HS 62 – We the People and Sovereignty; Alfred Adask’s Story

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 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.

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@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@holisticsurvival.com we'll be right back.

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.

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 Adusk and he is with us from Dallas, Texas. And Alfred, how are you?

I'm doing well, thank you, Jason.

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 per year. Tell us about that.

I was the last of seven defendants in a case that involved the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance. The case began in 2001 against a husband and wife and their corporation and 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 of 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, wife and their corporation were the three original defendants. And then another man came in and they added him to the. 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, which was surprising to me. Turns out I didn't understand that part of the law. But I was much surprised where I was not merely, you know, a fiduciary. I was now a defendant for 25 grand a day, 9 million a year.

That must have been a very, very scary experience for you. Now, Alfred, I gotta ask you. You know, 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?

Well, you would have to ask the FDA about that. But that was the rule on involves their definitions of drugs. And I don't know, I can't. 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, or at least that's our belief. And they wanted it removed from the market and they were going to just stomp us flat and beat the. Essentially beat the hell out of us in order and make an. Make, make a statement and try to scare everyone else in the country that was manufacturing colloidal silver.

Seems, it seems today that we have a. 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 socialist in so many ways. It's just a really, 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. No, you have, would they?

No, no, it was it was. It was unusual. I'm sure I'm the first person to realize what this is, what happened. Again, I'm the last person added as a defendant in this case. And I read the relevant law and part of the relevant law. We're 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 31, 2006, and it declares, in part, definition of drug pursuant to state and federal health codes. The key to this case lies in determining at law and not as a matter of fact whether the defendant's colloidal products met 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 pharmacopoeia, yada, yada, yada, and or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for the use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, prevention of disease in or other animals. And I saw the phrase man or other animals, and first thing I thought is, these people got to be crazy. I can read, and I understand it didn't say man or animals. It said man or other animals. And I said, well, that means they regard man as an animal. And I first. One of the first time I saw it, I thought, why the. 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 at Title 21, United States Code, Section 321, same definition. And it says twice, man or other animals. Well, I'm a student of the Bible, all right? I'm not a scholar, but I'm a student. And I understand that at Genesis 1:26 28, it says that on the sixth day, God created man in his image, in God's image and gave man dominion over the animals. That tells me that as a man made in God's image, I cannot be an animal. And it tells me that if the government passes a law that presumes me to be an animal, they do so in violation of the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, and probably the Muslim faith. I'm not a student of the Muslim faith, but I assume they operate on the same principles.

So what you're getting to here is a defense, a constitutional law defense under your right to freedom of religion.

Yes. As a defense against the drug laws. 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 gave us, laid the foundation for much of the modern police state and the police state laid the foundation for much of the modern prison, an 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.

So when you entered this defense, how did you do it? Was it in your answer to their lawsuit?

Yeah, yeah, that's what we did. We responded and I first off tried to establish that I'm a man made in God's image. Who's going to argue with it? I mean, 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, did you actually.

Sue them or did you just say this is a defense?

This was just a defense.

Okay. It wasn't a cross complaint then?

No. We didn't file a counterclaim on them or anything like that. We. All we did was this was simply a defense and we weren't absolutely certain of what we were doing. This was new to us and nobody's done it previously.

Yeah, that's a very fascinating defense. I never would have thought of it.

We advanced the defense and up until that time, we'd been getting new paperwork from the Attorney General's office, certified mail. Every two to six weeks we'd get another thick bundle of paper from them involved in the case. And that had been going on for 18 months. 12. 18 months that I had been involved in the case up until that point in time. Once we advanced this defense, they went dead silent for five months. We didn't hear a word from them. We were usually getting something every two to six weeks, got nothing. Then they came back after five months and they spent the next five 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 fine people, but they always impose the court costs. All right? And they'd invested close to half a million dollars before this case was over. They should normally have at least tried to take us for the court costs. They weren't letting us go, just skate. All they wanted is Ben Taylor to take a food manufacturer's license, and that was it. Walk away. We did. 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, you know, 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 parents and everyone you ever loved as nothing but livestock, animals, there's no jury in the world that's going to 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 drugs 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 convicted or found guilty at the trial court level, if it went up the ladder, we start. Sooner or later, we're going to 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.

So why haven't you filed a civil rights claim?

Well, I never violated our civil rights. This was never. 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 they were done, 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 all right.

And what happened to all of the other defendants then?

Well, the husband and wife, 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. All right, Their corporation was done. The other guy, Ben Taylor, he's still manufacturing colloidal silver down there in Utopia, Texas. He and his corporation is trust, and I'm no longer fiduciary for his trust.

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.

Of the bee Couple answers to the question. The biggest. The biggest problem we have, of course, is the debt is beyond ever being repaid. That's point one. The debt is too great to ever be repaid. And this is what the government understands. People don't yet understand it. They are being led to believe that we have to pay the debt and they're led to believe that it's possible to pay the debt.

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.

It can't be repaid. That are worth anything in terms of purchasing power. Yeah, it's like Alan Greenspan made the point this last weekend, oh, we can't default on our debt because we'll just print more money.

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 print. I mean, of course the penalty is massive monetary inflation.

It's. 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.

That's exactly right.

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 on this great analogy.

Oh, that's what it comes down to. It's just in the debt however, you probably familiar with John Williams at shadowstaff?

Oh, sure, yeah, yeah.

While the government is assuring us that the current debt, national debt, is in the neighborhood of $14 trillion, Williams calculates that the debt is now about 75 trillion. At least the last time I, last time I'm aware of his calculation several months ago. But $75 trillion, we're talking five times greater than what's being reported by the government. $75 trillion. Divide that by the population, roughly 300 million, and you're talking $250,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in 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 four, their fair share would be $1 million. I just don't see that this is possible. I look at it. Certain amount of guesstimates, certain amount of common sense. 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 not going to squeeze all, all of that money out of all of these people. It isn't going to happen.

You know, in my opinion, there are only six 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, unless you're positioning your assets properly and you're positioning your liabilities properly, you're going to get burned.

And you may, you might burn even if you don't. Yeah, well, 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, you better not have. Your neighbors had better not suspect that you have some food when they don't.

Well, 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 more broadly, what else do you want to say about that?

Well, we're headed for extraordinarily difficult time. And what will happen, no one knows. It depends a lot on how bad things get. You know, is it going to break down to where we have hordes of people looting and robbing, or is it simply going to 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 that we're going to see a lot of political instability. It's possible that we could see a brand new form of government come into.

This country and that might be a good thing. You know, some good might come out of that.

It's possible. I mean, it's the kind of thing, though, that you have to be careful about because when these people, you get, you break this economy down to 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 going to have a bunch of people follow, following him. All right. It's going to 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 principles 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 have a democracy, we're guaranteed republican form of government. And they're not the same.

And I just want to, 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.

Well, not exactly. Not even a republic. In fact, what Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States declares, it says, the United States shall guarantee to each state in this union a republican form of government. Technically, there are supposed to be 50 Republican forms of government that, that altogether comprises the several United States. That's what we're supposed to have. What we have instead is essentially a national democracy.

Well, tell us, you know, what's the difference between a given state? I know Texas, now 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 there. So does Arizona, Nevada to an extent. One of the northeastern states, I think it was Rhode island maybe, don't quote me on that, has a Similar trend running through their thought process there. You talk about the Texas Penal Code in Your notes. Section 1.04 D. What's that all about?

Section 1 is General Provisions of the Texas Penal Code.04 is Territorial Jurisdiction. And subparagraph D is a definition of the territorial jurisdiction of what they call this state. And section, again, our Texas Penal Code 1.04 subsection D says this is what the text says. This state includes the land and the water and the airspace above the land and 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 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 wherein, 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, but far fetched. Fantastic. But it's not a new concept. It's been around for at least 15 years.

I don't see why it would be that far fetched really. Because if you think about all the unfunded mandates where the federal government is just pushing all of these burdens onto.

States, 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, if it's Article 4 or not. 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 government, the federal government has absolute jurisdiction to do anything they want within the territories. And this is why they can pass all sorts, in our opinion. We think this is why they can pass all sorts of bizarre laws. People look at them 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 of 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 in payment of debts.

The legal tender laws.

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? They 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 in payment of debt. How do they collect taxes? How do they impose fines? How do they pay their help without any gold and silver?

What is the answer? I mean, I think there's two possible answers. Rhetorical.

Two possible. No, it's not rhetorical, but there are two possible answers, and you can take your pick. I don't know which one is true, but there's two possible answers. One, 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, pays 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 in a territory. If it was the government of a territory, it can use Federal Reserve notes. The requirement at Article 1101 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.

So in terms of your solution to this, you probably favor, as do I, further privatization of government activities or. No, because then you get. Then you get, I'm not finished yet. But then you get the prison complex, the 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.

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 where 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's any foreign countries companies listed there. The information for this website is provided by Dun and Bradstreet.

Alright.

And again almost 60 or 70 million. I think it's 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. Okay, do a search on it. It will take you to. You will find a list of 14,140 U.S. companies matching the White House. If you look here's number eight on the list. Now this, this number moves depending on where they're sometimes number eight. Sometimes seen it on number 37. Number eight. The White House office 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest 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. There is a. I'm not saying this, this is Dun and 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 the not just President Obama but his press secretary he'll be standing in front of a logo that has a picture 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 about.

This is fascinating because I'm at the site now and I looked up the White House just like you said and I see that yeah, DC is a private company categorized under the President's Office.

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, 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 appears to be what passes for government right now. Appears to be a conglomerate of private corporations.

That is mind boggling. You know, I mean I've always known and thought about GSEs, government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so forth and these sort of in the Federal Reserve which of course everybody knows isn't, is not the least bit federal. But that's, that's interesting. I've never done this before though to this level.

You can do it. We've looked up courts. We found courts listed as private companies on manta.com we have looked up the Congress of the United States. We've identified the individual congressmen as private companies according to manta.com and I don't make this stuff up. This is done in Bradstreet.

Really interesting.

Well it's again you've gone too far with privatization.

That probably is very true. And you know, 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, etc.

It's just fascinating who owns these corporations.

Yeah, quite fascinating. Let me take a brief pause. We'll be back in just a minute.

Now's 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.

Talk to us about the sovereign citizen movement. And what was your interest in that originally? Alfred?

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 down 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 from 1793, just a few years after the, 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 in 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 is 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 in our country and they started the Declaration of independence which said in a 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 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, the government is your public servant. It's not your master. If you're not a sovereign, you're a subject. Under those circumstances, the government becomes your master rather than your public servant. It goes to the fundamental question of who's running this show. We the people. Are we the people in charge or is the government in charge? Who is the sovereign?

I don't think we're very sovereign anymore.

Well, that's the way government would have you believe. And what we've tried to do is educate people. Look, our historical foundation is they intended us to be a nation of individual sovereigns.

I'm curious, do you live in Texas by design or is that just where you happen to live?

Well, it's kind of where I happen to live since 1980. It's where I happen to live for the last 31 years. I guess you could say that. I don't know if it's a design or not.

Well, yeah, no, I mean it was. It wasn't after you got became interested in the sovereign citizens movement and so forth with the sovereign citizens movement. I mean, have you studied or thought about moving elsewhere? Are you looking at dual citizenship? I mean, there's a lot of different flavors of this.

Or you been like emigrating to a foreign country.

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.

If I were a younger man, I might think about emigration. 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 it'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 insofar as I can get an answer, the answer is this is my. This 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.

So do you have any advice for listeners about protecting their sovereignty?

Yes. Learn to read. Okay. 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 the. 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 up a 22 grade, 22nd grade level.

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?

That's what it comes down to. You know, we, we talked about that section of the Texas penal code. It says this state includes the land and the water and the airspace above the land and the water over which this state has power to define offenses. If you accept their definitions, you're in the 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 a word, 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 is the definition of th? What's the definition of shout? What's the definition of not? What's the definition of kill? Part of the problem is that virtually every word you can find have 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'd invested a half million dollars in six 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.

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. And it's my opinion that the country is 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 do have. We still have some real possibilities of correcting our course. But boy, it's. I mean, 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?

Both the Republican and Democratic Party is. The leadership has been captured by globalists. They are both determined to move us into a new world order and a global government. And as part of that, 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.

Giant pressing sound.

That's right. He said, if you pass nafta, there's going to be a giant sucking sound as all the jobs in the industries moves overseas.

And he was right. But the corporate media just marginalized him. Marginalized him, marginalized him. But he was absolutely right, wasn't he?

That's exactly right. And the solution is these. It's. It's alleged that we're all going to get rich by engaging in global free trade, but it's a bunch of crap. We're going to go broke. We are going to go into poverty. The American dream is going to 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. There's no reason why, if I had a little company down here manufacturing products, I'm effectively encouraged to manufacture my products to compete in Peking or maybe Nairobi or someplace. 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 may not have to be. We don't have to be selling across the world and competing head on with people that are working for five bucks a day.

Alfred, tell me, though, what is the agenda behind, say, you have a Bush, you have an Obama, you have Clinton, whatever. What is the. What are. Why are they doing this? Why would they. They know it's bad for the country. I mean, is the deal that when you. 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. What's in it for them?

It's a. It's the kind of question that no one can answer for an absolute fact. 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. And based on that, I think.

And that was when the UN was created?

Yeah, yeah. I think that was perhaps whether it was a true cause or if it was merely a rationalization that was exploited, who knows? You know, I wasn't there. I don't know. But I can understand how a lot of people would be tempted, say, 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, you know, it's the real reason, but hard to say.

It's at least probably a contributing factor for sure. Yeah, sure, sure. 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 quote, unquote, official statistics, even far beyond what shadow stats 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 end, low wage countries.

And it'll 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. Insofar 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're not just commercial entities. They have values in lives that have worth without regard to how much money they have, you embrace. Insofar 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. They don't give a damn who lives or dies. It's just words. 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 true, it says love of money is the root of all evil. Yeah.

And just to clarify, it doesn't say money is the root. It says.

No, it says the love of money. That's exactly right.

Absolutely. You know, 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, mankind. What do you think is the biggest flaw in our constitution?

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, what does that say? I said, no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin, a tender in 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.

We'd be on the gold standard.

We wouldn't have a fiat money. 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.

Well, that is the reason for our debt, but sure. And it's the reason the monetary system is built on smoke and mirrors. It's essentially a sort of 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've just mentioned, why is that such a big flaw?

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 had 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 as 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 that 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 were obligated to secure your God given unalienable rights under the terms of the Declaration today. It's not at all clear and it's perhaps 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. All right, they may have been secured under the 10th Amendment. You might have been able to make a claim or excuse me, the ninth Amendment on the Constitution. You 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 were obligated to secure your God given unalienable rights. If by means of a 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 just like any other wild animal. You get uppity, they'll throw you in the slammer or maybe they shoot you.

Well, Alfred, thank you so much for sharing your story with us. I mean you have really had. That is quite a story about what the government was 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 more and follow you.

I'm at adask a-k.WordPress.com that's a blog I have and virtually everything I've written for the last three, four years is on that blog.

And quite an interesting blog at that. Thanks so much for joining us today, Alfred. We really appreciate.

My pleasure.

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.