Radio Daze

Image by Ian Hayhurst via Flickr

I currently host five hours of live radio per week. I broadcast my radio shows from my domicile located within the boundaries of The County of Dallas located within The State of Texas–a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. I am a man made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”). I am one of the People of The State of Texas and one of the People of The United States of America. My programs are intended only for those men, women and children who are also made in the image of our Father YHWH ha Elohiym and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and members of the People of one of the States of the Union styled “The United States of America”.

Financial Survival,” broadcasts live at 3:00 PM central time, on Monday through Friday afternoons. These programs focus primarily on issues of economics and and politics.

The Financial Survival shows are archived at American Voice Radio and for one week.  I.e., if you click on the “Tuesday” link, you’ll get the most recent Tuesday night program.  When we do another Tuesday program, it will replace the previous program at the same link.

All four hours of radio are simulcast over (World Wide First Amendment Radio) and also WWCR shortwave radio at frequency 3.215.

These same programs are also archived for one week by at:

We are currently simulcast or rebroadcast on the following stations:

3-4 PM Eastern            WVOG     600 AM                 Metairie, The State of Louisiana

5-6 PM Eastern            KTAC       93.0 FM                Spokane, The State of Washington

8 PM Eastern              WWCR     6.875 Shortwave

11 PM Eastern             WWCR    3.215 Shortwave

11 PM Eastern             WBCQ     7.415 Shortwave

10-11:30 PM Eastern    KCKN     1020 AM                 Roswell, The State of New Mexico

We are also scheduled to start broadcasting on a new 50,000 watt station on or about August 20th, A.D. 2012:

4-5 PM Eastern           KXBD      1480 AM                  Dallas, The State of Texas
All of my radio (and written) comments are my opinions (see Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution of The State of Texas) and viewpoints (see, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, S.C.U.S. 94-329)  .  These opinions and viewpoints are expressed within the venue of The County of Dallas, located within the boundaries of The State of Texas, and intended to be heard only by other men and women within the boundaries of member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.


62 responses to “Radio

  1. andy dec

    November 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM

    I saw you on the San Antonio DVD on Winstons seminar. Fab work man.

    For you interest, I spoke to the UK Police today to report the crime in the sky, 8 Aircraft spraying toxic crap, the Cop i spoke to said I need to speek to DEFRA [the Depatment of the Enviroment, Food and Rural Affairs]

    Wow, I thought, you are correct, that is the language they have used to legally justify chemical spraying.

    I phoned the cops back, and spoke to another cop, unfortunately, but she did listen to what i was saying which was what you have discovered.

    This could be a lot lot bigger than what you said in the DVD, Im in the UK.

    Just a note for you, It would be great if people could get to see that clip of you on youtube, plus when i get to speak to people i could point them to the clip and say look at that then mate! oh yeah, now you get it. People are being ostriches here. please email the link if you do.

    great work.

  2. adask

    November 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM

    Hi Andy,
    Thanks for the compliments. Thanks for reading. For those who don’t understand, Andy is talking about a video of a 10 minute speech I delivered in A.D. 2007 on the “man or other animals” drug laws that effectively declare man to be an animal.
    It’s nice to see that my observations concerning “man or other animals” drug laws are even beginning have some effect in England.
    I’d like to have that speech on this website, but I don’t have a copy of the DVD. I’ll try to get one.


  3. Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt

    December 15, 2008 at 5:04 AM

    I did a web search for your name and magazine and will put up a new link on my web page.

    You mention that you only speak to those made in God’s image. Does that mean that you have become Christian Identity, and if Christian Identity, of the Dual-Seedline doxology?

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri

  4. Willy Johnson

    April 4, 2010 at 8:27 AM

    Sometimes on your show you mention that archives of your broadcast can be gotten from the website. Be a straight shooter and if you mention the archives also mention that the recordings can only be accessed through payment of a donation to

    • adask

      April 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM

      Yep–you’re right. They used to be free for the first week. I haven’t looked at the archives in at least a year. I assumed they were still free, but when I looked a couple of days ago, I saw I was wrong. It’s not a question of being a “straight shooter”; the radio host changed his policy and I was not informed.

      • Donald B.

        July 29, 2011 at 5:34 AM

        To: Alfred adask re: April 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM

        Then it seems to me, someone is stealing from you.

  5. joe bliss

    April 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

    i got a story for you to look into. former senator mike dewine is running for state attourney general. he paid or bribed someone to get off the primary ballot. so he got off and ran for something else. the only one left was a guy by the name of steve christofer or christofer stevens . my mind is drawing a blank. any way his opponet delivered his signatures in full to sec. of state { jennifer bruner} and she conviently lost something like 2/3 of his signatures to keep him off the ballot

  6. Harry

    June 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM

    Hi Alfred

    I have listened to you occasionally, usually covering for Melody Ceaderstrom. Thank you for the work to do, I can only say that I wish I lived in the United States like yourself.

    I have long believed that the English Bill of Rights was a flawed attempt to do what was finally done 100 years later in the Thirteen Colonies. Perhaps it was too early – a time and season for everything – or that the old monarchical autocratic powers were just too strong, or that America was just too far away & too big to control from 3000 miles away at the time with the technology of the day, whatever the case, the “Glorious Revolution 1689” was sadly a dead letter soon after it was accepted.

    America is the beacon and hope of the world, you know. Not in military terms, but in the best attempt to create a philosophy of day-to-day life, how a group of people, freed from the shackles of the past, can formulate a free and liberty loving country, if only given a chance.

    • adask

      June 11, 2010 at 4:20 PM

      The United States of America has been an extraordinary country–in some regards unique. We are (were) the only country since the time of Judges in the Old Testament to create a political system (“republican form of government”) based on the presumption that all men within that system were endowed by their Creators with certain “unalienable Rights” and thus individual SOVEREIGNS.
      The Catholic law form of the Holy Roman Empire and the English lawform (after England broke loose from Catholicism) were both based on the belief that, in each nation, just one man received his rights directly from God (divine right of kings) and was therefore the only “sovereign” in that nation. All else were subjects precisely because they did not receive their rights from God.
      The USA was the first and only nation to ever declare (in our “Declaration of Independence”) that 1) “ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; and 2) that the primary business of government was “to secure these rights”. By declaring all men to be endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, our Founders thereby declared all men (not just kings or queens) to be SOVEREIGNS. By declaring the principle business of government to be “to secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights, the Declaration compelled government to be the people’s SERVANT rather than MASTER. It was that two-part declaration of individual rights and government duties that laid the foundation for American liberty and glory.
      Our government, of course, hates that Declaration since it makes government the servant of the people rather than their master. Our government has therefore worked steadily and mightily to remove even our memory of our former standing as sovereigns.
      Insofar as we’ve forgotten the basis for sovereignty and our standing as sovereigns, we Americans have acquiesced to growing governmental power and the loss of our own individual liberty.
      But Americans are beginning to reawaken to their spiritual history. As s result, some of us are now engaged in a spiritual battle with our purported government to restore the remembrance and recognition of our status as “sovereigns”. If we are successful, America will once more rise to glory. If we fail, your glowing praise for America will be relegated to the pages of history as America becomes just as much of a “hell-hole” as the rest of the world.
      America might still be the best of an increasingly bad lot, but today’s America is badly degraded from it’s former glory.

      • shupec

        October 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM

        If ‘all’ men are created truly ‘equal’, by the Declaration of Independence, why was it not considered against ‘the LAW’ in lawful terms to have slaves and abuse the native indigenous men, women, and families that were upon-the-land before the occupiers and usurpers? Sounds contradictory to me…

      • adask

        October 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

        It was contradictory. We started with high ideals in the Declaration, but once the American Revolution was won, those ideals gave way to the pragmatic (financial) realities of the profits of owning slaves. But our refusal to live up to our own foundational principles ultimately played a role in causing the Civil War–the single bloodiest conflict in American history.
        Today, we have again forgotten and abandoned those fundamental ideals as our politicians have agreed to prostitute themselves to the “highest bidders” and betray and even destroy this nation rather than serve the People. And we, once again, headed towards an economic collapse and possible national conflagration of a magnitude unseen since the first Civil War.
        The way out of this mess is the way back to the ideals first seen in the Declaration of Independence.

    • dwdial

      May 22, 2012 at 4:44 PM

      The date of the “Glorious Revolution of 1689” just serves to remind me that the private Bank of England was founded the following year of 1690. The Bank of England was the first of the central banks practicing “fractional reserve banking”, which is now practiced worldwide…a not-so-glorious revolution.

  7. mAximo

    August 29, 2010 at 6:28 PM

    There have been other countries where the People had God-given sovereign
    capacity: Britain (& possessions) during the Puritan Commonwealth &
    Protectorate, and Switzerland until 2000.

    Prior to 1066 & feudalism, folk-right juries – the true common-law
    juries – had been an integral part of the administration of the “free (yet
    still Catholic) System of English Laws.” Even under King George, the
    sheriff was the only authority to legitimately preside over them (an
    eolderman or bishop of a parish also used to have that power). For the
    Crown to have sent “swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out
    their substance” with impunity, the king or his colonial governors would
    have needed to deny colonists their common law juries – the only legal
    venue left to assert the (common law) “rights of the People” in the
    absence of (civil) “Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers” (all quotes
    from the Declaration of Independence). The war against common law
    institutions began soon after England was conquered by Normans seeking
    to replace common law with feudalism & Roman civil law as practiced on
    the Continent (whence also King George hailed). Beforehand England had a
    decentralised form of representative gov’t fostering unwritten legal
    traditions as well as common law – an impediment to a Holy Roman Empire
    re-uniting Europe into an extended “City of God” (as coined by St
    Augustine), so pursing the Romans’ obsession for making “a city of the
    once-wide world” (as described by Rutilius Claudius Namantianus) under a
    civil (from the Latin for city) law enforced throughout that empire as
    if it were one city. Continental bankers furthered this resurrected
    policy to finance the Normans to conquer England, impose civil law &
    feudalism, and set up a banking haven in London’s ‘City’. Much later on,
    other peoples practicing uncompromising time-honored principles also
    became victims of civil law supremacists – the Indians here or
    traditional (i.e. non-Zionist, as the Nazis were pro-Zionist, and
    financed by Zionist bankers such as Max Warburg) Jews in Europe, or the
    tribes in Afghanistan & Africa – because the rule of principle greatly
    impedes unjust enrichment via legal fictions.

    Oliver Cromwell was the 1st de facto president of a United States (of
    the Colonies & Britain together) under a System of English Law freer
    than called for by the Declaration of Independence, yet unpracticed to
    this day (even to the level of legal freedom as practiced in Canada,
    although their sheriffs are still ‘Sheriffs of Nottingham’ as officers
    of the Crown). He presided over a consummate Puritan Revolution that
    dismantled feudal institutions, abolished the monarchy, executing King
    Charles I in the process, devolved power to counties, and established
    Separation of Sheriff & State, whereby The People exercised sovereign
    capacity to appoint sheriffs as their supreme law enforcement agents.
    Sheriffs once again became officers of the Crown after 1660, yet they
    had been the long arm of the People applying common law & long-
    -established principles, to which position they were restored after
    Independence in the 13 Colonies.

    The English Bill of Rights during the Glorious Revolution was like
    the Magna Carta in securing more rights on paper, but this time for
    merchants & bankers as well, and not just for aristocrats.

  8. cynthia of many clanns

    February 8, 2011 at 9:12 AM

    My own preference is to stay clear of anything referencing United States or United States of America (first letter capitalization) as it denotes ‘of a corporation’ or ‘dead’ or ‘fiction’, and instead retain full ‘standing’ upon America solely. If there is reference is should be united States, i.e. all lower case united which is Proper spelling for proper definition. As such, I stand upon God’s good green earth without any political man made borders, accepting all that come and stand upon Her without discrimination or interests of ‘Profit’ for Pain and Death.

  9. mAximo

    February 27, 2011 at 1:47 AM

    While last week’s shows were informative legally, the historical misinformation
    was so glaring that it served to discredit them. It was stated that Florida
    became independent on the Fourth of July 1776. That wasn’t so in either a de
    facto or de jure sense. In the de jure sense, Florida was not a territory
    claimed by any State so as to be tagging along. In the de facto sense it was
    inhabited by Indian converts to Roman Catholicism and Hispanics, who didn’t want
    to be part of the U.S. any more than they wanted to be under British rule. It
    wouldn’t have been returned after the war to Spain otherwise. Why else would
    Hamilton think that armed force was needed to take it from Spain after the
    British surrendered? It was flooded by tens of thousands of Loyalist refugees,
    not huddled masses of oppressed Patriots yearning to have a Free & Independent
    State, or to restore the Free System of English Laws suspended by King George.
    So it was BS for Donna to add that Florida was a common law State upon entry
    into the Union–even if it didn’t remain possible for first cousins to get
    married there. The main difference between it, Puerto Rico & Louisiana is that
    Florida isn’t honest about being a civil law state not practicing the Free
    System of English Laws–although vastly more than the usual meaning of common
    law, esp. as its foundation is separation of attorney & state as practiced in
    Canada’s anglophone provinces. Thus, Heather was part of the problem if she had
    prosecuted non-bar attorneys for practicing law out-of-court. In said provinces,
    it’s unlawful for a bar member to do so on behalf of ordinary clients. Therefore
    it’s as if they had won the Revolution overturning the monopoly on the practice
    of law granted to bar members by King George. A quick look at the swarm of
    Masons abuzz in Sacramento suffices to explain their perpetuation of said
    monopoly: to prevent all competition in a free market for legal defense against
    trespass on human rights & interests by institutional supremacists; so any
    lawyer licensed by them may now be disbarred for accepting compensation to
    examine foreclosure & mortgage documents for fraud. Women not being accepted
    into the Scottish Rite is a likely reason why Heather isn’t part of the effort
    to further the fraud.

  10. D.M. Simonds

    April 5, 2011 at 5:16 PM

    Greetings, Adask:

    I found your show thanks to a PAC newsletter directing me to your blog. I will listen to your show tonight, but from what I have read on we have very much in common in the way of our work.

  11. Michael

    May 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM

    Hello Mr. Adask. I saw the 60 minute show and the way they tried to make you into a terroist. I am a everyday Alex Jones listener so I am aware of what is really going on. I also enjoyed listening to you on Alex Jones the other day. I didn’t know about you until 60 minutes. It is always refreshing to find people who are not cowards and or blind to whats really going on in this country. I am 33 and have never seen anything like it. I woke up in 2007 and had always felt unsure about the official statement about 9/11. In 2007 I started researching it. I am very concern about what is coming and have started to prepare. I believe a revolution is coming. I think it has already started. This government spits on the Constitution. Please keep up the great work. We need more people like you and Alex.

  12. tony j

    June 8, 2011 at 6:00 PM

    Hello i listen to your audios weekly and had the adask audios mon tues wed sessions saved but they got deleted. I had a months worth. Do you have them?

    • Adask

      June 8, 2011 at 6:04 PM

      Nope. I know of one man who might have them, but he might want to be paid for copies. I’ll forward your contact info to him.

  13. phillip

    June 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM

    Stop making me crazy; I have visited the traffic court twice lately and was completely bamboozled by their position that I was just there to submit to their money demands. Your Tuesday broadcast made it clear that I had left America and arrived somewhere unfathomable to any other than those sucking resources out of our pockets. So, we(that’s the Imperial we) need to post the info you referenced as soon as possible so I and others like me operating in the “state of confusion” may remove the yoke from our necks. Thanks for all you do to shed light on how we have veered off the rails to freedom.

  14. mAximo

    July 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM

    Since many Canadians listen to coastTOcoastAM, you’ll have an opportunity to
    have them call in & verify the degree to which Canada practices the “free
    System of English Laws” esp. separation of attorney & state. This prevents the
    kind of conflict of interest that occurred under the Treaty of Paris, which
    required the U.S. to pay reparations to Loyalists who had their property
    confiscated, or been victims of war crimes. Under the Free System, they had
    the right to have their claims litigated by non-bar members (“solicitors” in
    Canada) so making for a truly adversarial process. However, each State had a
    vested interest in rigging the scales of justice by adopting King George’s
    licencing of attorneys, so that they’d tip in its favor. Thus, no State ever
    restored separation of attorney & state after Independence, such that it’s as
    if Canada had won the Revolution. However, it doesn’t have separation of
    sheriff & state, since sheriffs are officers of the Crown, much like U.S.
    “attorneys” are officers of the courts. These are the two most important
    separations of powers (if one ignores Church & state: a state IS a church, not
    unlike how atheism is a theism), far beyond the Constitution’s branches of
    gov’t which merely comprise a pathetic shell game. Thus, the Constitution has
    been a con-job from its conception (please click on my screen name & read
    Article II of its draft) & every patriot denying this is thereby a fraudster.
    Separation of sheriff & state stems from the 1st founding father that got
    things rolling: when Oliver Cromwell had the head of King Charles I separated
    from his body. States are now out to licence sheriffs as well, if not sweep
    them under the rugs of unelected police chiefs & federal marshals (and so
    follow the model of King George when licencing attorneys & ministers for there
    to be no free system of law, nor free exercise of religion, when one’s legal &
    religious agents must be licenced to practice).

  15. m2o, inge

    July 30, 2011 at 1:24 PM

    Hi Adask,
    it was a real treat to listen to you 2 nights ago on C2C. I was highly intrigued by your ‘COLLOIDAL SILVER
    defense in federal court & the ingenius research 4 it & your ungodly sacrifice of $ Million of court/legal fee
    I do make my own colloidal silver myself for years now & believe in it big time, as i done due diligence on it
    for years. It is the best immune system booster of all time & outdoes all antibiotics with ease, because of the high frequenzies. I also use it to make soap with. But i did not sofar market my soap, as i was watching the ugly fight from the pharmaceutical monopolies raging. Yet my heart wants to scream out to
    all my beloved contemporaries this life-saving message to please use real silverware daily, not stainless
    steal forks & spoons, it does not have to be Sterling Silver, silverplated will do just as well. History tells about
    the ones, who survived the 1918 flu-epidemic were the ones, who were using such silverware daily. I also
    want to tell them, to wear jewelry on their bodies that has silver or silver plated in it for keeping healthy, it is much better than wearing gold.

  16. derick

    August 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM

    You were great on coast to coast. I liked your answer to the guy that called in and talked about Tim Turners Republic. I think he is a fraudster but Im not 100% sure about that. Do you have any experience with ??? I would really appreciate some feed back about this website and the work they do.

    Thank you for responding to my email, Your thoughts on the birth certificate made alot of sense and helped put my mind at ease. The social security number and vacinations are optional so we said no to thosel.

    • Adask

      August 2, 2011 at 8:58 PM

      I can’t remember his name, but I met the man behind Team Law several times in the 1990s. He always impressed me as sincere and not a con-artist. I presume that’s still the case, but I’ve had no contact with him in at least 10 years.

  17. derick

    August 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM

    thosel??? sorry I meant those.

  18. derick

    August 18, 2011 at 9:07 PM

    Al, The founder of team law is Eric Madsen.

  19. derick

    August 18, 2011 at 10:04 PM

    And I found some dirt on him. Not sure if its true but I found a group called

    Do you have any experience with these people?

    • Adask

      August 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM

      I’ve not previously heard of that website. I’ll take a look.

  20. derick

    August 24, 2011 at 9:39 PM

    This is another one of their sites, 7 total I think.

    Seems to have really good information about the 14th amendment and some really good law reviews on the 14th.

  21. chudai

    November 27, 2011 at 3:41 AM

    I think this is among the so much important information for me. And i am satisfied reading your article. But should remark on few normal things, The website taste is great, the articles is truly excellent : D. Excellent job, cheers

  22. Jack

    December 14, 2011 at 10:00 PM

    Wow! Just heard your 12/13/11 radio hour with David McDowell. His advice sounds so much easier and more straightforward than Dennis Craig’s. Hope you discuss it more on your blog and with Dennis Craig on Wednesday. Thanks and keep ’em coming!

  23. Jerry Gentry

    March 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

    Hello Al,

    I enjoy your radio shows and all your guests that I have heard. The information you are putting out is eye opening to say the least. I received the email below just today and only today am I listening to the last program with Dennis Craig referenced below, which apparently triggered a termination of sorts, or did it? I don’t know, but if so I hope you might reconsider the matter re: Dennis Craig and his and your awesome material presented for many weeks running. The information Dennis gave on an earlier program which referenced The Hidden Tyranny by Charles A. Weisman I believe all to be true and important. But even if you disagree with Weisman’s writing, as you seemed to do, we can agree to disagree, without hard feelings. I woke up some 20 years ago to the workings of the people Weisman identifies, and the world makes better sense to me now after my awakening than before. I believe these people are behind all efforts to pervert and nullify the constitution, just as Benjamin Franklin predicted in 1789. I don’t know much of anything about how you select guests, just sorry that Dennis Craig may not be a guest in the future, perhaps due to his clumsy request not to be interrupted during presentation of material for that single program. I hope you will forgive him for his clumsily worded request. No question you have every right to speak as you so choose on your own program. I detected no effort by Dennis to take over your show, only to get his information freely out. I am posting this here because I could not find an email address for you, and hopefully you will see my comments here. I have been blessed by many of your shows, especially with Dennis, only sorry that I have also missed so many shows and don’t know where to find them long after they were made. Best to you and all your guests who are seeking and proclaiming much truth.

    Jerry Gentry

    On 3/1/12 12:23 AM, Without Prejudice wrote:
    > This is to provide notice that the attached recording, recorded Feb 29, A.D. is the last program that I have been allowed to conduct on the American Independence Hour with Alfred Adask. Alfred feels that I insulted him at the beginning of the program and decided to terminate any further programs. Thank you for listening, and to Alfred for the opportunity to share the knowledge that I have attempted to convey.
    > Dennis Craig.
    > P.S. This is the message I received from Alfred at the time stated. The matter is out of My hands
    > [12:38:58 AM] Alfred Adask: This was the last program we’re going to do.

    • Gerry

      April 17, 2012 at 9:55 PM

      Love the shows but I really miss Dennis Craig. We need to learn as much as possible about our Natural Rights in my opinion…

  24. John Baker

    March 2, 2012 at 12:01 AM

    You Sir, are Outrageous in your Audacity to tell the Truth regarding these topics. I sense from your words and the manner in which you deliver them, that here is High Truth not diluted and poisoned by the corrupting filter of the Lame Stream Ene-media.

    Thank you!

    • Adask

      March 2, 2012 at 5:25 AM

      My pleasure.

  25. Jethro

    May 20, 2012 at 10:49 PM

    Al — When will the new radio show be established? Will they be archived and downloadable like the First Amendment Radio shows were? Please get them up and running ASAP — I’m already exhibiting withdrawal symptoms!

    • Adask

      May 22, 2012 at 1:35 AM

      Everything is up in the air right now. It appears I’ll be hosting “Financial Survival” from 3 to 4 PM (Central). Different format. Different subject matter. I don’t know if I’ll be able to continue. I feel compelled/”called” to tell my version of the truth each radio show, and that’s what I’ve been doing on the night-time show for the past 9 years. But I’m restricted on Financial Survival in a way that I may not be able to tolerate. We shall see.

  26. Nicklas Arthur

    May 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    You commented recently that you did not know who got you the gig with Melody, well that was me who suggested you to her, I am glad that it worked out as I had no doubt you could step up to the challenge. Your old time slot is open here at – we have other times slots open to, we’ll work with you. Nicklas Arthur

  27. Nicklas Arthur

    May 23, 2012 at 3:50 PM

    oops delete the extra ‘a’

  28. sgt rutledge

    July 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

    enjoy listening to you sir

  29. mAximo

    September 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    While you’re now giving Donna a bit of Spanish Inquisition, as on your show
    last month when she claimed that banks may not lend their customers’ deposits,
    you could have asked her to adjust her claim in accordance with the ruling
    that awarded Mellon Bank the customer deposits of Sentinel. Beforehand it was
    standard practice that they may not be pledged as collateral – and likely what
    Donna meant to say. It would have been interesting to hear the penny drop
    afterwards, had you brought up that case. Still, as she didn’t correct herself
    after you challenged her, that doesn’t reflect well on her research. If she
    insists on misstating the most obvious, why believe her on the unobvious?
    Clicking on my screenname will go to an analysis of the Sentinel case that
    exemplifies how the (singular) U.S. no longer practices the “free System of
    English Law.

    • Adask

      September 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM

      I assume you’re talking about Donna Baron. I haven’t talked to her for about year. Maybe more. My last interview with her was probably 18 months ago. Maybe more.

    • mAximo

      September 8, 2012 at 4:49 PM

      Oh. AVR must have dug deep into the archives last weekend. With regard to
      Tuesday’s guest Roger Sayles & his book: If one’s going to use their own terms
      of artifice against them, mastering the use of feudal terminology will give one
      a good head start by having a command of the terms of the system that the feudal
      supremacists want to impose, as well as the ability to spot blatant errors in
      Supreme Court dicta, such as in Chisholm which states: “the citizens of America
      are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Such
      sovereigns are the grantors of tenures, not the recipients, making such “joint
      tenants” as much of an oxymoron as “alodial title.” Likewise for the dicta in
      Wong Kim Ark stating that the 14th Amendment imposed the “common law rule on
      this country for the first time” of the connection in feudalism between the
      liegeman and his feudal lord upon whose soil he lived. First of all, it wasn’t
      a common law rule, but one of civil law. Secondly, it wasn’t imposed by the
      federal gov’t for the 1st time, since the Constitution is a civil law document
      which in effect imposes feudal law upon the territories, and also imposes a
      like citizenship upon the inhabitants of U.S. territories. You only have to
      look at the history of Puerto Rico and the Balzac decision, which said that
      Puerto Ricans aren’t protected by the Bill of Rights, despite having been made
      citizens of the U.S. during WWI. Thus, the Constitution does NOT protect the
      common law, God-given property & human rights of citizens of the singular
      “United States” – it merely grants them such rights in the form of civil
      rights. This was obvious to me just from my analysis of the Constitution in
      feudal terms alone, which you can read by clicking my screen name.
      However, I was concerned with other matters besides that of citizenship,
      due to being familiar with “U.S. nationals,” such as members of the First
      Nations who had served in both the Canadian & U.S. militaries, and crossed the
      border without having a passport (and without even going through Immigration at
      border crossings–that surprised even me when I 1st saw that) because they’re
      nationals of both Canada & the U.S. I myself was even able to get a savings
      account in the U.S. without a Social Security number, and without even having
      to show up at the S&L, as my sister went there for me and told them that I was
      a U.S. national just like her. I only could have gotten a non-interest bearing
      account otherwise. Thus, it’s impossible that U.S. nationals are non-resident
      aliens for tax purposes, since the latter are required to have at least a TIN
      for interest-bearing accounts. But Roger made a Great Leap Forward showing how
      State citizens can once again be fed-free by not volunteering into socage
      tenures from the federal gov’t. To see how income taxes are to be enforced, you
      only need to look as far as Puerto Rico, where it’s still pursuant to the 16th
      Amendment permitting its derivation from any Source, rather than any Recipient,
      of the taxable item. Federal 1040s for Puerto Rico are identical only to those
      prior to WWII for the mainland – neither one derive income tax from employees
      who are not also self-employed. This is ironic, since the singular U.S. may
      impose direct taxes in the territories, as well as capital gains tax, as the
      apportionment provision doesn’t apply there. Otherwise, they may not be imposed
      upon State citizen U.S. nationals domiciled in a State of the Union (as opposed
      to a “free, associated state” of the singular U.S. like Puerto Rico, or “this

  30. mAximo

    October 31, 2012 at 1:03 PM


    As an even greater service, please offer to be Roger’s editor. Given the
    faux pas in his first book as mentioned above, he definitely needs one.
    On your show this week he was a bit skeptical that what he thought was
    a contract was actually a pledge. Likewise for his view of the feudal
    supremacists’ use of the Constitution, when it CAN be used to impose
    feudalism (& collect taxes directly from recipients of a taxable item,
    such as capital gains), in any state that’s just a territory. If so,
    then someone born after his state ceased to be a State of the U.S.A.
    couldn’t be such a citizen. But if a State wasn’t a territory of the
    unitary U.S. before entering the Union, it is unable to carry on under a
    pre-existing territorial capacity. The Constitution is explicit at the
    start that “the United States of America” are the target audience of
    beneficiaries, and later on that the “United States” is the fiduciary, in
    what you had described as a charitable trust. The ‘eastern establishment’
    States never had a territorial alter ego, and should continue to be
    beneficiaries. But Texas & Georgia might have re-entered the unitary
    ‘U.S.’ such that Roger can’t claim to be a U.S national as a citizen of
    ‘The’ State of Georgia – esp. if both entered without an alter ego as a
    beneficiary State. Your discovery of ‘this’ state (as for Puerto Rico as
    a “free, associated state”) is yet another example of how the feudal
    supremacists use words ambiguously, and one that Roger should include.

  31. Bob Paulis

    March 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    I salute Al and enjoy your banter with Roger & Melody.
    I believe our situation as a nation is dire!
    As a Christian, patriot and veteran I’ve been ‘aware’ for over a decade and been advocating a means of ‘accountability’ for ALL ELECTED & APPOINTED OFFICIALS in OUR COUNTRY! Would you, at your convenience, contact me.

  32. mAximo

    June 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

    Peter Schiff is right about mint-state coins being a rip-off compared to
    bullion coins sold by his own company, but it’s too bad that he doesn’t
    mention DGS Coins by name, or that he never mentioned Bob Chapman for
    touting mint-state coins. But he does correctly identify Chapman’s motive
    for recommending rip-off stocks–so as to have maximised his profits when
    dumping his portfolio. He recommended Agnico-Eagle on the show when it
    was $80 and said that it would soon go over $100, and that he would call
    the president of the company to recommend a stock split. It has fallen by
    more than 50%. He recommended North American Palladium when it was over
    $10–and then fell by 90%. So it was particularly nauseating yesterday to
    hear in the place of the Artful Roger from Argentina, a eulogy for
    Chapman, esp. on how right his predictions were. Like how he predicted
    that after the pull back from $1900, that gold would break $2000 and
    never look back on the way to $3000? Or how he recommended Hellix when
    it was over $1, on the grounds that it was a $3 stock? It’s now trading
    at 4 cents! Even worse, was that the self-styled forecaster had a 0%
    track record in forecasting the pullbacks.
    But worst of all was Chapman’s duplicity. When the Blackrock mercenaries
    were whining that they couldn’t get treatment from Medicaid for war
    (crime) related injuries, because they were too well-off to qualify for
    public assistance, he told me that he had no sympathy for them. But on A
    Marine’s Disquisition, he said that they ought to get treatment (at
    taxpayers’ expense–which is an insult to those who served their country
    instead of themselves, esp. given the fact that the mercenaries didn’t
    pay any employment taxes, and so would rip-off taxpayers even more). And
    that doesn’t cover the self-contradiction of pretending to be both a
    patriot and a Christian as documented by George Gordon: It was the
    patriots who terrorised the Loyalists such that they had to flee by the
    hundreds of thousands north to Canada or even to Britain, and by the tens
    of thousands south to Florida or to the British West Indies. Your history
    books glorify how they were tarred & feathered and had their property
    confiscated. Those war crimes were so bad that the U.S.A. had to agree to
    award the victims reparations in the Treaty of Paris–but then kept King
    George’s rigged legal system in order to gyp them out of just
    compensation. Had the patriots really been Christians, they’d have turned
    the other cheek and prayed for their enemies, or instead have sought to
    revive the Puritan Revolution from the previous century.

  33. Jethro!

    August 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM

    Al, I’ve not heard Roger Sayles on your last few Tuesday shows. Has he moved to a different day, or is he no longer on the show? I always enjoyed those shows with you two.

    • Adask

      August 23, 2013 at 10:34 AM

      I also enjoyed having Roger on the shows. However, he and I had a disagreement and he went his way and I went mine. I don’t expect Roger to return to Financial Survival in the near future.

      Thanks for listening.

  34. Richard

    August 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM

    What can I say about the “Sovereign Citizen Movement?”.. I will say this, A sovereign is not a citizen and a citizen is not a sovereign. The two words are not synonymous, meaning that they cannot label you as a sovereign citizen so reject that notion any anf everytime they call you that. Any reputable law dictionary will give you two completely opposite definitions for those words seperately. I have alot more insight and knowledge and anyone can email me anytime. If you truly want to be sovereign stop with all the damn filings and go to your nearest consulate and renounce your citizenship. It’s the only way!. Email me anytime at I will not give legal advice but I will educate you and teach you how to better defend yourself(without violence) . Cuz remember, violence only begets more violence.

  35. Lawernce Kenemore Jr

    April 13, 2015 at 12:38 PM

    thought you might like this and share with others that what they think is a state in one law is not the same in all laws.

    RONALD D. ROTUNDA APR 13, 2015 12:01 AM
    Ignoring the Supreme Court When You Don’t Like the Result

    Gavel, Stethoscope & DollarsShould President Obama ignore an adverse ruling in King v. Burwell? That is the case recently argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs argue that the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) does not allow the federal government to subsidize federal health exchanges, only state-created health exchanges. The law itself is complex, totaling nearly a thousand pages in length. However, the statutory interpretation issue is straightforward.

    The ACA provides that territories of the United States (e.g., Guam) are “States,” for purposes of this law. Section 1323 provides that if a “territory” creates an Exchange, it “shall be treated as a State” under this law. Another section of the ACA says that the District of Columbia is a “State” for subsidy purposes. Another section of the law provides, “In this title, the term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Congress knew how to define “state” to include more than “states.” It did that when it defined Washington, D.C. and “territories” as “States.”

    However, no section of the law defines “State” to include the federal government. That was not an accident. An earlier version of the bill—one that Congress did not enact—provided that “any references in this subtitle to [any] Health Insurance Exchange . . . shall be deemed a reference to the State-based Health Insurance Exchange.” That language would treat federal exchanges the same as state exchanges. Congress, however, did not enact that version.

    Congress had a reason not to extending subsidies to federal exchange (under Section 1311 of the ACA), while authorizing subsidies for states, the District of the Columbia, and any U.S. territory that created a “qualified exchange,” (under Section 1321 of the ACA). Congress wanted to incentivize the states to set up health exchanges while denying subsidies for a state’s citizens if the state refused to create an exchange. As one architect of the law explained:

    What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges.

    The Administration thought that the ACA would be wildly popular. For many people, it is not. As of January 2015, only 14 states had established Health Exchanges. That meant that the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), using Section 1321 of the ACA, established exchanges in the remaining states. The IRS claims that when Section 36B refers to Section 1311 and state exchanges, there is some sort of ambiguity and it really means to refer to Sections 1311 and 1321 and federal or state exchanges.

    The Supreme Court, in King v. Burwell will decide whether the IRS can define Section 1311 to mean Sections 1311 and 1321. If the Court authorizes the IRS to, in effect, change the meaning of Section 1311, that will be the first time that Congress has delegated the power to raise taxes or spend tax subsidies. If the President loses this case, HHS Secretary Burwell has told us, reassuringly (just kidding), that “we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision.”

    What to do? A University of Chicago law professor now argues that the President, if he loses this case, should just ignore the Court ruling except for the four individuals who brought this particular lawsuit. After all, he says—quoting Abraham Lincoln, no less—Supreme Court opinions are “‘entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases’ but were ultimately limited to ‘the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit.’” [The internal quotations are from Lincoln; the rest are from the commentator.] The commentator does not identify the reference, but Lincoln was talking about Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). That case held, among other things, that blacks, even freed black slaves, could not be U.S. citizens. Lincoln and the people overruled Dred Scott with the 13th and 14th Amendments.

    The quotation from Lincoln is missing a few important words, and the commentator leaves out other details. Lincoln made his remarks as part of his First Inaugural Address. He was arguing that the government should not be bound by litigation to which it was not a party: “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

    The government was not a party to Dred Scott. The parties were two private people. The government is a party to King v. Burwell. Burwell is the Secretary of HHS. Other defendants include the Secretary of the Treasury, the IRS, and a host of other government officials. The argument for disregarding the Supreme Court ignores all that, and it misquotes Lincoln. It is easy to argue that the law supports your position if you leave out the facts. Lincoln never said he would ignore the Supreme Court in a case where he was a party. Read his First Inaugural. It’s not that long, it is well written (it is Lincoln, after all), and it makes no fatuous arguments.

    Let us say that the Obama Administration follows this law professor’s advice if it loses before the Supreme Court. IRS officials will give out tax subsidies contrary to the law. Those officials will violate the Federal Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, et seq., which prohibits them from passing out federal money without statutory authorization. The helpful employees who pay out these subsidies go to prison, and the government collects from the recipient three times the federal money received. There is no need for the prosecution to prove any specific intent to defraud.

    That is not the end of the story. What happens if the Administration does not enforce the Anti-Deficiency Act? Congress thought of that, too. Any taxpayer can sue the officials and force them return the money, out of their own pockets, by filing a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. The taxpayer has an incentive to sue because he or she collects from 15 percent to 30 percent of the proceeds.

    There is another problem. If the Administration can ignore an adverse decision in King v. Burwell (and apply the rule only to the four individuals who are plaintiffs), future governments can do likewise. For example, let us say the Supreme Court rules that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. Under the proposal of the law professor, states can apply that decision only to the particular gay couples suing in that particular case. My Verdict co-columnist Michael Dorf discusses that point on his blog.

    So, if the Administration takes this advice, it will find that its officials will go bankrupt repaying the money out of their pockets. My advice: follow the law, not the law professor.

  36. Michael Kearns

    September 6, 2015 at 8:38 PM

    Alfred: I would invite you to the following website, before, I make any comments.

    I would solicit your comments thereon.

    Have a great day.


    • Adask

      September 6, 2015 at 11:37 PM

      Hi Michael,

      I looked at several of the pages on your website and I have two general comments:

      First, you’ve done a good job of assembling a persuasive argument that could be presented to a court or jury.

      Second, I’ve yet to see a document or series of documents assembled by anyone that I couldn’t quibble with. I’ve also assembled documents and I also have some persuasive arguments to present in court or t juries. But, my arguments don’t prove I’m exactly right. My arguments simply prove that I’m ready to raise issues that government probably doesn’t want to address. I’ve had some successes which indicate that either my arguments are roughly correct or my arguments are simply so aggravating that the government would rather stay away from me than spend its time and money trying to defeat my arguments and risk letting a jury decide who’s more persuasive–me or the government.

      My point is that your arguments and mine are similar, but not identical. Your arguments may be better than mine; mine might be better than yours. I presume there are elements of my arguments that you would disagree with. There are elements of your arguments that I would quibble with.

      For example, you refer to the Constitution of 1787. I am wary of that reference. From my perspective, the fundamental issue behind any legal document is the authority behind that document. As I understand it, A.D. 1787 was the year that the Constitution was proposed, drafted and accepted by Congress and then sent out the States of the Union for ratification. Article VII of the Constitution required ratification by nine States of the Union before the Constitution could go into effect. As I understand it, the Constitution wasn’t ratified by the 9th State until A.D. 1788. So, when I refer to the “Constitution” I tend to say something like “the Constitution of the United States first established when ratified by the People of the Union in A.D. 1788.” I do that little dance to establish my reference is to the Constitution ratified in A.D. 1788 by the authority of People rather than the Constitution drafted and consented under the authority of Congress in A.D. 1787.

      It may be that my little “dance” is completely unnecessary. Perhaps no one other than me recognizes or even imagines a distinction between the authority of the Constitution of A.D. 1787 and the authority of the Constitution of A.D. 1788. But I do my little “dance” just the same because 1) I am technically correct; 2) even if my “dance” is irrelevant, it does no harm; 3) it’s one of the “i’s” that I suspect should be dotted; and 4) who can say? Maybe my “dance” has some significance. I.e., maybe if I refer to the Constitution of A.D. 1787, I’m unwittingly submitting to the authority of Congress while, if I refer to the Constitution of A.D. 1788, I’m recognizing the authority of the People.

      I’m not saying that reference to the Constitution of A.D. 1787 is wrong. I’m only arguing that reference to the Constitution of A.D. 1788 is better.

      It’s a quibble. You say “tomayto” and I say “tomahto”. Is either of us right? Either of us wrong?

      The technicalities are important because they give us confidence.

      But in the end, the most important factor may be whether we can make our “pitch” to a court and/or jury.

      If the jury “buys” your argument, even if your argument is technically imperfect or even mistaken, you can still win in court. If the jury does not “buy” your argument, even if your argument is perfect, you lose.

      The arguments you present on your website impress me as sufficiently technical and in depth that they could win in court. They aren’t all consistent with my arguments, but they could win in court. Just as my arguments, however imperfect, might still win in court.

      In the end, the courts are all like craps games. No argument is guaranteed to win (or lose). The only thing you can say for the best arguments is that they increase the probability of winning in court.

  37. Jethro!

    April 3, 2016 at 12:45 PM


    Just listened to the archived 3-22-16 episode. FANTASTIC episode and great interview with Michael Ellis and Bob McNeil. Very revealing as to the fraud inherent in the implementation of the “income tax”. You helped take a complex and dry subject and make it understandable and interesting. Great work, both to you and to the efforts of Michael and Bob.

    • Adask

      April 4, 2016 at 12:51 AM

      Hi Jethro,

      Thanks for the compliments.

      Thanks for listening.

  38. jaames

    July 17, 2016 at 8:57 PM

    miss your weekly newsletter from dgs

    • Adask

      July 18, 2016 at 3:58 AM

      I don’t know why. The newsletter is still be published, including one or two articles form me. All you probably need to do is sign up again on the website.

  39. Jethro!

    August 12, 2016 at 4:22 PM

    Al, where can the archives of your radio show be found now? Really enjoy your show. Thank you!

  40. Holli

    November 15, 2016 at 6:30 PM

    Please tell me how to contact you. My son was taken and beaten and molested by Cps. I would like to tell you my story and ask some questions.

  41. Jake Bredthauer

    August 26, 2017 at 12:20 AM

    Adask, Friday re. Roger Stone. You misunderstood him. Historically when a coup d’etat is successful the new government will kill those who helped make the change to prevent them from making another change.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s