Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Redefining Man as NOT an ANIMAL To End Bogus Drug/Food/Supplement WAR?

Aaron Dykes interviews Alfred Adask (video), scroll down.

Crowing Rooster Image [found here]

Alfred Adask is interviewed in the below video by Aaron Dykes. Some interesting points are brought up. Did the government back off maliciously prosecuting Mr. Adask because the legal argument he presented might end the bogus drug war and end the reign of the current US Police State?

My grandfather, a farmer not far out of Fargo, North Dakota, connected the dots back in the 1970's. He identified the unregulated corporations and banks as the real enemies of our voluntary union, not the small family farmer. There was all out corporate war on to end the family farm. The corporations and banks got away with it. Going after the manufacturers and distributors of nutritional supplements, locally produced milk, meats, foods grown with non-corporate genetically modified foods. There is an all out war going on against small business and the self-employed.

How aware of their own rights, and how our founders wouldn't put up with Police State tyranny, please read up on the Daniel Shays rebellion if you don't know about that. Shays fought in the War to break away from the tyranny of the UK, unpaid. He then owed money to the banks upon his return. The same issues of Debt Slavery, tyrants not wanting the people having real silver and gold money, and subjecting returning veterans to Police State Debt Slavery are all still issues today.

Government should not be groping our children, sizing us up like cattle for slaughter after we've been stripped of all our valuables.

The new round to fight these tyrants might be in the mostly rigged, protect the government and Police State, courts. Defining "Man" as not an "Animal" might be the tool to get government off our backs. Animals have no rights and can have their beaks cut off and can be caged in the 100's of thousands in the corporate chicken processing plants. If drug and food laws are written based on man being an animal, not something, unique, like a being able to think for him, or herself, laws that have been a tyrannical tool of the US Police State might become null and void.

I, myself, am sick of the government which I pay for, treating me like a chicken caged in a processing plant.

What can also be learned from the Whiskey Rebellion? (Scroll down in this post for excerpt)

Would doing away with the last vestige of the monarchical system, judges, instituting a People's Grand Jury System, also help reduce the tyranny of a Police State? Should offshore banks and corporations own us using our own money to enslave us?

If a man whose preferred sex partners are allegedly 6 to 8 year old boys, or girls, [Peter J. Coukos], why did Connecticut State Police give him first dibs on my Stafford Springs rental properties and help him in getting a gun permit after his crack cocaine smoking binges and his allegedly being arrested for repeatedly bashing an African American woman's car, drunk, over miles of roads yelling the "N" word? Should police give your property away if your 14 year old is sexually terrorized as part of a police terror campaign? If police can railroad us to prison, spy on us, breaking up our families, terrorizing us out our jobs and homes, for getting in the way of their crime rackets, prostitution, and drug dealing, are any of us safe in this US Police State?

The trauma, insult, and injury was furthered, going beyond ridiculous, as condition of sale of my rental properties, I had to rent an illegal basement apartment from Mr. Coukos and service my former tenants and properties. Peter Coukos bashed me in the back of the head, telling me he wanted my then 14 year old daughter to be on her knees blowing him after I was in prison, Connecticut State Police were allegedly waiting for me to fight back to arrest only me. I would not turn around, as he punched me in the back of the head, and about my back, in my former backyard, as I was already facing life in prison for using pepper spray, ending the attack of the knife wielding mugger who jumped me from behind in my dark driveway. Would you want your reward to be the same for paying taxes, obeying laws, raising a family, buying and fixing up your own home to be what I have experienced? Would you want your American Dream to end as an ever continuing nightmare after you were railroaded to prison?

Should we be used, and classified, as animals by police and in the courts? Should those of us who expose the truth and stand up to the police state be beaten, jailed, and even murdered?

My picture, links and story found in below link.





-stevengerickson At Yahoo Dot Com

The Elites Philosophy with Alfred Adask

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Sep 20, 2011

Infowars talks with constitutionalist Alfred Adask about the Liberty Dollar raid in 2007 and the conviction of its founder, Bernard von NotHaus, who was charged with "making, possessing and selling his own coins" in competition with the private banker cartel, the Federal Reserve.

"While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country," the Justice Department said about the case.

* * * *

Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck, the two main rebels.

The below excerpt was cut and pasted [from here]

Shays' Rebellion

Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts (mainly Springfield) from 1786 to 1787. The rebellion is named after Daniel Shays, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War.

The rebellion started on August 29, 1786, over financial difficulties and by January 1787, over one thousand Shaysites had been arrested. A militia that had been raised as a private army defeated an attack on the federal Springfield Armory by the main Shaysite force on February 3, 1787, and five rebels were killed in the action. There was a lack of an institutional response to the uprising, which energized calls to reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Philadelphia Convention which began on May 17, 1787. Shays' Rebellion produced fears that the Revolution's democratic impulse had gotten out of hand.

Daniel Shays

Daniel Shays was a poor farmhand from Massachusetts when the Revolution broke out. He joined the Continental Army where he fought at Battle of Lexington, Battle of Bunker Hill, and Battle of Saratoga, and was eventually wounded in action. In 1780, he resigned from the army unpaid and went home to find himself in court for the nonpayment of debts. He soon found that he was not alone in being unable to pay his debts, and began organizing for debt relief.[1]

Mounting financial crisis

Shays' Rebellion saw some of its opening salvos in Central Massachusetts, in the town of Uxbridge, in Worcester County, on Feb. 3, 1783.[2][3] Gov. John Hancock suppressed local riots, after a request by Colonel Nathan Tyler of Uxbridge.[2][3] Lieutenant Simeon Wheelock, of the Town of Uxbridge died at Springfield, in 1786, while on duty, protecting the Armory.[4] Shays's Rebellion caused George Washington to emerge from retirement to advocate a stronger national government.[5]

The financial situation leading to the rebellion included the problem that European war investors (among others) demanded payment in gold and silver; there was not enough specie in the states, including Massachusetts, to pay the debts; and throughout the state, wealthy urban businessmen were trying to squeeze whatever assets they could get out of rural smallholders. Since the smallholders did not have the gold that the creditors demanded, everything they had was confiscated, including their houses.[6]

At a meeting convened by aggrieved commoners, a farmer, Plough Jogger, encapsulated the situation:

"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

It was decided that the legislature (General Court) in Boston would be petitioned.[7]

Veterans of the Continental Army, like General Charles Logan Harding aggrieved because they had been conscripted, had to fight with no payment to help them pay for their living, and because they were treated poorly upon discharge, including being locked up in debtors' prison, began to organize their neighbors, the besieged farmers, into squads and companies in order to halt the confiscations.[8] Veteran Luke Day of West Springfield, Massachusetts asked the judges holding the confiscatory hearings to adjourn until the Massachusetts legislature met. Throughout Massachusetts, newly organized farmers and veterans faced militia at courthouse thresholds. But sometimes the farmers and veterans were the militia, and often the majority of the militias sided with the veterans and farmers.[9]

What caused Shays to take on the situation as a revolutionary cause was that on September 19, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts indicted eleven leaders of the rebellion as "disorderly, riotous, and seditious persons." Incensed by the indictment, Shays organized seven hundred armed farmers, most of them war veterans, and led them to Springfield. As they marched their ranks grew, and some of the militia joined along with additional reinforcements from the countryside. Boston elites were mortified at this resistance. The judges first postponed hearings for a day, then adjourned the court. Massachusetts Governor James Bowdoin commanded the legislature to "vindicate the insulted dignity of government." Samuel Adams claimed that foreigners ("British emissaries") were instigating treason among the commoners, and he helped draw up a Riot Act, and a resolution suspending habeas corpus in order to permit the authorities to keep people in jail without trial. Adams proposed a new legal distinction: that rebellion in a republic, unlike in a monarchy, should be punished by execution.[10]

The legislatures also moved to make some concessions to the upset farmers, saying certain old taxes could now be paid in goods instead of money. However, this only led to increasing confrontations between farmers and militia.[11]

Henry Gale, a co-leader

George Gale, in The Gale Family Records wrote the following in 1866:

As early as 1771 the records of the town of Princeton, Massachusetts, show that Captain Henry Gale, a co-leader of Shays’ Rebellion, had in that town a good farm valued at 185 Pd. with three buildings and a good stock of cattle, and in 1778 Henry removed to that town where he resided until he moved to Barre, Vermont in about 1790.

In Princeton he lived in comparative independence. And being a man of good education, he occupied a high social position, and after the close of the Revolution, he joined heartily in the discussions of the every day: how an independent but bankrupt state might be galvanized into life and a circulating medium in the shape of money established. But while these subjects were racking the brains of the wise and good patriots of the country, the amnesty proclamation had restored Boston and other large towns to wealthy loyalists, who had left the state with the British army when they evacuated Boston.

These wealthy men, having lost all sympathy for the rebel country and people on their return, commenced indiscriminately prosecution for the collection of their old claims, most of which had been outstanding during the war. This alarmed the otherwise quiet creditors, and particularly as "Greenbacks" as a legal tender did not then exist and any debtor to the amount of $5 could be ordered to jail. So great was the rush of business to the courts that 2000 cases were said to have been entered at one term of the court at Worcester, Massachusetts.

The people in alarm held public meetings and petitioned the legislature for relief. The legislature setting in Boston under the influence of Boston merchants and Boston lawyers, who were also reaping a great harvest in high fees, refused the desired relief under the plea that they had no power, a plea generally reported too when there is a lack of disposition.

The people then petitioned the courts that they adjourned over without granting the judgments, until some kind of relief could be afforded by the legislature, but the courts declared they would not be instructed in their duty by the people, while Judge Artemas Ward, in a speech of two hours long from the steps of the Court House in Worcester declared to the people that their "conduct was treason and the punishment of treason was death."

Thus the people of Worcester and other interior counties were for two years ground between two millstones, the courts and the jails, with nothing but bankruptcy and imprisonment staring them in the face. To soldiers who had so lately vindicated their rights by their swords and had learned for seven years to treat the word "traitor" as a by-word, it was no hard affair to fly to arms, not to overthrow their government but simply to temporarily stop the courts in granting judgments in civil causes.

The people in many counties organized into companies, chose their officers, marched to the Court Houses and prohibited the holding of the courts. Henry Gale was captain of a company from Princeton and his brother Abraham was captain of a company from Grafton, Vermont. Daniel Shays, a brave officer in the Revolutionary War, became the commander and general leader. Thus matters run a short time when the Governor order out 4,000 men and the "Rebels" disbanded, not however in Springfield until they were fired on and three men killed.

The "Rebels" studiously avoided bloodshed. But this tragedy, in the best style of the books, was to terminate in a farce. Judge Artemas Ward, who was a military man, but no lawyer, had only vindicated his military arm leaving his judicial arm still in limbo. As the judge had boldly threatened the Rebels with the punishment made and provided for "treason," he caused indictments to be found against the supposed leaders in the different counties and convicted what did not slip through his hands by the verdict of the jury. From the court records in Boston a copy of the indictment and judgment, the material part of which is as follows:

"At the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began and holden at Worcester on the last Tuesday of April AD 1787. "The Jurors of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts upon their oaths present that Jacob Chamberlain of Dudley in the same county, Gentleman, Henry Gale of Princeton in the same county, Gentleman, Josiah Jennison Jr. of Spencer in the same county Yeoman, being members and subjects of the Commonwealth aforesaid" . . . "that upon the 5th day of Sept. 1786 and on diverse other days and times as well before that time as since at Worcester within the said county of Worcester falsely and traitorously did devise and conspire to levy war against this Commonwealth and then and there with a great number of rebels and traitors against the Commonwealth aforesaid, viz.: with drums beating fifes playing and with guns, pistols, bayonets, swords, clubs and diverse other weapons as well offensive as defensive did falsely and traitorously prepare, order wage and levy a public and cruel war against the Commonwealth, and then and there with force and arms aforesaid wickedly and traitorously did assault, imprison, captivate, plunder, destroy, kill and murder diverse of the liege subjects of the said Commonwealth, etc." Under this indictment Jacob Chamberlain and Henry Gale were arrested and put upon their trial. They plead not guilty and put themselves on "God and their country." The court in its great clemency assigned to them James Sullivan and Levi Lincoln, Esq. as counsel two of the most noted enemies of the Rebels that were practicing at the bar; the lawyers being all hostile to the "Rebels" to a great extent.

Mr. Chamberlain was acquitted and Capt. Gale convicted of treason and sentenced to "be taken to the Gaol of the Commonwealth from whence he came and from thence to the place of execution and there hanged by the neck until he be dead." When the day of execution arrived the old soldier was, by the sheriff, marched to the gallows with great solemnity, the rope adjusted around the neck of the prisoner, solemn prayers said by the clergy and when all was ready to send the prisoner to eternity, the sheriff cautiously drew from his pocket the Governor's reprieve and read it to the gaping crowd and the prisoner was then withdrawn, and soon after fully pardoned.[12]

[more from Wikipedia, source]

* * * *

The below excerpt cut and pasted [from here]

Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States in the 1790s, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who sold their corn in the form of whiskey had to pay a new tax which they strongly resented. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay off the national debt.

On the western frontier protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. Washington himself headed the ad-hoc army that marched toward the disturbed area. The insurrection collapsed before he arrived. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. The issue fueled support for the new opposition Democratic Republican Party, which repealed the tax when it came to power in Washington in 1801.

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway. The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton's Federalist Party, came to power in 1800.

Whiskey tax

A new U.S. federal government began operating in 1789, following the ratification of the United States Constitution. The previous government under the Articles of Confederation had been unable to levy taxes; it had borrowed money to meet expenses, accumulating $54 million in debt. The states had amassed an additional $25 million in debt.[2] Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, sought to use this debt to create a financial system that would promote American prosperity and national unity. In his Report on Public Credit, he urged Congress to consolidate the state and national debts into a single debt that would be funded by the federal government. Congress approved these measures in June and July of 1790.[3]

A source of government revenue was needed to pay the bond holders to whom the debt was owed. By December 1790, Hamilton believed that import duties, which were the government's primary source of revenue, had been raised as high as was feasible.[4] He therefore promoted passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled spirits. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product.[5] Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed that the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax that the government could levy.[6] In this he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped that a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[7] The whiskey excise act, sometimes known as the "Whiskey Act", became law in March 1791.[8] George Washington defined the revenue districts and appointed the revenue supervisors and inspectors and set their pay in November 1791. [9]

Western grievances

The whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that the tax unfairly targeted westerners.[10] Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their income by operating small stills.[11] Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers.[12] Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, and so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay.[13]

Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east. There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay. Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, and so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon, which made them less competitive.[14] Small distillers believed that Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[15] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[16] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage that the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.[17]

In addition to the whiskey tax, westerners had a number of other grievances with the national government. Chief among these was the perception that the government was not adequately protecting the western frontier: the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the United States, with major losses in 1791. Furthermore, westerners were prohibited by Spain (which then owned Louisiana) from using the Mississippi River for commercial navigation. Until these issues were addressed, westerners felt that government was ignoring their security and economic welfare. Adding the whiskey excise to these existing grievances only increased tensions on the frontier.[18]

[more from Wikipedia source]


Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats