;)
Drake Interview-04-26-2012-from Freedom Reigns BlogTalk Radio
Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 10:41PM Freedom Reigns-Drake Interview: BlogTalk Radio-04-26-2012 by Randy Maugans of OffPlanet Radio
Download Drake Interview-04-26-2012-from Freedom Reigns BlogTalk Radio
Freedom Reigns with Deatra, Drake, and Randy Maugans
;)
We covered a lot of ground in this 2-hour interview with Drake. We expect to post a copy of the states documents that were filed as notifications with the World Court. We go through the process of the restoration of America, the take-down of the NWO cabal, removal of the President and Executive offices, legal aspects. financial restructuring, military alignment, common law, the local aspects of citizen involvement; Drake on ETs/EDs, underground bases/negative ET hives, scalar weapons, A.I. systems; voting under the new system, birth certificates; futures of other nations who are now requesting help...there is a LOT of information covered in this interview. We attempted to be journalistic; to be skeptical, but not rejecting; to balance public perceptions and help the "1%" get the message out to the world.
Drake Interview-04-26-2012-from Freedom Reigns BlogTalk Radio
Reader Comments (19)
Here she goes, pissing on the campfire again.
Get a transcript of all of this.
Then get someone who understands what this means to re-write the whole thing from the passive case to the active case.
That means you change a sentence like:
"The Pope is going to be prosecuted." To "[supply name] is going to prosecute the Pope."
"The criminals are going to be arrested." To "[supply name] is going to prosecute the criminals."
"There is going to be a large number of executions." To "[supply name] is going to execute lots of people."
...I want to know WHO is going to determine who are the criminals and who has blank eyes?
Best of luck when you have your military coup. The men with the guns get to determine who is a criminal and who has blank eyes, so make sure you make friends with the men with the guns.
Margaret-
Here's a thought: YOU do something (I have a couple of things in mind...). I conducted an interview, I posted it, I WORKED...What the hell have YOU ever dome except sit around and snipe? You want a transcript...do one! Otherwise shut up and go away back to Camelot.
Hi,
As someone who just landed on your site from a blog link and never having heard your show, I have a suggestion that I hope will be helpful. Would it be possible to just do a one or two line synopsis of the purpose of your show and then to introduce the host and the guest with maybe a short description of who they are and what their background is? I know I can go google it (which I will) but it would be helpful to new people like me to get some brief info. Thanks for listening.
Randy,
I thought you conducted the interview well. I was surprised how careful you were with the questions. I thought maybe you would be more aggressive given what was said on your blog. I got the impression that you may have checked Drake out via your own sources. If so, could you tell us what you found out? Thanks.
Randy,
If you haven't, I urge you to interview Inelia Benz. I opine that she is one
of the most credible spiritual mentors available, particularly when it comes
to offering positive, actionable, practical material that raises personal and
planetary vibrations. Moreover, given the little I know of you, I suspect you
might enjoy such an interview.
Inelia's website: http://ascension101.com/
What's up w/this negativity? - don't these people comprehend that "fear" is what made our society as it is?
Keep taking your blue pills, refusing to understand that positive results cannot come from negative thoughts & actions; it's not wrong to sleep or rest - it is wrong to refuse to rise from your bed!
ok, now that i listend, to be honest though what he's getting at was discussed decades ago,,,,,stuff that ive been mulling over to myself, Frennetic, good to know it sounds like what i understand that term to meen by the definition of how it works in computer programing. Why this was delved into was because of the question, what if the millitary did have to take controle from a corrupt government and how to avoid the fears and such of the people, how to make it clear it is not a takeover it is putting the power back in the peoples hands.........I have grateitude for the clarity of Drake, and glad i held of on posting my fears and paranoia of how i read something........Just as a side note getting better everyday.
Ok this guy is creeping me out, is he living in my head. I like this guy, and what he said about pcyops, dam, something i have said minus veitnam,,,,,,,,sorry to be a bit nebulouse im kinda haveing some difficulty due to spurts of stufff returning as well as senses opening up without the noise you could say. Great interview im only an hour into it so now im going to sit back and listen.
On g7enn's comment:
"I thought you conducted the interview well. I was surprised how careful you were with the questions. I thought maybe you would be more aggressive given what was said on your blog. I got the impression that you may have checked Drake out via your own sources. If so, could you tell us what you found out? Thanks."
I asked all of the questions I had (including those submitted here), and a few I didn't have prepared. There was no need to be "forceful" or aggressive with Drake, he answered all the questions (sometimes with a lot of detail) and was seamless in his responses.
One thing I can say about not just Drake, but most people I interview is that there is a strong psychic link that occurs (with some exceptions) that allows me to "read" their personality and character---Drake believes what he is saying...it IS his truth. You may disagree wit that truth, but he was not being deceptive, nor was there any ego or false intent in his speaking or thought.
Yeah, on one level, I do know who he is...and I also know people with whom he has crossed paths. Will I reveal that here? No, not now. There are clues in my interviews and blog posts, and in things I have alluded to in the past. Drake is just the spokesman...there are many players on the stage, and some who will soon become known.
Here´s my two cents,
I´ve heard Drake in the Wilcock interview and also an interview with freedom reigns. By the way thanks for letting him speak without interrupting him to much. This interview is the one that had the biggest impact on me, let me tell u why.
This time I was really able to pick up the passion or fire about what he was talking about. I could here it before aswell but this time it felt reeally Real. It´s how he emphasizes certain things, he really sounds like someone who thinks of himself of being on a path of war. This tells me some things, IF he is fake, an agent of disinformation, he is reealy freaking good at it... The implications of him being fake means he is passionate about misleading us for the sake of the elites. That he is on a path of war against US. And THAT is not a pleasent thought. I simply can´t se someone being so manipulative. The thought of having someone so manipulative and belivible that is against us frankly scares the shit out of me. I do not want someone like that as an enemy... becuse that would mean I would also be decived becuse this was the interview that made me belive him.
TNX for your work Randy, I used to follow Camelot before but I have completly shifted to Offplanet radio now. ;)
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=28
"#1)
"Drake": Militia + Military Resistance. Skeptical Inquiry by Randy Maugans
Postby Michael K. » Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:54 am
Radio host and skeptical inquirer into the fringe, Randy Maugans, interviews the man called "Drake", a drawling Southerner with a Vietnam background, who also claims to be the legitimate representative of the military officers who are asserting a Constitutional standoff with the bank. Very interesting, many subjects covered, you decide if these claims have merit for yourself."
My question is, why front this "Drake" if he is not the leader? He seems like an honest witness, but there is little means by which we may assess his objectivity. This movement wants to appear to a large extent leaderless, but there needs to be more accountability for its real leaders.
QUOTE
...This tells me some things, IF he is fake, an agent of disinformation, he is reealy freaking good at it... The implications of him being fake means he is passionate about misleading us for the sake of the elites. That he is on a path of war against US. And THAT is not a pleasent thought. I simply can´t se someone being so manipulative. The thought of having someone so manipulative and belivible that is against us frankly scares the shit out of me.
END QUOTE
You are correct that there are steep implications if this man is misleading people, however your specific assertion that this equals a passion on behalf of Drake to deceive is incorrect. It seems that you don't understand how mind control is generally employed.
In this case, assuming the most negative possibility momentarily; Drake himself has been played for a fool by the manipulation of his ability to trust. His war woundedness means that he is vulnerable to be subverted by predatory psychopaths, possibly in the military. These psychopaths are not forthcoming because they themselves lack convincing emotional resonance because they know that they are lying. Creating a mind-controlled "true believer" makes it possible to add real charisma to a cynical plot.
Quote
"In this case, assuming the most negative possibility momentarily; Drake himself has been played for a fool by the manipulation of his ability to trust. His war woundedness means that he is vulnerable to be subverted by predatory psychopaths, possibly in the military. These psychopaths are not forthcoming because they themselves lack convincing emotional resonance because they know that they are lying. Creating a mind-controlled "true believer" makes it possible to add real charisma to a cynical plot"
end quote
Ok Michael K, that makes sense. Appreciete you pointing that out. All I can say then is, I really hope he is not being played.
Great interview Randy! It was a seamless, eye-opening interview. I am a skeptic however. On the cusp of so many media reports of our rights being stripped from us, one-by-one, I yearn to want to grasp onto the the promise of a "Golden Age."
I have listened to all Drake's interviews from other sources and listened to your submission 3 times, going over particular segments NUMEROUS times. Drake did repeat a few disturbing statements such as, "There will be executions." Also, in talking about the Evangelicals and the Catholics, I got the impression Drake felt if the people didn't support their agenda, they would have to leave or go to prison. I may not be religious, however, I stand on our Constitution's right to assemble and worship freely.
I do hope you continue to interview Drake, as I think your interview has been the most informative and compelling! I am glad I found your site.
One of the things I also was challenged by were statements about executions. Here is my final thought:
Freedom/liberty requires a high level of morality---this was one of the resons the "American Experiment" failed first time around. If you have heard my shows with Thomas Sheridan, you know that there are people who are just morally vacant! There are beings on this planet who will never adapt to the higher calling of spiritual love, giving, forgiveness, etc. and there beings who exist to prey on others. There have to be standards.
There are beings on this planet right now who are responsible for millions of human lives being sacrificed for their own agendas of war and greed (I am thinking of the over 1 million souls lost in Iraq and George W. Bush and all his cronies); I am thinking of pedophiles and child murderers, and those who have committed genocide en masse. At what point do we allow monsters to continue living?
Those who are so "enlightened" that they feel no one should ever be executed are delusional. When all other options prove to be futile, these soul-less beings should be terminated. Period. I will add that these would be rare cases, but I think higher justice is served when certain types are eliminated. Brutal, huh? Well, it was THEM who planned to eliminate 5/8s of the planet's present population to serve THEIR agenda. Karma's a bitch.
I DO believe that people should have the right to worship however they choose---BUT religion is a dead institution. It has served the cabal well by being a tool to control the minds of billions--- and favoring certain "chosen" groups at the expense of others. The Constitution allowed for seperation of church and state for a reason. Those lines must NEVER be crossed again.
What is your take on this Notice of states in union?
http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/3-28-12-david-wilcock-interview-of-drake-an-insider-specifically-asked-by-the-pentagon-good-guys-to-come-forward/
From what I gathered he has noticed the International Court at Hague that the “original states” have now taken back the common law in the several states and that the military has asked if they could replicate this process so that certain individuals would be removed from office and jailed, and or executed. Wow really? I’m trying not to be pessimistic here, but a few inescapable thoughts were running through my head as I was listening. And I’m no expert, but I do know a few things based on my research.
Issue #1: The Supreme Law are the treaties. see Supremacy Clause in constitution. If he would have read the Seventh International Convention of the Organization of American States held in Montevideo, Uruguay December 1933 which deals with RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES, then he would have know that all he had to do is give Notice to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary General of the O.A.S and it would then be their job to give Notice to whom ever else.
Issue #2: According to the history of the states, or the several states, what ever you want to call them, they were in fact Charters that were Granted by the King. Those Charters were then “allowed” by the King to become “sovereign nations” so long as they paid their monies owed. And we know according to the Doctrine of Suzerainty that the King maintained OVERLORDSHIP over these “several states”.
See: Berle’s Self Culture p304 PDF. “When people desired to come to this country for the purpose of settlement, it was necessary
for them to• obtain permission from the government interested in that portion of the new country which they expected to occupy. The permits thus granted formed the basis of the new governments set upon this side of the Atlantic. Sometimes these permits were granted by the king to a company, whose members either sent out colonists to the new country or came themselves as colonists. Such permits were known as Royal Charters and were in reality a form of constitution granted by the king to the colonists, defining their rights and privileges. They usually outlined the form of government, providing for a governor and council. Sometimes these permits were granted to individuals called proprietors, and the governments set up by them were called Proprietary Governments. These proprietors in turn granted charters to their colonists, so that in general the government of charter colonies and of proprietary governments was very similar. In time, however, all but a few of the colonies lost or surrendered their charters, passed under the direct
Government of the mother country (England), and came to be known as Royal Provinces. In the royal provinces the king could rule with greater freedom. He appointed the governor and the colonial judges, and everywhere except in Massachusetts, the governor's council also.
Notwithstanding this, the colonists' retained no small measure of self-government.”
Issue #3: Did he forget about the Hunter Miller's Notes where it states: “One thing only I must remind you of in point of form. When a treaty is signed between two Crowned Heads in order to prevent disputes about presidency, the name of the one stands first in one instrument and that of the other in the other but when the Treaty is between a crowned Head and a Republic, the name of the Monarch is mentioned first in each instrument. I believe if you will inquire upon this subject among the Corps Diplomatique, you will find this to have been the constant practice.
Hartley replied as follows under date of September 1:
The treaties are drawn out for signature as you have expressed it viz: giving precedence to the Crowned Head. The American Ministers never had a thought of disputing the priority or equality of rank & therefore I have had no occasion to mention the subject.” [British-American Diplomacy Treaty of Paris - Hunter Miller's Notes]
Issue #4: So now that they are reclaiming the states back, are they also taking responsibility back for the original debt that was owed???
On February 6, 1778, the United States entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France (8 Stat. 6). On July 16, 1782, they borrowed substantial sums from King Louis XVI of France, via an agreement signed by French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de Vergennes.
The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 Article 4
Stated: “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”
The Articles of Confederation Article XII
“All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."
Constitutor: “In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt.” [Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 282]
Constitutum: In the civil law, an agreement to pay a subsisting debt which exists without any stipulation in that it must be for an existing debt.” [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 283]
Constitutio: “In civil law, an imperial ordinance, decree, or constitution, distinguished from Lex, Senatus-Consultum, and other kinds of law and having its effect from the sole will of the emperor. A sum paid according to an agreement.” [Blacks Law 5th edition page 282]
Constitutiones: “Laws promulgated, i.e., enacted by the Roman Emperor…The emperor had this power of irresponsible enactment by virtue of a certain lex regia, whereby he was made the fountain of justice and of mercy.” [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 283]
“‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.” [Black’s 3rd p 332.]
I could go on and on, but is that really necessary?
The principle comes to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self-preservation (sovereignty).” [Padelford Case 1854 pg. 35]
What this means for me and you is that we MUST form a new and stop begging the old to change. It was never “our” state/government to begin with.
"The 'sovereign citizen' movement is a loosely organized collection of groups and individuals who have adopted a right-wing anarchist ideology originating in the theories of a group called the Posse Comitatus in the1970s. lts adherents believe that virtually all existing government in the United States is illegitimate and they seek to "restore" an idealized, minimalist government that never actually existed. To this end, sovereign citizens wage war against the qovernment and other forms of authoritv using "paper terrorism" harassment and intimidation tactics, and occasionally resorting to violence." The "paper terrorism" typically involves "frivolous lawsuits, frivolous liens, fictitious financial instruments, fictitious automobile related documents, and misuse of genuine documents such as IRS forms; various frauds and scams." Source: Anti Defamation League website, www.adl.orq", Extremism In America,""Sovereign Citizen Movement
Read DILLEY vs. DILLEY
The two posts above from Joey (posted about 15 minutes apart) demonstrate that LISTENING to what someone says is hugely important. Also inserting one's own agendas/worldviews into a neat paradigm (Joey has been part of several "Christian" freedom movements) for comparison is likewise unfair comparison.
First. the papers filed under "The Plan" were filed at the International Court as a publication. No action from the court was asked or expected. Drake explained this in the interview.
Second: Treaties being "supreme Law" is a bold exaggeration...treaties which are properly ratified by a LAWFUL government are binding (notice I said LAWFUL government) agreements. There have been numerous treaties in the history of the U.S. which were modified or abandoned. Specifically, I am thinking of NATO, which is one of the largest treaties ever signed, and has been continually modified, expanded, and changed. Terming treaties (as treaties) "Supreme Law" is an error of many so-called patriot theorist.
Colonies founded under charters were ORIGINALLY deeded under Crown Rulers for expansionist purposes and subject to taxation, etc.---those were parts of the original 13 colonies. And HOW MANY states are there presently?
As to the issue of "Original Debt" owed by the Republic---exactly how long does this debt continue? I would suggest applying standards under the UCC to determine the enforcement of debts over 200 years old. And, besides: Exactly how much American blood was shed in two World Wars at the behest of these European Rules, Britain and France? Debts paid---in full---in BLOOD!
Oh, it goes on and on...the Constitutional scholars and theorists...twisting and convoluting. And the so-called "Patriot Movements" who labor over jots and tittles while doing NOTHING! No, anything that arises from the liberation of America will not look like 1776. The usage of founding documents simply supplies an historical bedrock. If....and I do mean...IF...any liberation of the U.S. succeeds, it will do so only by allowing the CONSCIOUSNESS of the new age to mold it away from the legalism that has which ensnared us all via documents, word constructions (like charters, constitutions, and yes, "Holy Books"), and archaic structures of the past---and into a new , higher understanding based on a common goal of preserving our planet and the rights to life and free access to all that was endowed by a Creator...not phony usurpers like kings, popes. lawyers, and God forbid, Constitutional scholars!
I am disappointed that you slammed my contribution Randy and that you completely failed to get the point I was making. I still think it is a really important point, and it was made in good faith. WHO is going to make the decision as to WHO is a good guy and who is a bad guy? Can you not grasp how critical this is?
Let me tell you a story. I come from Australia where we do not have a large African black population. When Obama was first running for president I freaked out because he had "dead eyes". I had a similar very negative reaction to Condaleesa Rice (however it is spelled) As I am not particularly used to reading black or brown eyes, I questioned my own perceptions and ran search after search on the internet to see if I was judging based on the difference between pale eyes and dark eyes. After a few tours across images of men like Sammy Davis junior and a few of the black actors, I realized that I CAN read dark eyes as well as pale eyes.
Can you feel totally happy that nation-wide only people who are willing to test their perceptions will get to fire the bullets into supposed criminals and watch them die?
One of you other respondents commented that he was "not entirely comfortable" with Drake's apparent blood lust (my words). That is an understatement if ever there was one. I was honestly horrified. Now are you going to tell me I had no right to be horrified at all his talk of murder and killing?
I believe you owe me an apology. You have promoted yourself as open to all ideas so you need also to be open to those that challenge the veracity of some of your guests, rather than try to bully them publicly into silence if not compliance. In this case you are wrong.
Margaret-
I will issue apologies when I am factually wrong, or if I have behave presumptuously. What is called "Drake's blood lust" is an interpretation of what may transpire. You may recall earlier models of justice employed when regimes have fallen such as the Nuremberg Nazi War Trials or the Truth and Reconciliation Committees in South Africa?
Do you not think that any such executions would be rendered under such legal structures? I would expect nothing less. I understand the sensitivities regarding capital punishment, but in my view, allowing murderous psychopaths, who are responsible for MILLIONS of deaths to enjoy the fruits of an "enlightened" attitude---which they, themselves denied others en masse in not justice! Nor is it enlightened...
Frankly, under the plans in place for over a hundred years, the planet was to be "cleansed" of 'useless eaters" under the eugenics programs proffered by everyone from the UN to the Gates Foundation. Utilizing chemtrails, GMO foods, induced cancers, the toxic pharmacological industry, and even suppressed technolgis that would have yielded longer lives...the MONSTERS of this present sytem have slaughtered BILLIONS of human souls.
During my interview with Drake I "connected" to him psychically (as I often do in talking to people): what I "read" was a man profoundly committed to the liberation not just of the United States, but the entire planet...whether YOU believe everything he says, in fact, HE believes and is as nearly as I can tell without any deceit in his heart. What I also saw was the deep pain he suffers as result of his own war time experiences in Viet Nam...he is "haunted" by those memories and they are part of why he has spent decades working. What you term as "blood lust" is simply his complete disgust at the psychopathic personalities that allowed this planet to descend into sub-human conditions.
I suggest that instead of nit-picking the fine details of the man's personality, you may wish to consider in WHOM you wish to entrust the reigns of power on this planet: the present day mass murderers who WILL, left to their designs, destroy this Earth and all who live here...or the liberators who have vowed "Never again..." You, dear readers get to choose. By lending your intentions to criticizing the spokesman of a movement---and thus draining precious energy---you add consent for psychopaths to continue ruling.
Maybe what you really fear is the level of responsibility that will come in a world where we are all offered back our power. After all it's easier to criticize the fine points of the liberators than to bear the responsibility you will have to allowing the cabalists to finish THEIR "plan". Up until now you have had others to blame for your misery... those excuses end if you fail to respond to your saviors!
P.S.-"murder" and "killing" are vastly different terms---look them up. Executions, performed under sanctions of a lawful process, are not murder, nor are they blood lust any more than cutting cancer cells from a body. You people need to examine carefully your own twisted thinking!