Join Jason Hartman as he interviews Citizens for Legal Reform founder Alfred Adask about being jailed for 344 days in a Level 5 maximum security prison with no warrant or charges ever filed against him, and was also sued for over $9 million per year by the Texas Attorney General, a debacle that took almost two years to turn around. Alfred also talks about the relationship between modern drugs and genocide, as well as where he feels our country is heading with our national debt, the most important trend he sees in modern politics, and more. Listen at: www.HolisticSurvival.com for more details.
Alfred Adask worked in various construction industries before a divorce propelled him into studying the legal system. In time, he began publishing the AntiShyster News Magazine, which ran for 12 years. He also ran for the Texas Supreme Court in 1992, motivated and hosted the biggest legal reform meetings in the country, and was identified by the Federal government as one of the top dozen anti-government activists during the 1990s. It is Alfred’s belief that the entire problem with government is a spiritual war. He seeks to educate people about the flaws in our system of government, addressing that citizens in this country have become “subjects” and enslaved. The question is, “Who is in charge?” Alfred asks, “Is the government the sovereign in this country, or are we-the-people the sovereign?” As long as people are content with being complacent in this country, the government can continue doing what they’re doing. He encourages we-the-people to assert our authority and reminds us of the Godly foundation that our country was built on. Adask, who has faced controversy for some of his comments, was recently profiled on 60 Minutes. His blog can be found at adask.wordpress.com.
Narrator: Welcome to the Holistic Survival Show with Jason Hartman. The economic storm brewing around the world is set to spill into all aspects of our lives. Are you prepared? Where are you going to turn for the critical life skills necessary to survive and prosper. The Holistic Survival Show is your family’s insurance for a better life. Jason will teach you to think independently, to understand threats and how to create the ultimate action plan. Sudden change or worst-case scenario, you’ll be ready. Welcome to Holistic Survival, your key resource for protecting the people, places, and profits you care about in uncertain times. Ladies and gentlemen, your host Jason Hartman.
Jason Hartman: Welcome to the Holistic Survival Show. This is your host, Jason Hartman, where we talk about protecting the people, places and profits you care about in these uncertain times. We have a great interview for you today and we will be back with that in less than 60 seconds on the Holistic Survival Show. And by the way, be sure to visit our website at HolisticSurvival.com. You can subscribe to our blog which is totally free, has loads of great information, and there’s just a lot of good content for you on the site. So make sure you take advantage of that at HolisticSurvival.com. We’ll be right back.
Announcer: What’s great about the shows you’ll find on JasonHartman.com is that if you want to learn how to finance your next big real estate deal, there’s a show for that. If you want to learn more about food storage and the best way to keep those onions from smelling up everything else, there’s a show for that. If you honestly want to know more about business ethics, there’s a show for that. And if you just want to get away from it all and need to know something about world travel, there’s even a show for that. Yep, there’s a show for just about anything, only from JasonHartman.com or type in “Jason Hartman” in the iTunes store.
Start of Interview with Alfred Adask
Jason Hartman: You are going to hear some fascinating things from our next guest. We are going to talk about legal reform, we are going to talk about the sovereign citizens movement, and what you are about to hear will absolutely amaze you and it may give you some hope that the little guy can stand up against some of the evils that government commits from time to time and all too often nowadays. Our guest today is Alfred Adask and he is with us from Dallas Texas and, Alfred, how are you?
Alfred Adask: I’m doing well. Thank you, Jason.
Jason Hartman: Well, good. Glad to have you on the show today. You were sued by the Texas attorney general for $25,000 a day, 9 million dollars per year? Tell us about that?
Alfred Adask: I was last of 7 defendants in a case that involved the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance. The case began in 2011 against a husband and wife and their corporation and they were manufacturing and distributing colloidal silver which is an inexpensive antibiotic that consists of distilled water with silver ions in suspension in the water. The FDA initiated the suit. It was prosecuted by the attorney general with the state of Texas. It was the Texas department of state health services. They fronted on the suit and they threatened each of the defendants. Again, husband and wife and their corporation were the three original defendants, and then another man came in and he bought some of their equipment, they added him as a defendant and his corporation and his trust. He asked me if I could assist him and I volunteered to be fiduciary for his trust and the attorney general made me a defendant. It was surprising to me. It turns out I didn’t understand that part of the law, but I was much surprised where I was not merely a fiduciary. I was now a defendant for $25,000 a day, $9 million a year.
Jason Hartman: That must have been a very, very scary experience for you. Now, Alfred, I gotta ask you, when most people hear the phrase controlled substance, they’re thinking drugs, recreational drugs, hallucinogenic drugs. This is colloidal silver. I mean why is it a controlled substance first of all?
Alfred Adask: Well, you would have to ask the FDA about that, but that was the rule on it. It involves their definitions of drugs, and I don’t know, the why…Ultimately, the why is they want it off the market on behalf of large pharmaceutical manufacturers who don’t want inexpensive antibiotic available to the people, at least that’s our belief, and they wanted it removed from the market, and they were gonna just stomp us flat and essentially beat the hell out of us and make a statement and try to scare everyone else in the country that was manufacturing colloidal silver.
Jason Hartman: It seems today we have a new flavor of fascism where the government is just in bed with the corporations, but all the time it seems like they’re being socialists in so many ways. It’s just a really amazing thing. I want to get to the prison system and talk about that too. But, first of all, tell me what is your take on the relationship between the modern drug laws we have and genocide. Most people would never make this connection that you have, would they?
Alfred Adask: No, no. It was unusual. I’m sure I’m the first person to realize what this is. What happened, I’m the last person added as a defendant in this case and I read the relevant law. And part of the relevant law were being charged for manufacturing distribution of a controlled substance and it applies to drugs. And I’m reading right now from plaintiff’s motion. This was the Texas attorney general motion for summary judgment, dated May 31st, 2006. And it declares in part “Definition of drug pursuant to state and federal health codes. The key in this case lies in determining at law and not as a matter of fact, whether the defendant’s colloidal products match the definition of drugs. And then they quote Texas department of health and safety code 431.002, subparagraph 14. And it says “Drug means articles recognized by the official United States Pharmacopia,” yadda, yadda, yadda, “or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for the use in the diagnosis cure mitigation, treatment prevention of disease in man or other animals.” And I saw the phrase “Man or other animals” and first thing I thought is these people gotta be crazy. I can read and I understand it didn’t say man or animals, it said man or other animals. I said well that means they regard man as an animal.
And first time I saw it, I thought, why, the damn fools – they must be crazy. They don’t know what they’re doing when they write this down. And I continue reading and it says articles other than food intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. They said it twice in the definition of drugs in the state code and then in the federal code entitled 21, The United States Code Section 321 G1 – same definition. And it says twice, man or other animals. Well, I’m a student of the bible. Alright, I’m not a scholar but I’m a student and I understand that at Genesis 1:26 through 28 it says that on the 6th day God created man in his image, in God’s image, and gave man dominion over the animals. That tells me as a man made in God’s image, I cannot be an animals. And it tells me that if the government passes a law that presumes me to be an animal, they do so in violation the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, and probably of the Muslim faith. I’m not a student of the Muslim faith, but I assume they operate on the same principles.
Jason Hartman: So what you’re getting to here is a defense, a constitutional law defense under your right to freedom of religion.
Alfred Adask: Yes, as a defense against the drug loss, this definition of drugs. And this is the definition of drugs on which the war on drugs was based when President Nixon started that war on drugs back in 1971. It’s based on the presumption that the people are animals. And the war on drugs laid the foundation for much of the modern police state. And the police state laid the foundation for much of the modern prison industrial complex. Right now 70% of the people in federal penitentiaries – I’ve heard, I don’t know what the truth of the matter is – but I’ve heard 70% are there on drug related crimes. All of this is based on a definition of drugs that presumes the people to be animals in violation of fundamental principles of the bible.
Jason Hartman: So when you entered this defense, how did you do it? Was it in your answer to their lawsuit?
Alfred Adask: Yeah, that’s what we did. We responded and I first off tried to establish them a man made in God’s image. Who’s gonna argue with it? I guarantee I can prove it. I certainly have a bible I can point to. Just laid out an extensive document and we essentially said, look, we are men made in God’s image. You can’t declare us to be animals without violating our freedom of religion up until that point…
Jason Hartman: Did you actually sue them? Or did you…
Alfred Adask: This was just a defense.
Jason Hartman: Okay, it wasn’t a cross-complaint then?
Alfred Adask: No. We didn’t file a counterclaim on them or anything like that. All we did was this was simply a defense and we weren’t absolutely certain of what we were doing. No, this was new to us and nobody’s done it previously.
Jason Hartman: Yeah. That’s a very fascinating defense. I never would have thought of it.
Alfred Adask: We advanced the defense. And up until that time, we had been getting new paperwork from the attorney general’s office, certified mail. Every 2 to 6 weeks we’d get another thick bundle of paper from them involving the case and that has been going on for oh 18 months, 12-18 months that I had been involved in the case up until that point and time. Once we advanced this defense, they went dead silent for five months. We didn’t hear a word from them. We’re usually getting something every 2 to 6 weeks – got nothing.
And then they came back after 5 months and they spent the next 5 months trying to settle the case. And they ultimately offered to let us skate without any fines and without even paying any court costs. And we had an assistant attorney general handling the case, Raul Noriega. And he said he’d been there for 22 years and he told us that he had never heard of the attorney general’s office. He said they’ll sometimes offer not to find people, but they’ll always impose the court costs. And they’d invested close to a half million dollars before this case was over. They should normally have at least tried to take us for the court cost. They weren’t letting us go. Just skate, all they wanted was Ben Taylor to take a food manufacturer’s license and that was it – walk away. We refused to settle with them under any terms. And then we had two more hearings on jurisdiction. They declared they did have jurisdiction and then they simply dropped the case – they disappeared in 2007 and we haven’t’ heard another word from them.
Well, the point is we don’t have a victory where you can point to it in court where somebody said “Yep, you absolutely won”, but they did drop the case. And after investing again, we know because the assistant attorney general told us how much they’d invested in the case and how much time and so on. It’s virtually unprecedented that the government would invest a half million dollars in the prosecution of a case and then simply drop it. The reason is because if we went to court on this and we get in front of a jury and explain to a jury that the government regards you and your children and your parent and everyone you ever loved as nothing but livestock, animals, there’s no jury in the world that’s gonna rule against us. There’s just no way. I mean I would pay money to see the prosecutor that can persuade a jury to vote that we should be found guilty because we are animals and the jury are animals. On top of which, the whole war on drug is built on this definition. If this case went forward on appeal as we get up the ladder, assuming in the unlikely event that we were convinced or found guilty at the trial court level, if it went up the ladder, we start…Sooner or later we’re gonna get to a court that’s going to have to admit that the people are not animals. And when they do that, the drug war ends in that part of the country.
Jason Hartman: So why haven’t you filed a civil rights claim?
Alfred Adask: Well, I never violated our civil rights. No one was ever jailed on this thing. This was a civil action throughout the whole thing. And part of the reason is that the guy that I was associated with on this, that had asked me to help, all he wanted to do was just get back to his business. He didn’t want to make any more waves. If the government had gone away, that suited him just fine. He didn’t care about that. He was not interested in suing. I wanted to go ahead with that, he didn’t want to, I said fine – it was alright.
Jason Hartman: And what happened to all of the other defendants then?
Alfred Adask: Well, the original husband and wife, they spent $160,000 on attorneys when the case first began. The cost of the attorneys drove them into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy pushed them into divorce. The two of them divorced and they left Texas for parts unknown. Their corporation was done.
The other guy, Ben Taylor, he’s still manufacturing colloidal silver down there in Utopia, Texas, he and his corporation’s trust and I’m no longer fiduciary for his trust.
Jason Hartman: What do you see as the most important trend in politics today? I mean people are upset like I have never, ever seen it before. There’s a lot of dissatisfaction going on with the system nowadays and the power that be.
Alfred Adask: A couple answers to the question – the biggest problem we have, of course, is the bet is beyond ever being repaid. That’s point 1. The debt is too great to ever be repaid. And this is what the government understands. People don’t yet understand it. They are led to believe that we have to pay the debt and they’re led to believe that it’s possible to pay the debt.
Jason Hartman: And I just want to chime in there and say when you say it can’t be repaid, it can’t be repaid in constant dollars, in dollars that are worth anything.
Alfred Adask: In terms of purchasing pattern. Alan Greenspan made the point this last weekend, “We can’t default on our debt because we’ll just print more money.”
Jason Hartman: It is unbelievable how these Keynesian thinkers like that think that they can just keep printing money with wild abandon and no penalty for the money printing. I mean of course the penalty is massive monetary inflation.
Alfred Adask: The whole idea is as crazy as me saying that I can’t possibly be broke because I still have more checks in my checkbook. It doesn’t matter how many checks you have in your checkbook. How much money do you have in the checking account? That’s what counts in this.
Jason Hartman: Great analogy.
Alfred Adask: That’s what it comes down to. The debt, however, you’re probably familiar with John Williams at ShadowStats.com.
Jason Hartman: Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah.
Alfred Adask: Well, the government is assuring us that the current national debt is in the neighborhood of $14 trillion dollars. Williams calculates that the debt is now about$75 trillion, at least the last time I’m aware of his calculation – several months ago. But $75 trillion dollars, we’re talking 5 times greater than what’s being reported by the government. $75 trillion dollars, divide that by the population – roughly 300 million and you’re talking $250,000 in debt for every man, woman and child for the country. And there’s no way in the world. I look out the street – I know I don’t have an extra quarter million for my fair share of the total national debt. And you take a family of 4, their fair share would be 1 million dollars. I just don’t see that this is possible. I look at it – a certain amount of guestimates, a certain amount of common since. I’m just saying I don’t think they can collect more than 20% maximum on the existing national debt. I think 80% has to be repudiated because there’s no way you’re gonna squeeze all of that money out of all of these people. It isn’t gonna happen.
Jason Hartman: In my opinion, there are only 6 ways out of the mess and I think the way they will get out of the mess is they’ll just inflate their way out of it and in so doing in that process, they will impoverish 200 to 250 million or more people in this country. And unless you’re positioning your assets properly and you’re positioning your liabilities properly, you’re gonna get burned. It’s gonna be a real ugly time.
Alfred Adask: You’re gonna get burned even if you don’t, even if you have positioned yourself properly because if they can break this country down to where 250 million people are suddenly broke and perhaps starving, your neighbors had better not suspect that you have some food when they don’t.
Jason Hartman: So that’s why we talk on the show about survival techniques because there is a possibility that it could get really, really ugly like that. But that brings me actually to another question. I mean where do you think the country is really headed? I mean that’s what you’re really talking about. But maybe get more broadly what else do you want to say about that?
Alfred Adask: Well, we’re headed for an extraordinarily difficult time. And what will happen, no one knows. It depends a lot on how bad things get. Is it gonna break down to where we have hordes of people looting and robbing or is it simply gonna break down to where we have people that are unemployed and managing to get through, but just barely through the next great depression. Hard to say how bad this will be, but it’s going to be a terrible situation. And in the context of that situation, it’s possible we’re gonna see a lot of political instability. It’s possible that we could see a brand new form of government come into this country.
Jason Hartman: And that might be a good thing. You now, some good might come out of that.
Alfred Adask: It’s possible. I mean it’s the kind of thing, though, that you have to be careful about because you break this economy down where people can barely find anything to eat. And anybody who comes up, and I don’t care if he’s a nazi or a communist or whatever, if he can make a credible promise to put a chicken in every pot, he’s gonna have a bunch of people following him. Alright, it’s gonna be a dangerous time. It’s a time when people who are sensible, in my opinion, would begin to study the Declaration of Independence and pick up on the principals we have in that declaration and be in a position and begin to understand what it means to have the republican form of government that’s guaranteed in our constitution. We have a democracy and the word doesn’t even appear in our federal constitution. We’re a democracy, we’re guaranteed a republican form of government and they’re not the same.
Jason Hartman: I just want to say for the listeners who may not have really learned a lot about that issue, when you say republican, you don’t mean the republican party, you mean a republic – a representative of the public, right?
Alfred Adask: Not even a republic. In fact, what article 4, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says “The United States shall guarantee to each state in this union a republican form of government. Technically, the are supposed to be 50 republican forms of government that all together comprised the several United States. That’s what we’re supposed to have. What we have instead is essentially a national democracy.
Jason Hartman: Well, tell us about that. What’s the difference between a given state? You’re in Dallas. And I know Texas has something actually different in their state constitution than other states. And they have a much more independent way of thinking. So does Arizona, Nevada, to an extent one of the northeastern states. I think it’s Rhode Island maybe. Don’t quote me on that. Has some more trend running through their thought process there. You talk about the Texas penile code in your notes – section 1.04D. What’s that all about?
Alfred Adask: Section 1 is generally provisions of the Texas penal code. .04 is territorial jurisdiction and sub-paragraph D is a definition of the territorial jurisdiction of what they call this state. And Texas penal code 1.04 subsection D says, this is what the text says, “This state includes the land in the water and the airspace above the land in the water over which this state has power to define offenses. That is the definition of the territorial jurisdiction of this state. But what is this state? It appears that the term – this state does not refer to the state of Texas. It refers to a territory and it sounds I’m sure crazy to most people, but there’s a reason to think that this might be correct. There’s a reason to believe that what the government has done is essentially shut the states of the union down, rendered them insolvent and supplanted them with a territory. If you were within the state of Texas, that’s one venue. If you’re within TX or state of Texas, all uppercase letters, a different venue – and I know this sounds hard to believe, farfetched, fantastic, but it’s not a new concept. It’s been around for at least 15 years.
Jason Hartman: I don’t see why it would be that farfetched really because if you think about all the unfunded mandates where the federal government is just pushing all these burdens onto states…
Alfred Adask: Well, they’re actually pushing them onto territories in my opinion. And it’s quite legal when they do so. I’m trying to think which section of the constitution deals with it. It’s article 4, but in any case I think it’s article 4, section 3, clause 3. And it says “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needed rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to The United States. The federal government has absolute jurisdiction to do anything they want within the territories. And this is why they can pass also in our opinion. We think this is why they can pass all sorts of bizarre laws. People look and say “Well, that’s unconstitutional.” It’s unconstitutional within a state of the union, yeah. But if it’s presumed that you’re operating in a territory, it’s not unconstitutional. Congress has virtually no constitutional limits on what it can do in the territories. All the constitutional limits apply to the states of the union. This goes back to article 1, section 10, clause 1, constitution of The United States which says no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender and payment of debts.
Jason Hartman: The legal tender laws.
Alfred Adask: No, it didn’t say legal tender – a tender – not a legal tender, a tender. It says no state. It does not say no territory. It does not say the federal government can’t do it. It says only that the states have to operate on gold and silver coin. Now, what happened that took the gold out in 1933 – they took the silver out domestically in 1968. How did the governments of the states of the union continue to function since 1968 without any gold or silver coin in circulation? Constitution article 1, section 10, clause 1 says no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender and payment of debt. How do they collect taxes? How do they impose fines? How do they pay their help without any gold and silver?
Jason Hartman: What is the answer?
Alfred Adask: There’s two possible answers and you can take your pick. I don’t know which one is true, but there’s two possible answers. One is the government of the state of Texas is violating article 1, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States every single time it imposes a fine, collects penalties, plays its help with federal reserve notes. They are either acting unconstitutionally every time they touch cash or what passes for the government of the state of Texas is no longer the state of Texas. If it was the government of a territory, it can use federal reserve notes. The requirement at article 1, 10-1 only applies to the states of the union. It does not apply to territories. They are either acting unconstitutionally every time they touch a federal reserve note or they are not truly the states of the union. You tell me which it is. I can’t see a third option.
Jason Hartman: So in terms of your solution to this, you probably favor, as do I , further privatization of government activities? But then you get the prison context, a prison industrial complex. And that sort of privatization really scares me where you get this sort of vigilante justice kind of thing. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Alfred Adask: If you’d asked me that question 10 years ago or 20 years ago, I would be all in favor of privatizing the government. As near as I can see what we have right now is a fully privatized government or virtually all of the agencies are in fact private corporations. You can go to manta.com on the internet – Manta.com, and right there on the first page you’ll see a little search engine. Manta.com is a list of almost 70 million private companies – most of which are here in the United States, maybe all of them. I don’t know if there are any foreign companies listed there. The information for this website is provided by Dunn and Bradstreet – Almost 70 million corporations that they have here. For example, I’m at the search engine right now and you can type in the white house. Do a search on it – you will find a list of 14,140 US companies matching the white house.
Here’s number 8 on the list. This number moves. Sometimes it’s number 8, sometimes seen in a number 37. Number 8, the White House office, 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Hang on just a second – click on it. The White House office in Washington, D.C. is a private company categorized under President’s Office. Our records show it was established in 1987 and incorporated in the District of Columbia. I’m not saying this – this is done in Bradstreet that’s telling us that what passes for The White House or at least part of what passes for The White House is a private company. I strongly suspect when you see not just President Obama but his press secretary, he’ll be standing in front of a logo that has a picture that says The White House. I think that’s a corporate logo. I can’t prove it – I could be mistaken. But these guys, The White House. This isn’t me talking.
Jason Hartman: This is fascinating because I’m at the site now and I looked up The White House just like you said. I see that, yeah. D.C. is a private company categorized under The President’s Office.
Alfred Adask: Let me give you another one: Internal Revenue Service. Just type that into the search engine up on the top there. 47,188 US companies matching Internal Revenue Service. Some of these are…I don’t know what they are to tell you the truth, others appear to be the individual branch offices of the Internal Revenue Service. They are listed as private companies. The branch office for The Internal Revenue Service in Dallas is a different private company than the branch office for the one that’s up in Phoenix, Arizona. And they are both different from the one that’s in Seattle. Which one is the real Internal Revenue Service. Which one is the government as opposed to private corporations? The whole thing, which passes for government right now, appears to be a conglomerate of private corporations.
Jason Hartman: That is mind boggling. I’ve always known and thought about GSEs, Government Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so forth and The Federal Reserve which of course everybody knows is not the least bit federal. But that’s interesting – I’ve never done this before though to this level.
Alfred Adask: You can do it. We’ve looked up courts. We’ve found courts listed as private companies on manted.com. We have looked up the congress of The United States. We’ve identified the individual congressman as private companies according to Manta. And I don’t make this stuff up. This is Dunn & Bradstreet.
Jason Hartman: Really interesting.
Alfred Adask: You’ve gone too far with privatization.
Jason Hartman: That probably is very true. And it just makes me wonder who really owns the country and who really owns the world. Is it the 12 families that people talk about? The Rothschilds, etcetera? It’s just amazing.
Alfred Adask: It’s fascinating. Who owns these corporations?
Jason Hartman: Quite fascinating. Let me take a brief pause – we’ll be back in just a minute.
Narrator: Now is your opportunity to get The Financial Freedom Report. The Financial Freedom Report provides financial self-defense in uncertain times and it’s your source for innovative forward-thinking investment property strategies and advice. Get your newsletter subscription today. You get a digital download and even more. The price, only $197. Go to JasonHartman.com to get yours today.
Jason Hartman: Talk to us about the Sovereign Citizen Movement. What was your interest in that originally, Alfred?
Alfred Adask: Well, my interest is that I don’t like the government. I went through a divorce in 1983. I lost custody of my children. A very great deal of trouble came from it and it was one of those things that started me on this trek and one thing leads to another. And you begin to understand the concept of sovereignty. I’ve been at it now for 28 years trying to understand what’s happening in the system. And we are brought back – for example, Chisholm vs. Georgia is a case form 1793, just a few years after the Constitution was adopted and so on, 15-17 years, something like that. And The Supreme Court of The United States declared that the people of The United States of America were sovereigns, plural, without subjects. This country was intended to be a nation of individual sovereigns, individual kings and queens. And this is not a small thing. This goes to the heart of the concept of the republican form of government guaranteed at article 4, section 4 of The Constitution. The way you become sovereign is by receiving your rights directly from God.
Virtually no one grasps this anymore. But, historically, if you went back into The Holy Roman Empire and later when England broke loose, the reason the king of England was king was because he received the divine right of kings in a coronation ceremony that took place in a church. It was presumed that he and he alone had the divine right of kings. He got his rights directly from God. That’s what made him a sovereign and that’s what reduced everyone else in the country to the status of subjects. One sovereign, all else were subjects. That fundamental pattern existed throughout Europe up until 1776 when the founders came in our country and they started the declaration of independence which said in the second sentence we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, not just kings – well, all men including kings – not just the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Those unalienable rights and that endowment from God corresponds to what had previously been the divine right of kings that was afforded to only one man per country. Our founders started out and said, no, everybody gets their rights directly from God. And when they did that, that was the foundation for everyone in this country was presumed to be a sovereign. When you are sovereign, your government is your public servant. It’s not your master. If you’re not a sovereign, your subject under those circumstances the government becomes your master rather than your public servant. It goes to the fundamental question of who is running this show? Are we the people? Are we the people in charge or is the government in charge? Who is the sovereign?
Jason Hartman: I don’t think we’re very sovereign anymore.
Alfred Adask: Well, that’s the way government would have you believe. And what we’ve tried to do is educate people – look, our historical foundation, they intended us to be a nation of individual sovereigns.
Jason Hartman: I’m curious, do you live in Texas by design or is that just where you happen to live?
Alfred Adask: It’s kind of where I happened to live since 1980. It’s where I happened to live for the last 31 years. I guess you could say that. I don’t know if it’s a design or not.
Jason Hartman: It wasn’t after you became interested in the Sovereign Citizens Movement and so forth.
Alfred Adask: Oh no.
Jason Hartman: With the Sovereign Citizens Movement, have you studied or thought about moving elsewhere? Are you looking at dual citizenship? I mean there are a lot of different flavors of this.
Alfred Adask: You mean like immigrating to a foreign country?
Jason Hartman: Yeah. A lot of sovereign people say go live in South America, whatever. Or are you more just being a student of rights and the original plan as established by our founding fathers and really the old biblical thoughts on it?
Alfred Adask: If I were a younger man, I might think about immigration. But I’m 66 years old. I’m not inclined to go to a foreign country. And on top of which, that’s one part of the explanation. The other part of it is I’m serious about my faith. And right or wrong, people might say I’m delusional or whatever, but the truth of the matter is I feel the good lord has called me to do what I’m doing. And whether other people think that’s foolishness or not, I don’t know and I don’t even care. But it does appear that’s what the good Lord wants me to do. I don’t think he wants me to do it from South America. There’s times when I would like to. And I’ve prayed on it. But so far as I can get an answer, the answer is I’m a watchman on this section of the wall. This is my section of the wall. Keep your eyes peeled. Stand firm to the end. That’s my objective.
Jason Hartman: So do you have any advice for listeners about protecting their sovereignty?
Alfred Adask: Yes, learn to read. It’s the most important thing you can do. This whole system operates on words. If you can master the English language, you can control this system. But when I say master it, I do not mean learn to speak at an 8th grade level or a 12th grade level. In my opinion – I haven’t been tested on it but I’ve edited and published a magazine for years and I’ve worked with words on a regular basis for a long, long time – if I had to guess I’d say I’ve got a 22nd grade level.
Jason Hartman: So when you say reading and the whole system operates on words, you mean because laws are defined by words? Is that what you’re saying?
Alfred Adask: Sure. That’s what it comes down to. We talked about that section in the Texas penal code that says this state includes land in the water and the air space above the land in the water, over which this state has power to define offenses. If you don’t accept their definitions, you’re in this state. If you don’t accept their definitions, you’re apparently not. It’s all about definitions. The definitions are the law of the law. If you get a law that says thou shalt not kill, what does that mean? Well, as Bill Clinton said it all depends on what the meaning of is is. What’s the definition of thou? What’s the definition of shalt? What’s the definition of not? What’s the definition of kill? Part of the problem is that virtually every word you can find has multiple definitions. Which one do you mean in any particular sentence? If you can begin to understand the language, this is part of the reason, again, I was able to stop these people when they were threatening us. They invested a half million dollars in 6 years on the case. I was able to stop them because I can read. I’m a dangerous man. I can read. I’ve got a dozen dictionaries. I don’t have a dozen rifles and shotguns and the rest of that. I have a dozen dictionaries. That makes me a dangerous man. I can read the law.
Jason Hartman: Let’s talk for a moment here and I know we’ve got to wrap up but let’s talk about employment and free trade. It’s my opinion that the country’s just being hollowed out and that’s what’s going on with America right now and it’s just really disheartening frankly. I think we still have some real possibilities of correcting our course, but boy the jobs have just gone offshore. What can the government do to restore employment? What are your thoughts on free trade and tariffs and wages and standard of living changing around?
Alfred Adask: Both the republican and democratic parties, the leadership has been captured by globalist. They are both determined to move us into a new world order and the global government and their part of that is to embrace global free trade. They’ve embraced global free trade by knocking down our tariff barriers. Ross Perot warned in 1992.
Jason Hartman: Giant sucking sound.
Alfred Adask: That’s right. He said if you pass NAFTA, there’s gonna be a giant sucking sound as all the jobs and the industries move overseas.
Jason Hartman: And he was right, but the corporate media just marginalized him, marginalized him, marginalized him. But he was absolutely right, wasn’t he?
Alfred Adask: That’s exactly right. And the solution, it’s alleged that we’re all gonna get rich by engaging in global free trade, but it’s a bunch of crap. We are gonna go broke. We are gonna go into poverty. The American dream is gonna be ended for the sake of the new world order. If you want to stop it, you put people in office who are going to restore high tariffs. If I had a little company down here manufacturing products, I’m infectively encouraged to manufacture my products to compete in Peking or maybe Nairobi or some place. I don’t want to compete in Peking. I don’t want to compete in Nairobi. I am content to compete in Des Moines, Iowa. You understand? Put up a high tariff barrier around this country, the industries come back, the jobs come back – all of a sudden we are beginning to be prosperous again. We don’t have to be selling across the world and competing head on with people that are working for 5 bucks a day.
Jason Hartman: Alfred, tell me though what is the agenda behind. Say you have a Bush, you have an Obama, you have a Clinton, whatever. Why are they doing this? They know it’s bad for the country. Is the deal that when you become President that you’re taken into a room and saying, look, you’re gonna end up like JFK if you don’t follow our agenda by the people that really run the world, the Bilderberg group? Why would they do this? I mean what’s in it for them?
Alfred Adask: It’s the kind of question that no one can answer for an absolute face. You can trace it back to end times if that’s your mindset. You can trace it back to Satanists if that’s your mindset. I have no idea what the people at the top are doing. I’ll probably never get close enough to find out. But I do know that they are destroying fundamental principles this country was built on. They don’t want us to be men and women endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. They want us to be animals, they want us to be livestock that they can control on the global plantation.
One of the justifications for this I think comes back after World War II where people were so terrified by the threat of nuclear war that they decided we can’t risk another nuclear war – we’ve got to have some kind of global government.
Jason Hartman: And that was when the UN was created…
Alfred Adask: Whether it was a true cause or if it was merely a rationalization that was exploited, who knows. I wasn’t there, I don’t know. But I can understand how a lot of people would be tempted saying my God, it doesn’t matter – we can sell the people’s rights right down the river and destroy the nation, but at least we’ll prevent global thermonuclear war. That would be a rationalization for some people. Now, I don’t know that that’s a true story in the sense that’s the real reason, but hard to say.
Jason Hartman: It’s at least probably a contributing factor for sure. Well, what is the difference between a nation and an economy? When we look at this world where the borders have largely dropped, the tariffs are gone, the trade is free, the libertarian side of me says, hey, I love free trade – I certainly love being a consumer and having a few bucks to go spend at the store because everything’s cheaper and I say that one of the ways they’ve sold this to the American people and sold their jobs down the river is that they’ve basically imported deflation in an era where since 1971 we’ve had massive hidden inflation that is far beyond the “official” statistics, even far beyond what ShadowStats would publish I’d say because we’ve taken down these borders and we’ve imported deflation in the form of labor from Mexico and products from China and other low-wage countries.
Alfred Adask: And it will work just fine as long as we can continue to buy on credit. But without jobs, if they shut the credit off, all of a sudden we can’t buy at any price because we don’t have any money. In terms of the difference between an economy and a nation, a nation operates with a system of values that is conducive to the people succeeding, prospering, getting what the people want as men and women. It’s one system of values. You go into an economy, the economy is based on an entirely different system of values and virtually everything in the economy ultimately devolves down to money. The economy is all about efficiency. The economy is all about profit and loss. Are you in the black or are you in the red? That’s what the economy is all about. And decisions are made on that basis. And these decisions are often contrary to what people would regard as human values. People are routinely just sacrificed and abandoned because it is financially efficient to do so in the economy and so far as we are persuaded to worry about, oh my gosh, the economy. The economy is there and you can’t get away from it. But you gotta recognize there is also a nation composed of real living men and women, boys and girls, children, infants, and they are not just livestock. They are not just commercial entities. They have values and lives that have worth without regard to how much money they have. You embrace and so far as we begin to see this place as an economy. Rather than a nation, we embrace a system of values that are essentially inhumane. They may be efficient, they may be profitable but they don’t give a damn who lives or dies. It’s just what’s the bottom line? Ultimately, it’s about the love of money. Get into the economy – hard to find any economic indicators. I know there’s some but virtually all of them are about money, measured in money or at least they implicate money. Love of money, if the bible is truth it says love of money is the root of all evil.
Jason Hartman: Yeah. And just to clarify, it doesn’t say money is the root, it says the love of money.
Alfred Adask: That’s exactly right.
Jason Hartman: Absolutely. I want to wrap up with one final question but it’s a pretty big one, okay? And that is, Alfred, the Constitution of The United States of America, I think that is one of the highest achievements of mankind. What do you think is the biggest flaw in our Constitution?
Alfred Adask: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1.
Jason Hartman: What does that say?
Alfred Adask: It said no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of debts. They only imposed that restriction on the states of the union. They didn’t impose it on the territories and they didn’t impose it on the federal government. If they had extended that to include the federal government and the territories, we wouldn’t have a federal reserve system today.
Jason Hartman: We’d be on a gold standard, right?
Alfred Adask: We’d still be on the gold standard or the constitution would have been amended, one or the other. But I’d say that’s the biggest mistake right there that I’m aware of.
Jason Hartman: Well, that is the reason for our debt, and it’s the reason the momentary system is built on smoke and mirrors. It’s essentially a form of a Ponzi scheme – it’s not exactly a Ponzi scheme. But tell us more about that. I mean what do you mean? Like, why is that, other than the things I just mentioned, why is that such a big flaw?
Alfred Adask: Well, one of the reasons is that the states of the union were created…The states that became the union were created under the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. Declaration of Independence created the first 13 states. These were the ones that are based on the principle that first our rights flow from God in the second sentence of the declaration. And the third sentence of the declaration, it says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. They are saying in the first half of that sentence that the fundamental purpose of government is envisioned by the founders, was to secure to every man, woman, and even unborn child, their God given unalienable rights.
Now, the question is which are the governments among men? Again, it says to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Which are the governments among men? Clearly, they are the governments of the states of the union. These are the ones that are obligated to secure your god given unalienable rights under the terms of the declaration. Today, it’s not at all clear and it’s debatable at best. It’s not clear, but it’s not clear that the federal government ever had an obligation to secure anyone’s God given unalienable rights. They may have been secured under the 9th amendment on the constitution – I think you could make a claim on them.
But the fundamental business of the federal government was to balance things between the states of the union. But it was the states of the union that we’re obligated to secure your God given unalienable rights. If by means of removing the gold and removing the silver, they could render the governments of the states of the union insolvent and inoperable. All of a sudden there’d be nobody left to secure my god given unalienable rights. Under those circumstances, I might be reduced to the status of an animal. As an animal, they can jail me anytime they want. If I get uppity, it’s just like any other wild animal – if you get uppity, they’ll throw you in the slammer or maybe they’ll shoot you.
Jason Hartman: Well, Alfred, thank you so much for sharing your story with us. That is quite a story about what the government was doing in their lawsuit against you. It’s just amazing. I know that’s led you to study a lot of this other very, very important stuff. Give out your website if you would and tell people where they can find out more and follow you.
Alfred Adask: I’m at Adask.wordpress.com. That’s a blog I have and virtually everything I’ve written for the last 3 or 4 years is on that blog.
Jason Hartman: And quite an interesting blog at that. Thanks so much for joining us today, Alfred. We really appreciate having you on the show.
Narrator: Thank you for joining us today for the Holistic Survival Show, protecting the people, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Be sure to listen to our Creating Wealth Show which focuses on exploiting the financial and wealth creation opportunities in today’s economy. Learn more at www.JasonHartman.com or search “Jason Hartman” on iTunes. This show is produced by The Hartman Media Company, offering very general guidelines and information. Opinions of guests are their own and none of the content should be considered individual advice. If you require personalized advice, please consult an appropriate professional, information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. (Top image: Flickr | x1klima)
Transcribed by Ralph
* Read more from Holistic Survival
Conspiracy is Business as Usual
The Holistic Survival Team