Category Archives: Declaration of Independence

Adask Video On MOOA, Sovereignty & Spiritual Warfare

The following is a video of a speech I delivered in A.D. 2012 at a Black church on the South side of Dallas.  I’d forgotten about it.

Today, a friend sent me a current link.  If I say so myself, this video offers a good summary of my fundamental notions on “Man Or Other Animals” (MOOA) laws, individual sovereignty and spiritual warfare.  It may take some effort, but if you can understand this presentation, you’ll understand what this blog is all about.  It’s worth you time.

video    00:42:40


Tags: , , ,

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on Natural Law

video   00:22:22


Posted by on November 25, 2014 in Declaration of Independence, Video


Tags: , ,

Adask on Sovereignty II

"Prof. Adask" [courtesy Google Images]

“Prof. Adask”
[courtesy Google Images]

In my recent video presentation “Adask on Sovereignty,” I argued that the Founding Fathers created a nation where each of the people were deemed to be an individual “sovereign”.  That individual sovereignty was achieved by virtue of having received our “unalienable Rights” from God—as declared in “Declaration of Independence”. 

I supported this argument, with text from the A.D. 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm vs. Georgia which declared in part that after the American Revolution, the American people became “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”.

If my argument is right, We the People are individual sovereigns and the government is our public servant. If my argument is wrong, We the People are subjects and the government is our master.  The argument is important.

In the aftermath of the first article (“Adask on Sovereignty”) a number of readers disputed my argument based on the fact that the Supreme Court also described the people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.  According to these readers the definition(s) of “joint tenants” prove that the Supreme Court did not declare the people to be individual “sovereigns” (plural) but instead confided all sovereignty to a single “collective” of which we are each a member, but only as subjects—never as sovereigns.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Secular Humanism is a “Religion”

Courtesy of Google Images

Courtesy of Google Images

In A.D. 1961, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Torcaso v Watkins.  The case hinged on the right of a man who had otherwise qualified for the office of Notary Public in “Maryland” to assume that office without first confessing (as required by the Maryland Constitution) that he believed in God. The man was an atheist and refused to falsely confess that he believed in God when, in fact, he did not.  More, he contended that the requirement for a confession of a belief in God was an unconstitutional “religious test”.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the atheist as struck down the requirement that public officers had to affirm their belief in God as a prerequisite for holding public office.

The Torcaso case is probably most famous for a footnote which declares,

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

With that footnote, the Supreme Court elevated “Secular Humanism” and other atheistic philosophies to the status of “religions“.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , ,

Support 2nd Amendment Rights with the “Declaration of Independence,” Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and 9th Amendment

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I were to construct an argument to justify my right to “keep and bear arms” (including alleged “assault rifles”) under the 2nd Amendment, that argument might consist of several of the following parts:

1) Founders’ Purpose for 2nd Amendment

As I explained in The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment, we can learn the Founders’ intended purpose for the 2nd Amendment by reading the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.

According to that Preamble, the purpose for the 2nd Amendment is not to empower Americans to hunt deer or ducks, or defend against an attack by Indians or even an invasion by Great Britain.  We retain the right to “keep and bear arms” so that we can shoot officers, officials, judges, bureaucrats and employees of the federal government who “abuse or misconstrue” their powers under The Constitution of the United States.  In other words, the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee that we have the necessary “equipment” to shoot those members of our own federal government who attempt to subject this nation to despotism (tyranny).

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

English: This is a high-resolution image of th...

This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I seem to deal with this problem every 6 to 12 months.  Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.

Back in the 1990s, when I first saw the proper name for our “Declaration of Independence,” I leaped to the very same conclusion.  I thought, “Damn!  The proper name for this country must be ‘united States of America’!!!  No wonder we’re having so much trouble in court!  We don’t even understand the proper name of our own country!!!

But over time, I realized that my conclusion (the proper name for this country is the “united States of America”) was mistaken.  That conclusion is a “rookie” mistake and I suppose that all of us who study our country’s political and legal foundation have already made it or are destined to make it at some point in the future.

•  For example, here’s a recent comment on my blog:

“I am surprised you did not pick up on or comment on the uncapitalized “u” in the word “united” in the original document and correctly reproduced in the early printings of the Declaration.”>”

Given that I’ve addressed this issue in the past on radio shows, or in my former magazine (“AntiShyster”), and probably on this blog, I was a little bit surprised that I felt “compelled” to write a reply.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , ,

The Single, Most Important Word in American History

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with exc...

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with excerpts from the Declaration of Independence in background (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC was commissioned about A.D. 1934 and dedicated (not including in the final bronze sculpture) about A.D. 1943.

I visited the Jefferson Memorial back about A.D. 2000.  As I recall my visit, I saw a stone ring at the base of the Memorial’s dome-shaped roof.  On that ring, excerpts from some Jefferson’s most memorable statements were carved in stone.  As I recall, one of those excerpts included the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain INalienable Rights”.

I was stunned.

It’s absolutely certain and clear that Jefferson’s text in the “Declaration of Independence” (true name, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”) referred to “UNalienable Rights”.  Nevertheless—on Jefferson’s own Memorial—the word carved in stone is “INalienable”.  It’s inconceivable that the word was misspelled into stone by accident.  It’s inconceivable that the mistake has “accidentally” gone uncorrected for most of 70 years.

Still, perhaps my recollection is faulty.

Maybe (as GW Bush might say), I “misremembered” and the word “inalienable” does not appear on the stone ring at the base of the Memorial’s domed roof.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on August 12, 2012 in Declaration of Independence, Definitions


Tags: , , , , ,