Another farmer suffering from the federal land grab and the feds are redefining the rules as they go along to do it. Here is how we can help. Indefinite detention is up for consideration again in the NDAA FY2018. Here is what you need to know. Everyone is talking NATO. What do you need to know to have all the facts.
Alternatively you can listen to the “KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube
Websites and URL’s Referenced in the Show
Lets sift through the media hype and misdirection and talk about these very important Constitutional issues. Including, the Johnson Amendment, 501C3 issues, religious liberty, impeachment and more.
Alternatively you can listen to this edition of “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube
Politicians are always talking about “balancing.” They want to balance our Rights with their need for security. They want to balance our Rights with their need for prosperity. Why is it that its always our RIGHTS that get the compromise in favor of their power?
Alternatively you can listen to “Your Need for Power, Doesn’t Trump My Rights” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube
Abbott and Sanctuary Cities; Right or Wrong- Sessions and War on Drugs; Right or Wrong
Determining whether those in government are doing the right or wrong thing, requires a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and a jealous attachment to Liberty that will allow us to correct them when they are wrong and support them when they are right.
Alternatively you can listen to “Sanctuary Cities and the War on Drugs” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube
Texas governor Greg Abbott has signed into law statutes “outlawing” sanctuary cities. Was he right or wrong in doing so? Once we know the facts, it will be clear that not only did Abbott not do anything wrong, but had an obligation to do what he did. Legally speaking, Abbott and the Texas legislators did not actually create any “new” laws. What they did was create a law to require enforcement of the Constitution and the federal laws already on the books. Abbott and the Texas legislators did not “outlaw” sanctuary cities, the Constitution and federal law already did that.
The Constitution is a contract between the States that created the federal government. By this contractual agreement, certain powers were delegated to the federal government and the remaining powers were reserved to the States. The States, in joining the Union, have agreed to abide by and enforce the terms of the Contract. Also, in doing so, the States of the Union agree that the powers delegated to the federal government will be respected and enforced by the States as long as the federal government is operating by and through the authority of their power delegated by the Constitution. By the contractual agreement, through the creation of the Constitutional Contract, every State that enters into the Union agrees to the terms of this Contract.
Article 1 section 8 clause 4 vests into the federal government the power to Congress to make “an uniformed Rule of Naturalization.” It is therefore, and by contract, within the power of the federal government to create the rules for Naturalization. This power was delegated to the federal government for very specific reasons. Previous to the Constitution, there was a significant problem with inconsistent standards for foreign people to become and enjoy the benefits of citizenship. It is not uniform when the terms vary from State to State. We needed to establish uniformity amongst the States. There can be different standards of citizenship for people from different foreign countries, but all the different rules must be enforced with uniformity from State to State.
James Madison, designated by history as the Father of the Constitution, explains the problems these inconsistencies create:
“The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other.” Fed #42
Madison is explaining that one State’s laws cannot bind those people of another State, as each State is separate and independent in their internal affairs. For example, California laws cannot be made enforceable with in the State of Texas. If the States were left to create the rules of naturalization, then one State’s rules would not transfer to the next State. Each foreign person would have to seek citizenship in each individual State, fulfilling potentially different terms each time. If citizenship is left to a State by State establishment, there would be confusion throughout the world on what it would take to become a citizen.
What if each State were required to honor the terms of citizenship of the other State, perhaps through Article 4 section 1, “full faith and credit?” This brings about a series of problems that Madison also brings to our attention in Federalist 42:
“By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against.”
Madison is reminding us about a problem they were having when some States were creating very lax rules of naturalization; allowing people the benefits of citizenship who were actually hostile to the principles that established the Liberty of these States. When those people, who were unfriendly to the principles of Liberty, obtained citizenship in one State, they would attempt to force other States to honor their citizenship. Because these States had higher standards of citizenship, they were refusing to do so. This created several serious problems.
According to Madison, the danger of States allowing people hostile to the principles of America to obtain the benefits of citizenship would created a cascade of serious of problems dangerous to our foundational principles. Once these “obnoxious” aliens obtain the “benefits of residency” they will possess the power to vote, occupy office, make laws within that State. Finally, with all these powers asserted, these “obnoxious” aliens will exercise a certain degree of influence and control over the federal government, as well. Madison describes this as bringing about consequences of “too serious a nature not to be provided against.” Fed #42
The whole purpose of creating the federal government was to create a uniform voice for the States in the matters of foreign affairs. The federal government also holds the responsibility to exercise their authority with the “general welfare” all the States equally in mind while ensuring that people who will threaten the “common defense” and “domestic tranquility” will not be permitted to exercise the benefits of citizenship.
Madison explains that it was for these reasons that the power of naturalization was delegated to the federal government; to prevent these “serious” consequences from becoming a reality.
“The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”
The power of uniform rules of naturalization was delegated to the federal government so the States will have the ability to agree, through their representatives in the House and Senate, on the uniformed rules to be respected and enforced throughout the States. By contract, each State is now bound by those rules established pursuant to the Constitution. Sanctuary cities are unilaterally and illegally breaking the terms of the Constitutional contract established by each of the 50 States.
Because these sanctuary cities are refusing to abide by the uniform rules of naturalization they are actually asserting that their laws are superior to the laws of every other State in the Union; that a city can now dictate to the entire Union the terms and benefits of citizenship upon any alien, obnoxious or otherwise, as they so choose. Sanctuary cities are the real-time manifestation of the “too serious consequences” Madison said the designers of our Constitution intended to prevent. The States that allow their cities to go rogue, are acting in concert to violate the terms of the Constitution and they must ultimately bear the responsibility of enforcing the terms of the contract they agreed to.
Sanctuary cities are not only acting unconstitutionally, they are also acting unlawfully. In accordance with Article 1 section 8 clause 4, Congress has created legal penalties for those who knowingly or recklessly disregard the rules of naturalization and “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection… transport, or move or attempt to transport or move” or to even “encourage or induce” an illegal alien “to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” (8 US Code 1324) It is not only a crime to actually commit these offenses, but it is a crime to even attempt to do so. Anyone found guilty of violating 8 US Code 1324 is subject to fines, prison or both. However, if it can be proven that this person has committed this act for personal gain, the fines go up and the prison sentence can be as much as ten years.
Sanctuary cities also violate 8 US Code 1611 which sets forth specific federal benefits that cannot be given to illegal aliens.
(NOTE: there is an exception for emergency services in this section)
Section 1611 defines a benefit as follows:
“(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and
(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”
Additionally, the entire time these illegal aliens are living in these sanctuary cities they will not only be receiving benefits, these cities will be encouraging other illegal aliens to come into the United States while housing, feeding, transporting, and shielding them from prosecution for violating federal immigration laws.
Now, if these sanctuary cities were a person, what would be the punishment for the above violations? The law states:
“for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this [law] occurs…be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or…
Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”
Finally, if granting these benefits to illegal aliens “was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain” then the punishment is fines under title 18, “imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
These sanctuary cities have made it clear that they are not going to follow the law. It is now the obligation of their States to enforce the terms of the Constitution and ensure the enforcement of immigration laws. It is the obligation of the executive branch of the federal government to ensure that these laws are faithfully executed. It is the obligation of our Congress to ensure that federal money is not spent by these sanctuary cities in their efforts to disregard the law.
As America engages in this discussion over sanctuary cities, I would hope that these matters of Constitution, law, fact, and history would dominate the narrative.
As an educator, I think the most frustrating thing that I see in America today is the near complete abandon of Liberty by an entire generation of people. I read a statistic the other day a statistic that claimed nearly 40% of the generation we refer to as “millennials” believe that speech ought to be regulated by government. Apparently they believe that speech that offends, speech that makes people angry, or just speech they simply do not like, ought to be regulated…by the government.
Freedom of speech is one of the most bedrock principles of Liberty and one of the first things that the founders of our America defended. Silence Dogood letter #8, penned by Benjamin Franklin in 1722, shows us just how important this Right of the people is to the defense of all Liberty.
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.”
Freedom of speech is the foundation upon which the Committees of Correspondence were formed, the Sons of Liberty could not have influenced the people without freedom of speech, and Daniel Webster claimed;
“If all my possessions were taken from me with one exception, I would choose to keep the power of communication, for by it I would soon regain all the rest.”
Face it, without a firm understanding in the importance of free speech and the essential free exercise of that speech, our States of America would not exist as governments separate from Great Britain.
But now we appear to have a generation of people who have become so detached from these principles they have no clue as to why they are important and why they must be defended. I don’t suppose we should be too shocked. This was an inevitable outcome once we turned education over to government control. Government and Liberty are enemies. People in power always want more power, that is a self-evident truth. Those people cannot have power if those in society are free to exercise their Liberty.
“This sacred Privilege (freedom of speech) is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scare call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publik Traytors.” Silence Dogood #8
However, Freedom of speech not only means you can criticize those in power, it means you have a duty to do so. Freedom of speech means that you can publicly oppose the government’s activity. Freedom of speech means you can challenge the status quo and expose the traitor and hypocrite. This, as Franklin pointed out, is not what those in government want happening openly and freely.
“That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours deserve to be well spoken of; but to do a publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny: A free People will be shewing that they are so, by their Freedom of Speech.”
So how do you get an entire generation who are more than willing to hand over to those in power the authority to control and regulate this most essential and vital freedom? You train them up in the way of the government so when they get older, that is the way they want to go. You let government establish the curriculum. You let those in power rewrite the history. You teach the youth that they have a right to be happy, comfortable, and safe. Then you fail to the teach the Liberty principles that established the proper limits of government. You fail to teach that although Liberty is not comfortable or easy, it is necessary keep from falling into slavery. Samuel Adams wrote:
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberty nor be easily subdued when knowledge is diffuse and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when the People become universally ignorant and debauched in their manners, they will sink underneath their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.”
Not too long ago Americans were having a discussion about freedom of speech and political cartoons. Can we “allow” people to draw cartoons of Mohammed and Islam, even though some find that offensive? It was unfortunate that the discussion was driven by a fear of Islamic Extremism taking over America. How I would love to see that discussion erupt over some challenging political cartoons about our Congressmen and supreme Court Justices. If truth be told, and accepted, the American education system, mainstream media, all working in collusion with Washington DC, have all effectuated more damage on the freedom of speech than Isis could ever hope for.
Popular speech needs no protection. It is the speech that offends, the speech that challenges, the speech that makes us feel bad that requires our protection. If we allow government to regulate speech because someone classifies it as “hate” or “offensive,” what happens when government is in charge of creating the meanings and definitions necessary to enforce those law? These regulations may start off as something society feels to be reasonable. The consequence of a law that seems like a “reasonable” restriction upon Liberty so that others can feel safe, is those in power possessing a greater to oppress. History proves that it will not be long before government will define these regulations to protect the oppressor and the tyrant. We must not only tolerate speech that offends us, we must protect it. It is the only way to to protect all Liberty. The Liberty you deny others, will be the Liberty lost to you.
“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Thomas Paine, The First Principles of Government
Samuel Adams gave us another jewel of wisdom when he said, “Let us remember, if we tamely suffer a lawless attack upon our Liberty, we encourage it and involve others in our doom. It is a serious consideration that should weigh heavy upon our hearts that ages and millions yet unborn will be the miserable sharers of our experience.”
For a long time, I though Adams was talking about our acquiescence to the imposed servitude of permits, fees, and regulations imposed upon our rights by government. But given today’s generations, I am beginning to wonder if his wisdom is broader than that. Perhaps he was referring to the consequ
ences of lost Liberty when a society of people love government more than they love their freedom; when generations will become more attached to their comfort and prosperity than they are to their inalienable rights. After all, throughout history, this has always been the ultimate demise of a society people.
This generation of “millennials” has become so deceived by their training that they have become universally ignorant to the very things that make them free. They are now more addicted to comfort and security than the need to be free-thinking and free-acting people. They have been taught for so long that government is their teacher, protector, and provider, they no longer have any desire to exercise their natural right to do these things on their own. In turn they are ready to hand over the power to regulate their natural right to the greatest natural enemy of their rights; the government.
So when we are rolling our eyes and scratching our heads in bewilderment at the anti-liberty, pro- government mentality of our “millennials,” let us remember, Generation X, we trained them up in this way, how else would we expect them to go?
Multi-MSM Headline: Reince Priebus Says WH Wants To Change Libel Laws
Consider the facts:
There are no federal libel laws. Libel laws are laws created by the States. Libel is a limit upon speech and is not only not a power delegated to the federal government, but is also a power expressly forbidden by the 1st Amendment.
“Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged, nor the freedom of press, the right to peaceably assemble, nor the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Because this power was not delegated to the federal government, it is expressly reserved to the States. If the federal government, whether it be the executive branch (the White House) or Congress, codified or interfered with a State libel law, it would be completely unconstitutional. Additionally, law making is a power delegated and reserved to the Legislative Branch. Therefore, the executive branch, i.e. the executive branch, cannot make libel laws, much less change them.
The supreme Court, however, involved itself in a case of State law libel in 1964, (New Times, Co. v. Sullivan). In this case, the supreme Court opined that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media knew the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The supreme Court has even said that libel and slander are not valid suits when the information is so ridiculous as to be patently false, as in the case of satire. Perhaps Reince Priebus wants the supreme Court to change the way State libel laws are written? Wouldn’t that be political or judicial activism?
There are serious consequences for allowing the federal government to exercise a power not delegated. Alexander Hamilton, warned us to not allow unconstitutional laws created by Congress to have the force of law.
“No law, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid…would allow men by virtue of powers to not only do what they are not permitted to do, but also what they are forbidden.” Fed #78
As Hamilton warns, to allow a federal libel law to have the force of law would be to create an unlimited government:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.…To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Federalist #78
To allow either Congress, the White House, or even the supreme Court to create a law governing this speech, would be to allow the federal government to at best circumvent and at worst disregard the Constitution completely.
Modern America is not a brave new world and the issue of federal libel was not unknow territory for our founders. In 1688, their executive branch, a king by the name of James II, enforced a libel law that prohibited the church leadership from criticizing the king from the pulpit. This version of libel was particularly egregious as it made any criticism subject to imprisonment, even if the criticism was based in fact. The law established that truth was no defense. In this day, the majority of the courts were more than happy to do the bidding of the executive branch and seven bishops were prosecuted for seditious libel. The enforcement of this law, among several other things, brought about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the end of the reign of James II.
Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood in 1722, reciting the history of James II, made this comment about freedom of speech and press;
“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.” Dogood Letter #8
The drafters of our Constitution knew very well the consequences of allowing the central government to create laws that limit the criticism of government. This history is particularly why they did not delegate this power to the central government and why it was expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights. Let us not be a people so ignorant of our history that we end up repeating its mistakes.