its short version. Thievery is much the same. Steal and you are beholden to that one(s).

      What is the end result of Obama-care under a mountain of endless national debt?

      The central banks are set-up to collect interest on the debt. The interest must come out of the money or tokens they had you print up. This makes you that much short of tokens because the extra, or over 100% of tokins, were never created, but come from the existing monetary pool. Therefore, more tokins must be borrowed when a shortage is realized. Over the decades, the interest on the debt grows until it becomes the greater share of the payments. This is perpetual debt. It is a mathematically impossible set-up to pay-back, and the reason God forbid usury.

      The owners of central banks and all their many underlings within the pecking order love this system, because it is a guarrentee that they never have to physically work and will eventually own everything and everybody. It is the ultimate control situation for that sort of freak. The day has arrived that this system has broken down due to its impossibly negative set-down inwhich the more work you do the deeper in debt you become, where upon the control freaks must despose of that which is not working any longer.

      This shutdown and bubble pop day is the result of The Many blood-suckers having been rewarded for getting the declining producers to go into debt by contracting “to have it all today” paid for by what they have not earned tomorrow, in effect living off borrowed [the Devil’s ursury] time. Add this: These time-payments contracts are enforced by The Regulators (including commercial ads, fads, codes, idol worship of a combination of stardom, an elite, the main-line media & intertainment industries) “to keep up with the Jones’.” The urging of addictive “habits,” drug usage, both legal & otherwise, are also vises that overlords use to entice debt compliancy and a growing dependency [on Suppliers: i.e., the Government, pushers, Regulators, medications, benefits & entitlements].

      With the unsustainable bubbles of growth having burst, no other nationals want to purchase slaves, so said slaves must be eliminated by some other means.

      Solution: An across-the-board declared bankruptcy inwhich a jubilee year is called, and an asset based monetary system is ALLOWED to operate with its natural cycles thereby replacing this current controlled and regulated-for-growth debt-based one.

       
    • J.M.

      March 23, 2014 at 3:01 AM

      roblorinov, you said to Alfred Adask,
      @ > You are a Soldier for Christ and the world needs many more just like you

      YOU TOO, roblorinov !!! What an uplifting message. MY HAT IS OFF TO YOU TOO !!!

       
  31. criminal defense rockland

    October 7, 2011 at 4:04 PM

    Heya i?m for the primary time here. I found this board and I to find It truly helpful & it helped me out a lot. I am hoping to offer something back and help others like you helped me.

     
  32. bubble shooter game

    October 28, 2011 at 1:50 AM

    excellent issues altogether, you simply gained a emblem new reader. What might you recommend in regards to your put up that you simply made some days in the past? Any positive?

     
  33. Animal rightists foster image of animal cruelty in Texas and other states

    November 3, 2011 at 12:57 AM

    Thanks a lot for sharing this with all folks you actually realize what you are talking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also visit my site =). We could have a hyperlink alternate agreement among us

     
  34. Roland

    November 3, 2011 at 9:20 PM

    Hi, heard you on the Alex Jones Radio Show today… Glad I was listening because I found your great site!
    Keep up the great work! You have a new follower:)

     
  35. disposable hand warmers

    November 9, 2011 at 9:33 PM

    I will right away grab your rss as I can’t in finding your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me realize in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.

     
    • Adask

      November 16, 2011 at 10:41 PM

      Tell the truth, I knew I had “subscribers” to this blog, but I had no idea how they subscribed. I had to do some research and ultimately discovered that I could add the “Follow Blog via Email” option to the top right side of my blog to help people subscribe. I’d added that option; I hope that answers your question.

       
  36. http://seo-backlinks.exoticasia.orghttp://millionaire.exoticasia.org

    December 15, 2011 at 2:58 PM

    Great .Now i can say thank you!
    cheap , , cheap , , ,

     
  37. temporary email

    December 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM

    I’m really impressed with your writing talents as neatly as with the format in your weblog. Is this a paid topic or did you modify it your self? Anyway stay up the nice high quality writing, it is uncommon to look a nice blog like this one nowadays..

     
    • Adask

      December 27, 2011 at 7:17 PM

      I receive a modest payment for articles (1 per week) that I publish in the International Forecaster. Those articles are reprinted on this blog. Other than that, this blog is published without any payment, contributions, or advertisement. If you look around, you’ll also see that I don’t sell anything on this blog. I won’t say that I never will sell anything by this blog, but I haven’t done so in the first five years of publishing. If people want to read what I publish, that’s great. If they don’t, that OK, too. But, whether anyone likes what I write, or believes my text to be idiotic–one thing is true: I’m not charging anyone anything for my ideas. I’m not selling books, or services, or seminars, etc. I make my ideas available for free in large measure because I don’t want anyone to suppose that I have some profit motive to bias my ideas. I may be mistaken about some of the ideas I advance, but I’m honest about those ideas to the best of my ability.

       
  38. trucs and cars

    January 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    You could definitely see your expertise in the work you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers such as you who aren’t afraid to mention how they believe. All the time go after your heart.

     
  39. Red Wood

    April 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

    I’ve been a reader for several months, and sincerely appreciate the careful, read-between-the-lines approach to much of what gov-co does and says…props to you Mr. Adask.
    Where you make me cringe and struggle is expecting me to go along with the big bearded god who speaks his will to us, that some people claim to ‘hear’ perfectly and want to tell us what that is. You fight for the common man in many of your entries, and you stand up for the kind of liberty that is quickly being taken away by gov-co and turning us into a police state… for that I will continue to thank you.
    While I need you to stay motivated and inspired, as you are an important man for our cause, religion is a toxic thread in your posts. Afterall when you need good people to do wicked things, you need religion. Religion has been fierce enemy to inquiry, to curiosity, and asking questions for thousands of years. I’m having trouble understanding how such a curious free thinking man can come across as so religious. Why must all important conversation and valuable discussion end up praising an invisible figure head? Trees have more god-like qualities … they produce food and fresh breathable air as two small examples. We’re paralyzed by fear in this country … you argue against possible fascists and dictator-like governments … yet the god of the bible is the original idea of dictatorship in the first place… you must fear that which you love, and love that which you fear.

     
    • Adask

      April 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

      My reason for including regular reference to the God of the Bible is that I’m not like most people who believe in God. Belief is based on hearsay. I might believe in Santa Claus because my mother told me about him. Most people who believe in God do so because other people have told them about God. I do not believe in God. I’ve seen his hand, twice. On one occasion He’s knocked me on my back. I know He exists. He is more real to me than most people can ever be.

      Belief is easy and fairly comfortable. I envy people who merely believe. Knowledge is far more difficult to bear and creates a personal liability that believers may not share. If we are called to a “judgment day,” those who merely believe in God may have some excuse for their sins (“How was I supposed to know? I didn’t know God was real.). I won’t have that excuse. I know that God is real, and that knowledge creates a personal liability that is on one level joyous and on another level not much fun. Based on my direct, personal experience, I know God exists and I therefore try show my respect for His existence in my writing.

      I do not claim to “hear perfectly” whatever God says. In fact, one of the most challenging things about my relationship to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym is that I do not get express “messages” so much as vague “inclinations” that I can only hope are roughly correct. I’m not told what to do. I think He wants me to write and communicate on radio–but I could be wrong. I’m guided only in a very vague sense and I seem to be obligated to kinda “figure it out” for myself. I am in a constant state of self-doubt. That self-doubt is part of the reason that my articles are, at least some times, written with a “careful, read-between-the-lines approach”.

      I know that many people reading about my claim to seen the hand of God will dismiss my claim as mistaken, laughable, fraudulent or evidence of mental illness. I don’t blame them one bit. I don’t mind. But wait until you see His hand. That knowledge will change your world in ways you can’t currently imagine and aren’t likely to enjoy. You’ll discover that what some describe as a “toxic thread” is merely a false belief based on hearsay and no more real than Santa Claus.

       
      • Red Wood

        April 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

        Mr. Adask, I thank you for an articulate reply. You have a continued reader in me.

         
    • SweaterCups40

      February 9, 2013 at 5:58 AM

      Red Wood,
      Re:Trees have more god-like qualities … they produce food and fresh breathable air as two small examples
      How did a Peach tree become a peach tree instead of an Apple tree ?.

       
  40. Lynne Duggan

    June 30, 2012 at 4:43 AM

    Good Morning Alfred,
    I googled “failure to state a claim” and found you. I am Pro Se, ill, and the opposing counsel is trying to throw my case out. I know I have only gotten this far because of my faith and the ephifanies I wake up with, like right now. Please help me this weekend to nail their ears to the wall. I listened to your video about “Man or Other Animals.”. Great stuff and so true. Please call me this Declaration of Independence weekend and help save my life. God bless you < ,
    Lynne Duggan
    903-818-2500

     
  41. HopsScotch

    July 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

    This law case in california is the stuff you are interested in.

     
  42. shofar

    November 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM

    Hi Adask
    As I meditated on your piece about Fiat Currency Sorcery, & the puzzle pieces for me are now coming together.

    Paul wrote the ‘love of money is the root of all evil’ 1Tim6:10! That is a very profound statement- not pleasure, not sex, not worldly goods, but the love of money is the root of All evil!

    And the people, also known as the FRB, who conjured up this sorcery has truly deceived the nations of the world! They made the US$ the world’s reserve currency, & then debasing the US$ with the printing of huge amounts of ‘paper money’, & now electronically with ‘digital money’, all with nothing solid backing them. Most of our monies are in digital form in our banking & checking accounts, & convertible to ‘paper money’, but still with no backing! One day soon, at the click of a switch, alas, the money will disappear like magic- through hyperinflation &/or an electronic run on the banks!

    With America’s Fiscal Cliff now on front & center stage in our nation’s affair, the only solution to ameliorate this problem is to ‘print more money’; ‘to monetize our debt’ with more debt, to the point that one day, alas like magic & by sorcery, our money will be worthless & disappear!

    Adask, when you think about it, it all began in the Garden of Eden, when Adam & Eve ate of the Satanic tree of the knowledge of good & evil Ge2:17, & became like gods, knowing good & evil Ge3:5. Then certain great men, the Illuminists with Satanic knowledge, created ‘paper fiat money’, deceived all the nations to accept them by their sorceries Re18:23, & will soon bring the world into subjugation under the AntiChrist when all paper money will collapse Re13:16-18.

    I am still digesting what you wrote, & I would appreciate your comments on what I have so stated!

    Thanks again for your very powerful, profound, provocative, & prophetic post! I praise God for what He has revealed to you, & now to us through you!

    In Christ,
    Drgold

     
    • Adask

      November 16, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      I generally agree with your remarks. I particularly agree that it all started back in the Garden of Eden since I’m increasingly convinced that we are engaged in a spiritual war that’s persisted since Adam and Eve. I am increasingly able and inclined to view the political and financial systems in spiritual terms. I don’t see “dollars and cents”. I see truth and lies. I no longer see numbers so much as values. I think I could learn more about the Federal Reserve by reading the Bible than I could by reading the Fed’s operations manual. My understanding isn’t perfect or complete, but it’s growing.

      And there’s no doubt in my mind that sometimes, the Good LORD lets me see.

      Thanks for your comments. Thanks for understanding the spiritual foundation for our “money”.

       
  43. foodstr2

    December 16, 2012 at 12:23 AM

    Well, Alfred, it appears I can’t neglect you for even a decade without you starting a blog so huge and wide-ranging that it would take me 2 lifetimes to comment on. Unfortunately, my time is too taken up with my Internet-Grocer.net business to be able to spend a lot of time here. (I’m sure it will only make you famouser!)

    God bless you, my Friend,

    Bruce

     
  44. withament

    January 10, 2013 at 6:16 AM

    I rose ever loving Hell regarding the Looting of Texas Banks and S&Ls …. The Texas AGs are Crooked Lying Bastards – NAZIS
    My Story an Excerpt ……. http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-march%2028%202012.mp3

    Subject: Targetted by FBI / DOJ Etc

    I am a 7th Generation American and have been Stalked and Harassed for many many years by DOJ/FBI/Secret Service and various Police Agencies. I have exposed HUGE Banking Corruption that the Government has been perpetrating for many DECADES.

    Judson Witham
    see … http://www.bing.com/search?q=Bank+Looting+Government+Corruption+Witham&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=bank+looting+government+corruption+witham&sc=0-36&sp=-1&sk= )

    I was a couple years back approached at a Computer Console in Wake County Library in Raleigh by a Private Security Director. I was merely using the Computer to write regarding legal matters and my personal works on Lawful Constitutional and Human Rights Matters. I was approached as I was quietly minding My own business. I was demanded to leave the Library and when outside I was threatened and Trespassed by Raleigh Police and the Wake County Library Library Security Director to Never Again use the Wake County Libraries. They OBVIOUSLY had been Monitoring My Writings as they REFUSED to advise Me of what I was being Accused Of. THEY REFUSED TO TELL ME WHAT I WAS BEING ACCUSED OF.

    I obtained the Police Radio and Intake Tapes on when the Police were called. They accused Me of Having a beard and They Couldn’t and Wouldn’t advise Me of what I was being accused of. I have been advised I will be arrested if I ever enter a Wake County Library ever again. The Wake County Security DIRECTOR that subjected Me to this is formerly US Army Intellgence

    Here is what they would have been Monitoring

    https://sites.google.com/site/thegreattexasbankjob/Home/speculation-bubbles-and-crashes-looting-101/fiat-money-notable-quotes

    https://sites.google.com/site/selfdefenseaprimerthelaw/

    [audio src="http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-march%2028%202012.mp3" /]

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Bank+Looting+Government+Corruption+Witham&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=bank+looting+government+corruption+witham&sc=0-36&sp=-1&sk=

    Would You Think Wake County’s Internet Monitoring was Unconstitutional AND My Being Assaulted, Threatened and Trespassed was Illegal ?

    Thank You

    Judson Witham

     
  45. SweaterCups40

    February 9, 2013 at 4:14 AM

    The following is an example of taking a written statement out of context & is a foul blow tactc,e.g.,” President Obama was born in Canada and is actually an Eskimo.” Al wrote those words, BUT, the first part of the sentence was left out.So Al DID NOT say, President Obama was born in Canada and is actually an Eskimo. HE SAID,You’ll have no more success calling me a fascist than you’d have trying to prove that President Obama was born in Canada and is actually an Eskimo.

     
  46. Cathy Baldwin

    March 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM

    Hello Mr. Adask, I am in agreement with you, I know too, I like it though. In the knowing is the wonderful beauty of the goodness and mercy of Father God. He tells us how to think, that is the ongoing key it seems. For myself it is the implanted word that is able to change me. You are so very inspiring. My earthly question is how are they able to suppress gold? Thank you, love to hear you talk. Cathy

     
    • Adask

      March 15, 2013 at 3:17 AM

      A standard “theme” or “trick” employed by the other side is to persuade people to believe that an image or illusion of something is the thing it is deemed to represent. For example, the “system” has taught billions of people around the world to believe that pieces of paper are “money” (assets) rather than an illusion and, in fact, a debt-instrument.

      Something like that has happened with the markets that trade gold. For the past decade the vast majority of the gold traded is not physical gold, but rather “paper gold” that is nothing more than “certificates”. The world has been duped into believing that “gold certificates” and physical gold are equivalent. The “system” has a monopoly on producing paper gold certificates. Like fiat currency, they can “spin” paper gold certificates out of thin air. As more and more paper gold certificates are traded on the markets, the price of paper gold certificates falls. Billions of people have been deceived into believing that the market prices for paper gold certificates reflect the true price of physical gold. By means of that deception and monopoly on printing more paper gold certificates, the system has been able to suppress the price of physical gold.

       
  47. foodstr2

    March 15, 2013 at 4:38 AM

    There *is* a currency (started 5 years ago in Europe, been in the States for 2 years) that is not only based on gold, it *is* gold. You can trade your paper ‘money’ for spendable gold bars in gram sizes. The gram gold bar is encased in a card that *looks* like a credit card.

    I’d often wondered what use a $1,700 one ounce gold bar or gold coin would be when the SHTF, if all you needed was some groceries or a tank of gas. (Who’s gonna make change?? and with what?)

    This solution is making inroads! In Europe, there are businesses that accept this currency as payment for goods and services. We’re a bit behind them as yet … but it’s well worth your time to watch this 4 minute video:

    http://tinyurl.com/gramgold

    Bruce
    foodstr2 @ gmail.com (remove spaces)
    http://www.internet-grocer.com

     
  48. Cathy Baldwin

    March 18, 2013 at 2:06 PM

    Mr. Adask, Thank you for answering my question regarding the suppression of gold. Paper gold would then be similar to the paper ‘instruments’ of real estate collapse? And, physical gold the only form to remain valuable. That just seems like common sense, but not too many seem to prefer that in this day. It is mysterious to me how so many otherwise financially sound and reasonable people just cannot seem to take gold and silver into their minds as actual money. Thank you so much and shalom. Cathy

     
  49. Cathy Baldwin

    March 27, 2013 at 2:11 AM

    Mr.Adask, Do you feel the events in Cyprus are as shaking as they seem? It appears that any funds that are reachable, ( IRA, savings, any form of money market, etc), connected to any bank or savings is just too risky. Safe deposit boxes also. No institution a place to have anything anymore. It is sad but seems to be a foregone conclusion, and shocking. How fast it has all changed from the traditions and standard beliefs of my adult life. Events seem super speeded up. I have a fascination with the financial realities of the past 6 years or so when it became, along with bible prophecy, just so relevant . It really does seem a time that you must take action. We are to be wise as serpents, not bumbling along surprised at the whole thing unfolding. I thank God I inherited actual gold in 2003, held it in my hand and therefore understood I could own it. So, it seems time to get ready. I am in the Pacific Northwest, and,grateful to be here.

     
    • Adask

      March 27, 2013 at 4:14 AM

      I pretty much explained my notions concerning Cyprus in my article “Confiscation to Supplant Inflation“. While I don’t claim to know what is going on in Cyprus, it seems certain that “something big” is happening because the adverse consequences (loss of confidence in bank deposits) is taking place globally. Unless “something big” was happening, the Cyprus Crisis should’ve been quashed early on. The facts that the Cyprus Crisis continues despite the adverse consequences indicates that the real motivation for that Crisis is something very significant. I can’t say that every bank account is currently
      threatened with confiscation, but Cyprus indicates that “sudden confiscation” can take place anywhere on the globe.

      Those who are concerned with the possibility of such confiscation should take some or all of their wealth out of bank accounts and convert it into something tangible that can’t be seized electronically. Gold and silver are two possible media for protecting your wealth against electronic confiscation.

      I am also recently located in the Pacific Northwest and glad to be here.

       
  50. Cathy Baldwin

    April 23, 2013 at 3:33 AM

    Mr.Adask, I have not looked at the gold or silver price since last week. Hard to avoid it but so far I really do not know the numbers. I am not very mature it seems, just cannot look at it just yet. How are you doing? Of course I know you have all the information but emotionally how are you seeing this in able to have peace within when it is like so much of what is happening in this present world, evil. The reality that these evil people can manipulate pure gold by their fraud and criminality is enough to move deep anger. Thinking gold and silver was out of their grasp was a very wonderful thought.

     
    • Adask

      April 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      None of the changes in the prices of gold and silver really disturbs me. I really do trust in the Good LORD. I can live with gold at $1,000 or $2,000–it’s all the same to me.

      But what galls me is that people in positions of power within the government–people who should be working for America’s best interests–are betraying our best interests and engaging in overt treason and no one seems able or inclined to stop them. Our government has become a criminal enterprise able to do as it pleases without accountability to the American people. That pisses me off. That infuriates me.

       
      • Cathy Baldwin

        April 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        Yes, thank you, I agree with everything you say. Hearing the truth is a comfort. Also have lately found that listening to ~~You Tube ‘BYU Going Home’ ~~ helps my understanding and takes fear or anger into a secondary place.

         
  51. Cathy Baldwin

    May 8, 2013 at 11:01 PM

    Dear Mr. Adask, Your hour today, with Robert S. Sales was just the best. You have such insight to deeper motives and realities. In talking about why people, even some committed Christians, just cannot seem to come to the truth about what should be easily understood, you put it into words quite well. Once a person just stood and recited verbatim to me ‘ Once for every man and nation’, by James Russell Lowell. It seems to say what you said today. Your experience with Almighty God, the one you alluded to today, is very intriguing. The fear of God is clean and endures forever. What a great gift and wonderful thing to truly have. Thank you for holding the line, and sharing. cathy

     
    • Adask

      May 8, 2013 at 11:23 PM

      Thanks for your compliments. And thanks for listening. I’ll forward a copy of your comments to Roger. I’m sure he’ll also be pleased.

       
  52. Adask

    May 9, 2013 at 2:39 PM

    What pisses me off is your passive-aggressive crap. What pisses me off is your attempt to act “surprised” that you’ve given offense. It’s not just in my mind, “Anon”. What did your buddy, “Les Fuchs” have to say? Didn’t he predict that both he and you would be bounced off this blog? He saw your insults and disrespect just as clearly as I did. And, now, rather than admit your screwups, you insist on playing the bewildered little boy who has “no idea” of whatever he might possibly have done to offend.

    I don’t believe you’re that stupid. You know damn well what you’ve written and what you’ve intended to say or imply. Yes, your mastery of words is sufficient where you can say things in a way that can offend by seeming implication rather than than by overt statement. You incorporate a measure of “plausible denial” into most of your statements. But you’re not fooling anyone. As I said, even “Les” had brains enough to see what you were doing.

    Even so, you don’t have the balls, the integrity or the honesty to simply admit. Instead, here you are again, lying with your claims of “bewilderment” over why I would take offense. You are, in your heart, a conniving liar.

    I find your tendency to lie especially interesting in light of your persistent debates about faith and religion. You know the Bible very well. Based on that knowledge, you seem to think of yourself as “holier than thou”. But your conduct suggests that you’re more dedicated to God with your lips than with your heart.

    And I am pissed because I bust ass trying to produce this blog. I have managed to move this blog into the top 1% of blogs globally. That’s not “big time,” but it’s no small feat, either. This blog is my “home” and I make it available to anyone who wants to come in the door for free. Even you apparently regard this blog with enough respect to be here every day–and yet you think you can treat me with disrespect. You take what I offer for free, and then treat me with contempt–and then you profess bewilderment over whatever you may have done to offend. You excuse yourself like a common bitch.

    You and “Les” behave like a couple of teenagers who’ve broken into someone’s house, spray-painted “dirty words” on the walls, pissed on the carpeting and crapped on the sofa. It’s all quite exhilarating to show your power and contempt for adults, isn’t it? Fine. Have your fun. But know that the adults have no obligation to put up with your crap.

    Like I’ve said previously, next time you think you’re so smart you can treat me with disrespect, start your own blog, write your own articles. Find your own audience. See if you can find even 50 people to read whatever you write on a regular basis. If you can ever attract your own audience, I might have to admit I’m wrong about you. But until you find your own audience, I will regard you only as “Anon4Fear”.

     
  53. umbra43

    May 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM

    Hello, I am new to your blog. I noticed you have been busy fighting the good fight with the IRS.

     
  54. Cathy Baldwin

    May 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    Dear Mr. Adask, Nine days ago you talked about the sovereign issue in more detail on Financial Survival. I finally understood what you were saying. It was very exciting, so much is happening that is exposing the tactics of those that live to oppose God and strive to create a world without Him and without His rules. How they are doing it is now becoming easier to understand. The past week and before has been more than a nail biter with gold. We have a gold dealer here who seems to be informative and genuine. His advice was good ten years ago and has been consistent since then it seems. Kevin Wolther- Coins Plus- in Spokane. He gets out his soap box and preaches on his radio program also. I read the earlier article and comments regarding the name of Jesus in another section of this blog . Now I understand the whacking the two above received. I really like your addressing of what is really going on.

     
    • Adask

      May 25, 2013 at 9:45 PM

      Thanks for listening to the radio show. Thanks for reading the blog. Thanks for understanding. It really does please me to hear from folks who are beginning to “get it”. Thanks.

       
  55. Cathy Baldwin

    June 20, 2013 at 2:46 AM

    Dear Mr Adask, Such truly good shows on Financial Survival, wonderful sense of humor too. I will keep listening~~~~~~~~~~. cathy

     
  56. DaveH

    July 2, 2013 at 11:22 PM

    the fugitive is gone , but alfred is here , i’d call the beet bunch what they are ,”a sack of shit”
    swaering is nessesary so says most sailors.

     
  57. DaveH

    July 2, 2013 at 11:29 PM

    Alfred i agree grudgingly with same sex marrage. With this said , i feel they shall NEVER be granded a deivorce. NEVER. till death do they part. they wanted what they got Now could they
    live /or die / with what i ask?..

     
    • Adask

      July 3, 2013 at 12:53 AM

      Having lived through 1.5 divorces, I know that divorce is a lot less fun than getting married. I can only laugh at the homosexuals who are so eager for government-licensed “marriage relationships,” and inevitably, divorce. “Til death do us part” is fairly easy and not too painful. “Til divorce do us part” is a s.o.b..

       
      • Cody

        November 22, 2013 at 1:09 AM

        I agree with your assessment, Al. I have told a few the same thing. “Civil” marriages are contracts. They are called “onerous” in community property states, as you may know.

         
  58. Bruce H.

    July 3, 2013 at 11:01 PM

    If anyone cares, anymore, about what God’s Word says re: homosexuality, the verses can be found here:
    http://www.internet-grocer.com/homosex.html

     
  59. Mladen

    November 5, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    I just finished reading a detailed explanation of ROMANS 13 which ties in well with a Biblical understanding of why the will of God is to remove ourselves from the artificial legal rule of man and man’s governments. The article can be found at the following link:
    http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/Romans13.html

    I hope that this helps other believers to understand how the secular (world) and Christian believers into accepting the pagan false beliefs of man and man’s governments.
    —– Mladen [ EMAIL: child52of144@hotmail.com ]

     
  60. Cody

    November 13, 2013 at 11:40 AM

    Hi Al,
    I thought you might find this interesting. I can’t find the cite for the statute 8 USC 349. I find that hilarious. It must be “private” international law.

    Cheers,
    Cody
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2013/11/12/tina-turner-formally-relinquishes-u-s-citizenship/?tid=pm_pop

     
  61. Cody

    November 19, 2013 at 12:52 AM

     
    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 19, 2013 at 1:44 AM

      That’s an amazingly detailed and insightful UK Daily Mail newspaper article exposing the complete corruption of the TBN false-Christian organization. I would not know where to start with respect to all of the un-Christian blasphemy and hypocrisy on the part of TBN and their principles listed in the article. They work completely against God according to Matthew 6:24 and they totally serve mammon (profit, gain). All this when Christ Jesus did not even have a place to rest his head at night during his travels. And, the false-Christian hypocrites of TBN claim they need a jet? Wow!

       
  62. Cody

    December 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM

    Al,
    I thought you might find this encouraging.
    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/12/04/the-hit-dog-hollers/

     
    • Adask

      December 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM

      Yes, the stench of judicial corruptions has grown so foul, so overpowering that even some of the judges can’t stand it anymore.

       
  63. draculaagainstnwo

    April 19, 2014 at 10:06 PM

    i am listening u on avr1
    now then i dont know if you are answering anymore quesitons since the last is dated dec 5th 2013

    now then i am in some bs trouble by city who and their international maintenance code down here in lea countynm the county seat seems they have bought into a lie and the code enforcer who is freaking female and the city magestrate is an old crone hag who is i remember is not a judge but bleeping cowsow who has a death wish or something is older than i am by 25 years and a cathilic sort of reminds me of a diane fiendstein a control freak i didnt vote in as well as the code was put in by criminals who violated the 10th amendment there jurisprudence is from hell
    i am not a legal beagle took the business law in 1988 =1989
    out of the blacks business law at a colege i took these class i dont chose to follow the facist dictates either what trial none she it dectated to me that is not legal anything it violates common law that my ancestors fought for and they forced king john to bow down to them but i am of a family that is higher up than toad boy in the white house i am of the family who is called daviid the lion judah he would execute judgement on these toads they told me that i had to sell my trucks in my drive way because they said so no i dont comply i dont mind pay a ticket but this no fx way
    as you notice my id photo is of a gaelic head hunter
    oh yeah a gold frnged black robed thug who is a defacto criminal who tells people there truth not our truth from the creator he made us be free not some baal bitch witch who is like jezilbel who was tossed out of the windows and was fed on by the city dogs of the street
    the name for this witch is barbara campbell a elected flunky in a city magestrate pig office
    who as i feel has a demon following her around a grim reaper these creatures always have them admistrative law judge who is not about anylaw but color of law using deceptive manipualtion of our rights using the garbage that is used to paid said trash in i am not into placating their hoqwash or use the term bovine scattology

     
  64. pak4l

    August 3, 2014 at 8:15 PM

    My new favorite blog. Amazing what a simple google search turns up.

     
  65. bornscorpion

    September 3, 2014 at 5:19 AM

    You sir, are brilliant! In short, I’m a soul searching information junkie with a penchant for esoteric knowledge…so, I guess it’s no coincidence I stumbled across your blog today. I read the post, “The Longest Standing Problem in Astro-Physics” and appreciated your take on “dark matter” as it relates to God and the origins of the universe. Hope you don’t mind but I re-posted it (with all due credit) on my blog Bornscorpion’s Catharsis. From on blogger to another, thanks for adding great content to the web and I look forward to reading upcoming posts!

     
  66. Tristian

    November 13, 2014 at 2:34 PM

    Would you please give me some advice sir?? I am the father of two children and I have been injured on the job. Well I lost my license due to this situation. I was pulled over and given a driving without a license ticket and speeding ticket. The total for those two is nearly $500!! I have no way to pay this. From what I understand or heard rather, is that there’s a thing called the “right to travel”. Is there anyway you could PLEASE point me in the right direction on finding the truth in this matter as well as a possible resolution to my current problem. I would greatly appreciate any and all advice or direction you could provide in this matter .
    Thank you again,
    Tristian A.

     
    • Adask

      November 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM

      I’m not current on traffic court defenses. Further, you sound as if you are completely new to the idea of defending yourself in court. There are no silver bullets. You have study, learn and find the nerve to talk in court. Given the implications of your comment, I’d say you need to look for an attorney to defend you or cut a deal with the court.

       
  67. hogorina1

    January 21, 2015 at 7:10 PM

    HOGORINA REBUFFS ISRAELI BUFFOON

    Hold on: there are two Israels on the land of America. One as tied to the
    Israeli sat up in 1948.The LDS church in Utah proclaims to be Israel. We
    have a toss-up here. You were born into one and i was not. Within 100 years
    after Christ died all the apostles had passed away.
    With no one in authority, the church collapsed. The Catholic church says
    they are built upon the rock of Peter. This is fraudulent, because that
    church had no divine authority to preach in the name of God. Yes, you have
    members in both religions being humbugged, as to your Israel and misled
    nerds; the other.
    In Fact, Netanyahu has come out and proclaimed just as previously stated,
    that it made no difference as to the khazar people of Eastern Europe coming
    to your Israel, as long as they stand for the republic of Israel. This is
    politically humbugging and nothing else.

    Remember, i was speaking of Abraham’s tribe, or people, not about your
    personal perceptions, as to what is right or wrong. In the old Testament,
    God perpetually condemned His Israel as whore mongering after various alien
    gods. You cannot change this.
    Intelligent people never get mad but do get angry. Angry i do get. Christ
    has no part within your closed society. He was born in Bethlehem as a
    citizen in palestine, but he was in the royal lineage of Shem, Jacob’s
    Israel. It is substantiated that ancient Esau’s generations delved in
    Jerusalem, Intermarrying into pure-lineage Israelites. Why doesn’t
    netanyahu tolerate this further, Arabs. first cousins.
    I do abhor my own race of people for standing back and using the churches
    as a front, while their children were used as a pawn in the hands of
    Eastern world Asian fundamentalism’s religious perceptions importing their
    gods as a tool to destroy Western civilization. Your Israel used NATO as a
    tool against Putin of Russia in an aftermath of the Crimean affair. NATO is
    a political beachhead of supportive imperialism, operating under the
    influence of Rothschild monetary industries. Russian Bombers are right now
    zeroing in on America within a 50 mile off shore free international ocean
    zone.
    If i were you, you could do your Israel a great service in letting your
    colleagues know that Putin has no use for Israeli or American political
    gangsterism. In essence, pray to your god that the Arabs remain in limbo,
    for they are your first cousins back to Abraham. Putin is an intelligent
    and dangerous individual. He once headed the Russian KGB

     
  68. Oliver Patrick Medaris

    February 18, 2015 at 6:22 PM

    I feel that you are a blessing. I’m toying with the idea that all these capitalized documents of legal fictions are creating a legal fictional person that takes my place in the eyes of God and that civil death is the best course for a living man created in God image to strive for. What would life be like if I can volunteer for civil death?

     
    • Adask

      February 18, 2015 at 7:18 PM

      I doubt that the civil death of the fiction you’re talking about would make much difference. So far as I can see, the court does not presume that you are the fiction. The court presumes that 1) you represent the fiction; and later, 2) you have voluntarily assumed the role of surety for the fiction. The fiction cannot appear in court unless someone represents it. I believe you are presumed to represent the fiction and you have thereby caused the fiction to appear in court. If so, and if you can break that presumption, the court may be screwed. Who will represent the fiction? Some lawyer? Could be, but who (besides you) can represent the fiction for the purpose of finding a lawyer to also represent the fiction? I believe that you can defeat the presumption that you represent the fiction by adding the qualifier “at arm’s length” to all of your signatures. Defeating the presumption that you are also the surety for the fiction can probably be defeated by a sworn affidavit wherein you deny that you’ve voluntarily assumed the role of surety for anyone or anything, and declared that the only way you might become a surety in the future is to expressly declare under oath in an affidavit witnessed by a notary or several witnesses that you have will agree to act as surety only if you do so in writing in in an affidavit that’s properly witnessed.

       
  69. hogorina1

    February 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM

    AMERICA HAS BECOME 0NE ALIEN METROPOLITAN SEWER
    WOW! an international syndicate of social engineering finantial racketeers have finally accomplished a natural and long depressed disposition to drag the civilization of our Republic into the corrupted fangs of an international octopus, slivering amongst pre-bought presidential panhandlers, scheming behind an inbred psycologically self-implanted nature, in concealing just what money is and its origin. Theoretically, currency expressed through paper, silver or coupons, credit cards or gold is worthess, other than commercial use. However, for thousands of years gold was the most precious in controlling various nations and societies. In fact. the power of currency as to fueling the movement of goods and services world-wide is unique in that world nations can be controlled through financial marketeers, of whom collaborate with the some what newly established International Monetary Fund, in conniving various international exchange rates weekly, sit, in pricing gold, as professional swindlers, by being governed by several financial agents, being subjected to agents of the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve.
    This vast one-eyed banktster cooporation keeps helpless nations in prevailing poverty via the interest ( USURY ) or ( INTEREST ) form of vice. These professional loan sharks, through cashiering productive states, plunder and rob unconsciously,with an absolute artificial conterfeit species. America is being crucified upon a literal cross of ( GOLD ). These certifed ibarbarians of lusting on other’s labors holds nations in financial bondage. Of course, our Republic is now run on ( FIAT ) money.
    Reiterating that fiat moneys have no precious metal value at all, the conclusion demonstarts American Primarily, the globe’s gold supply, over all, rests in bens at Fort Knox, KN. Gold backs up the American and British empire, in renting out their military deployment world wide. All countries accept goods and services in trading with various nations. Fiat moneys originated with our Congress and Britain’s Parliament. Gold is being hoarded in both America and England via the Rothschild banking networks. Together, both civi-lized nations have turned to imperialism. Rothschild is a psuedo paternal name. For sure, these collective revenue scavengers consider the above average individual, not in the house of their blood-sucking covey. to be nothing less that ( cattle ). In cahoots with these consciouslesness fin- nanciers ( usurers ), all America is driven like one vast horde of wild animals under stress, to pay through the interest system, Organized usury.The banking system originated to control progressive civilizations through specific self-serving sycophants, in the field of political whoredom.
    Still, we are unable to establish when gold took over the ancient bartering nations of past millennials. But it is obvious ( FIAT ) moneys must be backed up. IT IS ! because citizens own homes and other property. Believe it or not, your fixed and fluid wealth is being stolen through outrageous taxation. This ownership is stolen from criminal taxation. It doesn’t take a robber to take property dishonestly, for tax collections are running them out of business. Any nation not falling in line with fiat currency is invaded and starved into submission. America has become a sewer for the globe’s humanoidistic revolutionary driftwood and from the pale of eastern Europe. The banking intelligencia brings up the rear, in formating ethenic dissenion and community solvency, through control of all and any press, or news outlet. We might say that the gold owners are forerunners of universal Bolshevism.
    This ancient psudo religious movement basis its determonation to sit up a so called ONE WORLD government. In essence, gold is only a means to an end. Absolutely, money lenders correlate metropolitics as the gaul in financial entrenchment, in setting up the so-called city and county manager organzation. Here citizens are merely mobs, ( CATTLE ), in the hands of socializing specific areas of America, in furthering incipient socialism, by bringing into poverty well established middle-class productive elements via taxes, with inflationary funds to keep such subserviants to gradually drag any elevated class into a state that has ties to international finance.
    The unlawful to tax is the power to destroy a nation. Gleening back into the latter eighteen hundreds, we discover that the globe’s chief banksters met in Vienna, Austria. Here these agents of universal finance of global significance decided to bring Europe under the scope, in buying up France, Germany, the Netherlands and colonial assets of the British empire, in congealing the world’s gold supply.This gang brought America under its wings in the latter eighteen hundreds. And today, over taxed Americans have their heads in the ground, by supporting usury in a mad rush to finally wind up in a future that heralds a home-made guillotine.

     
  70. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    April 10, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    Al thought you might like this lesson from the Supreme Court. This is how law is made.

    Some “Teachable” First Amendment Moments in the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument About Confederate Flags on Texas License Plates

    0

    inShare

    License PlateIn today’s column, I analyze the Supreme Court oral argument held a few weeks ago in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, a case involving the First Amendment and Texas’s regulation of license plates. Motor vehicles registered in the State of Texas must display a state-sanctioned license plate. Most vehicles use a standard-issue Texas plate that has a simple no-frills design and displays a random series of letters and numbers. Texas, like many other states, also permits individuals to submit personalized, or vanity, plates in which the numbers and letters on the plate form a message (such as “HOTSTUFF,” a hypothetical example Justice Scalia used at oral argument).

    In addition, Texas permits what are called “specialty” license plates, in which the overall design of the plate (but not the sequence of numbers and letters), is custom-made and might contain symbols, colors and other visual matter that is more elaborate than the relatively plain design of the standard-issue plates. Specialty designs may be adopted by the Texas legislature or proposed by private individuals or organizations. Specialty plate designs that come from outside the legislature must be approved (as must personalized vanity plates) by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and the Board by law “may refuse to create a new specialty license plate if the design might be offensive to any member of the public” (a term that Texas authorities construe as meaning offensive to a significant segment of the public.) At least some specialized designs, once approved, can be used by members of the general public. As of a month ago, there were about 450 specialty designs that had been approved in Texas, around 250 of which are usable by the public. Although the majority of license plates in Texas are the plain-vanilla non-specialty plates, it is not uncommon on the Texas roadways to see license plates that make use of one of the approved specialty designs.

    Applicants who seek approval of specialized plate designs must pay thousands of dollars to have their designs considered, and people who use the already approved designs pay for the privilege, the proceeds going to various state agencies.

    The Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the memory and reputation of Confederate soldiers. SCV applied for a specialty license plate that featured the SCV logo, “which is a Confederate battle flag framed on all four sides by the words ‘Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896.’”

    When this design was rejected by the Motor Vehicles Board (one of only a dozen or so designs that have been rejected), SCV sued, arguing (successfully in the lower court) that the State’s decision to reject the design on the ground that the content of the design—in particular, the depiction of the Confederate flag—might be offensive to some observers constituted impermissible content- or viewpoint-based regulation of expressive activity insofar as the specialty license plate, while State property, is akin to a forum for speech that the government has created and opened up to people to use to express themselves. Texas, for its part, argues that because the State owns all license plates, and because the State of Texas name appears on all plates, including specialty plates, any expression on license plates constitutes “government speech” or at the very least a hybrid of government speech and private speech. Because the government is a (if not the) speaker in this setting, Texas argues, it necessarily has the authority to accept and reject whichever messages it chooses.

    The case raises many fascinating and complex constitutional issues—far too many to meaningfully address in a single column. But in the space below, I use three particular kinds of questions that Justices asked at oral argument to illuminate important and often misunderstood aspects of First Amendment doctrine.

    Less Can Be More (Important) Under the First Amendment

    Let us first consider Justice Kennedy’s questioning of the SCV lawyer. One of the things Justice Kennedy pointed out is that if Texas is not permitted to exclude Confederate flags (or Swastikas, or other potentially objectionable material) from license plates, it will almost certainly choose to abandon the specialty (and also the vanity) license plate design program altogether, and simply use old-fashioned, plain vanilla license plates. The result, said Justice Kennedy, is that we would end up with less, rather than more, speech, because individual expression that is currently taking place on specialty or vanity plates would no longer be permitted, and people would be forced to resort to things like bumper stickers, which they may not like or make use of as much as specialty plates. “If you prevail,” Justice Kennedy asked SCV’s lawyer, “you are going to prevent a lot of Texans from conveying a message. . . . So in a way, your argument curtails speech?”

    Justice Kennedy’s question is actually a profound but rarely explored one, in that the First Amendment’s aversion to content- and viewpoint-based laws may indeed sometimes lead government to enact content-neutral counterpart laws that, quantitatively speaking, restrict far more speech. For example, a law that says “no pro-life rallies in the park after 6pm” is clearly unconstitutional, because it regulates speech on a matter of public concern in a traditional public forum in a viewpoint-based way. But if such a law is replaced with a law (that very well might be upheld) that simply prohibits all rallies in the park after 6pm—a so-called content-neutral regulation of time, place or manner—the result could be an even greater overall reduction in speech.

    Of course, it is possible that by forcing government to regulate in a content-neutral way, we may actually make it harder for government to regulate speech at all, so that the end result could actually be an increase in the aggregate level of speech. In the example I gave above, perhaps it would politically difficult to pass a law prohibiting all rallies in the park after 6pm (because many kinds of groups may want to hold rallies, and overcoming the political opposition of all of these groups—as opposed to the merely the pro-life advocates—may not be feasible). If that is true, then striking down the law prohibiting pro-life rallies after 6pm will, in fact, increase rather than reduce the amount of speech.

    But oftentimes (as in the SCV case) striking down a law on First Amendment grounds may in fact lead to less speech, but it still can be the right constitutional thing to do. The fact that sometimes we invalidate laws in ways that will create less speech overall tells us that maximizing the aggregate quantum of private speech is not the only thing the First Amendment is concerned with. Preventing the government from distorting the debate, by disabling some points of view, or by locking in majoritarian preferences (as is often the case when “offensive” speech is disfavored) is also an important objective. So too is making individuals feel that government respects them and does not act paternalistically and treat them the way parents treat children by telling them what topics they should be focusing on.

    What’s Good for the Goose. . . .

    A second line of questioning of SCV’s lawyer, this time by Justice Sotomayor, concerned whether the State should be given the same kind of free speech respect as individuals enjoy. Justice Sotomayor pointed out that that in the Court’s most famous license-plate case to date, Wooley v. Maynard, the majority struck down a requirement that New Hampshire drivers make use of a state-issued license plate bearing the State’s message “Live Free or Die.” Justice Sotomayor then asked: “In Wooley we said we can’t compel the individual[s] to put something on their plates that they disagree with . . . Why isn’t the reverse true for the government [if it doesn’t want to be associated with the Confederate flag]?”

    Justice Sotomayor’s symmetry instinct (which assumed arguendo that the Texas specialty license plate regime represents at least a hybrid of government and private speech) is very interesting but ultimately unpersuasive, to me at least. There are lots of constitutional rules that protect individuals that do not protect government in a symmetrical way. For example, a criminal defendant is entitled to have access to all exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession, but the government is not entitled to all incriminating evidence in the defendant’s possession, even though both sides are trying equally hard to prove their case.

    I think there is asymmetry here as well. Even though the government can operate as a speaker, it is not a specific beneficiary of the First Amendment, and certainly shouldn’t enjoy all the same First Amendment protections individuals (like the individuals who litigated in Wooley) do. Ultimately, the reasons the drivers in Wooley could not be forced to bear the State’s message were rooted in individual dignity and autonomy aspects of the First Amendment. Institutional and organizational actors, as opposed to individuals, can be forced to be a vehicle for government messages and are relegated to engaging in counter-speech as a way of distancing themselves from any government message they don’t like. This was true in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), a case last decade that upheld (9-0) a federal law that required law schools to allow military recruiters onto campus facilities to recruit students, notwithstanding the law schools’ opposition to the then-existing policy of the military to discriminate against gays and lesbians (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”). Like law schools, the State of Texas does not have the same kind of dignity and autonomy attributes that individual motorists have, and so (even granting that Texas has the authority to act as a speaker) requiring Texas to live with the private message on specialty plates and disclaim any endorsement of the message or design on a specialty plate by adding something like “Views on this license plate do not reflect the views of the State” does not violate the Constitution the same way requiring individuals to promulgate such disclaimers would.

    The Relevance (or Not?) of a Profit Motive

    A third interesting exchange involved the overridingly important question of whether the specialty plates can properly be thought of as pure (or at least hybrid) government speech at all. The State’s lawyer argued that the fact that the government has retained the right to veto all specialty designs from the get-go makes this a government speech case, but that factor standing alone surely cannot be dispositive. If a public airport withheld for itself the power to ban any leaflets whose message it found unattractive, that would not justify its excluding leaflets in favor of affirmative action while permitting leaflets against it. Control is, as many Justices pointed out, a circular kind of argument about government power. Deciding what is and is not government speech is much more complicated than that.

    One potential factor was mentioned by Chief Justice Roberts a few times, and that is the profit motive by the State. Why, he asked, should we view these specialty plates as government expression at all when government’s real goal here was not to raise awareness (about anything) but to raise money? This, too, is an interesting instinct. As with Justice Sotomayor’s question, if we analogize to private individual speech, the government fares better; the fact that a private individual or corporation is motivated by a desire to make a profit does not make his/its expression any less constitutionally valuable: the New York Times newspaper represents classic First Amendment speech even though it is published in order to make money.

    But as was true for Justice Sotomayor’s symmetry argument, here too I am not sure we should treat the government the same as individuals. It does seem a bit untoward that the State would raise revenue by charging people thousands of dollars for the privilege of submitting license plate designs, and then reject those whose content it doesn’t like. The idea that the State was (mis)using the specialty-design applicants, and the moneys they paid, for its own monetary gain was one of the most sympathetic aspects of the SCV’s case, which was otherwise not very sympathetic given that the Confederate flag has historically been tightly associated with slavery and insurrection (not to mention the fact that SCV’s lawyer took the position that the State could not, consistent with the First Amendment, reject designs with swastikas on them.)

    The opinions that emerge from this case in the coming months could be very interesting.

     
  71. Alvin Francis Jardine III

    May 13, 2015 at 1:55 AM

    I’m not moved. I know evil folks who represent the evil ghost called “STATE OF HAWAII”..Matt levie has a utube page and look for”The Hawaii innocence project “. I was imprissoned and sent to Hell and came back to tell the story….and still the powers that be continue ,at every opportunity ,to plot evil against me. And I don’t know how to deal with the many challenges I face.

     
  72. hogorina1

    May 13, 2015 at 9:53 AM

    Great Man,
    You are one of a kind. It’s too bad that you have a heart of gold in trying to help your fellow man. I am of little formal education and rather off to my-self.God knows your heart–that is all that matters. We have a pack of dirty-bastards in the legal system in creating a chaldron of hell on earth for the children. I hope that you will be able to rebuke Satan’s gang that sits on the Supreme Court bench. You are a voice in the wilderness. If need a small contribution i’ll send one. Just let me know. Incidentally, I was kicked off your site long ago. I do know that your God will not let you down. Stand-tall and fight the legalized bastards that literally rob and loot the poor. may God bless you when you stand alone.

     
  73. hogorina1

    October 5, 2015 at 8:15 AM

    THE VALOR OF INDIFFERENCE
    Our United States Republic has politically deviated into the universal web of imperialism . Nationalism has been leveled into a corpse of petrified nihilism. Pseudo Democracy has yielded up to a treasonous politically gerrymandered
    religious / political machine, as pallbearers for a deceased confederated fifty state regimentation of mandated mental cripples awaiting a holocaust of multi-cultural variations and tribal identity, creating collectivised socially incapacitated ballot-box slaves of politically rustled humanity. This fifty state dependency has been up rooted under British admiralty law and the Bank of England. As a mere dependency through the City of London, the global house of Rothschild’s wealth designs the death knell for America to become a second rate world power, while our Congress is a mindless shiftless organ of lackadaisical pedalers of liberal and conduit of fraudulent lapdogs. The present gangrene of national administration snails in the direction of a coiled viper and a purported poison and animated rule fitfully calcified awaiting the death knell of a once free Republic. It is a matter of time before America becomes a fortified police state in the hands of a world government, being deified as future humanity’s globalized mannequins of socially processed beings making up psychological engineered souls of mental degeneracy. The powers that be are molding useful drones into a one state religion. This anti-driven piston rests its laurels upon Constitutional fractionalism.
    This specific incipient cancer is the watch tower over politically galvanized pseudo democracy that has brought the professions and science as mandated tools of under the wings of Marxian economics and the fallacy of social suicide. Mental slavery through the process of psychic degeneration has preempted social engineering via pre-conceived implanted psychedelics for schooled therapeutics
    of brain-twisting recognizance of state machinery. This hellish lamp post is dimmed towards unsuspecting intelligences becoming zombies in thought and irregular in sophisticated insight. Thus the mind becomes a stolid organ of state dependency, emotionally disturbed, being led into a new world order.

    For once in American history, the pentalum wind-bags lined up as Congressional gas bags have betrayed this nation, not country, into hands of
    alien spiritual philosophies of Asian and Oriental cultural infinities counter to western civilization. The actual looting of Third World nations as colonies of greater Britain with gun powder and shell became victims of parliamentarian gangsterism in alliance with Wall Street hustlers and illicit investors as in-grouped with the universal Rothschilds banking syndicate. As noted: nations were sold out, not countries. A country consists of a geographical chunk of rock with set boundaries. Wherein a nation consists of humanity endowed with flesh, blood and souls. To plunder a country for its oil and minerals is the utmost gain. In back of all this is the explicit drive of British and American ambition is to enforce through pseudo democracy a counterfeit social structure, being shielded by inhuman anti social political gangsterism, as a front for an insidious nation of plunderers of global humanity, ( souls ) and their inherent right to exist as a free people on this earth. Corralled of all productive wealth; to be plundered spiritually, as under a wicked tribe of sub-human ghouls creating as a one-way hell on earth. The word humanity is no match for this lower order of mankind that have crawled forth from the mud-flats and slime pits as an amoeba hatched from earthly sewers around the globe. Contemporary descendants of such lower cannibalistic parasitism are now seated in the highest realm of national government. This is a dangerous gang in the palms of universal financial whore mastering. These harlots rule America.

    Understandably, the elite rulers of the sodomite vermin controlling the United Nations organization sits in as a front for globally restructuring humanity. To this end, NATO is triggered as a war machine, in the hands of an invisible government.
    Only Jesus Christ comprehends Satan’s compulsion to destruct western civilization. Christ warns mankind; “ Beware of the elders of Israel. “ This is not the counterfeit state of Israel sat up in 1948. In fact, WW1 & WW11 was fought that an illicit British Balfour declaration would give Palestine to encroaching Zionism.
    Jewish & gentile bankers worked hand-in-glove with the powerful monetary tycoon, Rothschild.

    Obviously, the hidden-hand of an invisible government planted Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Palestine. Netanyahu is of Asiatic ancestry–not Jewish. Demanding that Congress is goaded into WW111, this programmed gangster fell short in getting the youth of America to fight for a gang of hoodlums housing brains of Neanderthal ancestry. America has become a second world power. President Putin beat NATO in moving into the Crimea. This qualifies Ukrainian interest under Russian influence. And, Putin bombed the Isis in Syria. Iran stays put on nuclear weapons and Mid East northern saudi receives weapons in overriding the war-mongering knotheads lounging within the Pentagon.
    The lackadaisical class of political meatheads fails in every direction as one might concur. However, Russia is pulling in all manner of intensifying its stand of The Disunited States under the leadership of pseudo democracy & its gang of political rustlers so cleverly managed by that invisible entity of which make wars upon innocent Third World nations with the gobble-de-gook hoodwinking. The difference between indifference will remain as long as mankind wills to be free.

     
  74. toe

    March 8, 2016 at 7:07 AM

    I need help with my case asap

     
    • Adask

      March 8, 2016 at 9:14 AM

      Why tell me?

       
  75. torrez drane

    March 10, 2016 at 11:19 AM

    I need help in my case

     
    • Adask

      March 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM

      My dance card is filled. I don’t have time to deal with other people’s problems. I can barely deal with my own.

      I need help, too. How much can you provide?

       
  76. Ken Townsend

    December 20, 2016 at 3:21 PM

    Worried about you. You haven’t posted in more than a month.

     
    • Adask

      December 20, 2016 at 6:49 PM

      I’ll be back this week.

      Thanks for your concern.

       

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