Anarchist Violence
written by JC Hall
The anarchist movement has a long history and encompasses a wide range of movements from the labor movement to the free love movement, from anarcho-communism to Rothbardian economics. Anarchist theory is not inherently violent, but there is a violent faction within the broader anarchist movement which is revealing itself once again in America. As the violent wing gets exposed, anarchists of all stripes will rally to defend their particular branch of the family tree while largely ignoring their violent cousins – the revolutionary anarchists. Hearings will be held about the events of January 6th and you will hear it framed as White Supremacists, Trump Supporters, ANTIFA or simply left versus right. All of that will be a distraction and will miss the bigger picture, as usual and the Revolutionary Anarchist faction will continue remain a mystery to the American public. Welcome to American politics!
Some perhaps are only familiar with the peaceful forms of anarchy, extolling the virtues of harmonious existence in communes and mutual aid societies. On the peaceful side are anarcho-pacifists, Christian anarchists, free-love anarchists and free-education anarchists. Regardless of the benign, intellectual side with its laudable theories of mutual aid and self-determination, there has been a consistent wing of anarchism that embraces revolutionary violence as the primary tool of change. These are the individuals, the revolutionary anarchists, who seek to plunge America into chaos. These are also the people that give the government an excuse to sweep up anyone they don’t like into a broad dragnet by invoking the label “domestic terrorist.”
Anarchism is not widely understood by Americans today, even less understood is the historical divergence of individualist anarchists and collectivist anarchists after the failure of Robert Owen’s New Harmony commune. Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker and his followers in Boston were peaceful, yet they still regarded the state as wholly evil as illustrated in the Journal “Liberty.”
“It is an institution of force and as such incapable of being reformed. To Tucker and his comrades, the political process and voting are nothing more than mechanisms for the tyranny of the majority. Thus, they considered attempts to work within its structure to be futile.” -Edward P. Stringham
For some this “institution of force” could only be resisted by force. American history bears out the decidedly violent tendencies of the collectivist anarchist movement launched from Chicago and New York City. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are members of both the individualist and collectivist camp that believe in political violence. This fact makes the left-right dichotomy of less use in the present environment.
A Legacy of Violence
Historically, revolutionary anarchist factions advocated “PROPAGANDA Of The DEED,” – political violence, including bombings and targeted killings of members of the ruling class for the purpose of provoking broader violence and uprisings.
“we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda.” -Johan Most
Another part of their methodology was “EXPROPRIATION.” Expropriation means robbing/burglarizing people and businesses that are seen as part of the ruling class or as benefiting from their “evil system.” This was on full display in the summer of 2020 with anarchists looting, robbing and burning local businesses across America; yet, this is nothing new in America’s revolutionary anarchist movement:
- Revolutionary anarchist Luigi Galleani and his followers carried out assassination attempts and waves of bombings in cities across America and from 1914 to 1932 in what they saw as attacks on “tyrants” and “enemies of the people.” Mail bombs were sent to public officials, businessmen and law enforcement. A bombing at the home of the US Attorney General led to the sweeping Palmer Raids in 1919.
- Sacco and Vanzetti were famous anarchist martyrs who allegedly robbed a shoe factory as an act of Expropriation. The anger at the anarchists stoked a fervor that lead to their execution for the robbery. Having since become anarchist/progressive folk heroes, they were posthumously pardoned by Michael Dukakis.
- In the anarchist Haymarket Square bombing in Chicago, a labor rally against “police violence,” a bomb was thrown at a police officer. The incident left seven police and five civilians dead.
- Revolutionary anarchists also carried out the notable Wall Street Bombings and the assassination of President William McKinley.
As the Palmer Raids teach us, the outcome of the anarchist violence is ALWAYS the same – the government reacts by taking more liberty away from the people, by targetting political oppposition and opposing views. Due process, freedom of speech, press, assembly, association privacy are all assaulted in reaction to the anarchist violence. In this way the revolutionary anarchists are a convenient band of useful idiots that serve the statist cause. A bit of irony to go with your tyranny.
Still Going Today
The anarchist movement continues to thrive and the revolutionairies continue to organize. In 1980, the First International Symposium on Anarchism was held in Portland, Oregon. In 1986 anarchists held the Haymarket Remembrance Conference in Chicago and then annual conventions in Minneapolis (1987), Toronto (1988), and San Francisco (1989).
In 1989 Love & Rage network formed in Chicago, infusing racial and other themes into the revolutionary anarchist movement:
“A new wave of radicalization is spreading around the world. Federations of anarchists are being organized in the U.S and Canada, and in other countries. The ‘platformist’ current within international anarchism, with its emphasis on the need for anarchists to organize themselves, is having worldwide effects. In these conditions, it is not surprising that there should be an interest in the last major attempt to build an anarchist federation in North America: the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (L&R). Founded in 1989, it lasted to 1998, almost ten years, with branches in Mexico (Amor y Rabia) and in English-speaking Canada.” – A history of North American anarchist group Love & Rage
In 1998 the L&R Network split primarily over their organizing statement of beliefs and the argument of white privilege. L&R split into two new networks. First, the “Fire By Night Organizing Committee,” which deliberately chose to conceal anarchism from its name “to create a new revolutionary politics more in tune with the conditions of the 21st century.” It maintained offices in NYC and San Francisco.
The second – the Fresh Revolutionary Anarchist Group, “a federation of collectives united around firm anarchist/anti-authoritarian politics and outlook, oriented to the working classes and most oppressed, and active in building Anti-Racist Action as an anti-authoritarian mass movement.”
The movement continued organizing throughout the 90s and 2000s with numerous organizations and individuals: David Graeber, CrimetInc, Black Rose Anarchist Federation, Atlantic Anarchist Circle, Demanarchie newspaper collective, Common Ground Collective, Workers Solidarity Alliance, May First Anarchist Alliance, Four Star Anarchist Organization, Autonomy and Solidarity, Red and Black, and Wild Rose Collective and many others.
The revolutionary anarchist movement has manifested lately in the current ANTIFA movement and among elements of the BLM movement. It is no coincidence that the refrain of prominent organizers during the summer was “make America ungovernable.” This is not a Democrat or Republican movement. It is not a movement that follows a particular leader. Sadly, Americans can only perceive their world in these tribalistic terms, and this allows the revolutionary anarchists to hide behind the tribalistic fog that engulfs the minds of America partisans. The revolutionary Anarchist movement is neither right nor left, it is right AND left. Their tools is violence against people and property with the hopes of disrupting or destroying the state so that it may be abolished or replaced.
Not all anarchists are revolutionary anarchists, undoubtedly a majority of the anarchist family loves peace. But the REVOLUTIONARY anarchists do not. And don’t be misled, contrary to what the name implies, the world of revolutionary anarchism is highly organized and well-funded. Revolutionary anarchism is not just an idea. It is real. It has real members and many come armed with pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.
I don’t excpect to hear this topic come up during any hearings. America’s leaders pretend that they know nothing about this history. They are only conerned with winning points for their team, so that they can maintain their power and position. As usual the American people lose under the leadership of blind partisans who care only for themselves. However, you can be informed and avoid the getting sucked into the useful idiot trap.
Did Trump “Incite” a Riot? A Memorandum of Law
Did Trump “Incite” a Riot? A Memorandum of Law
by KrisAnne Hall JD
AUTHOR’S NOTE: If you are looking for some proactive measures to take to influence your US Senator, you have my permission and encouragement to send this to your Senators. My thought is, even if you believe your Senator will disregard this settled law, you should send it anyway. We should never be silent with truth and every elected officer should be presented with the truth so they cannot claim ignorance. It would be a very powerful message if you could organize your circle of people to all send this Legal Memorandum. If you have any questions, you can always reach me at KrisAnneHall.com
Memorandum of Law
TO: Members of the United States Senate
From: KrisAnne Hall, JD
RE: HR24 – Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States for High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Date: January 13, 2021
Facts
On January 6, 2021 a group of Americans assembled in Washington DC: some to protest the counting of Electoral College votes they believe were cast as a result of a fraudulent election, some to support President Trump, some to encourage the counting of the Electoral College votes, some to protest President Trump, and some to simply create chaos and destruction. During this assembly some in this assemblage chose to engage in violence that resulted in damage to the Capitol building and the loss of life. During this assembly of multiple groups and individuals, including President Donald Trump gave a speech, which transcripts are available.
HR 24- Articles of Impeachment allege that the actions of those who carried out the violence are attributable to President Donald J Trump due to words uttered at a rally and thus subjects him to legal and constitutional impeachment from office pursuant to Article 2 section 4 of the US Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection.”
Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution reads:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Questions Presented
- Is President Donald Trump guilty of “Incitement of Insurrection” by inciting violence against the United States?
- Is President Donald Trump subject to impeachment and conviction according to the Constitution under Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection?”
Answers & Discussion
Incitement has a very settled definition in law and the standard is referred to as the “Brandeburg Test” as resulting from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).
The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In Brandenburg, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally and, after speaking a laundry list of racial slurs, Brandenburg then said; “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” In this opinion, the Supreme Court held that the government can only infringe upon freedom of speech by criminalizing speech when a two-prong standard created by this court is met. The standard is as follows:
- The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
- The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Further Supreme Court opinions give specific direction on the application of the Brandenburg Test. The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which an Indiana University protestor said, “We’ll take the fucking street again” (or “later.”) The Supreme Court held that the university protestor’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as speech that “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Mr. Evers made threats of violence against anyone who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg Test and found that Mr. Evers’ speech was protected under the principles of freedom of speech: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
The question is, Did President Donald Trump engage in speech that qualifies under the Brandenburg Test as inciting. The only relevant evidence in this accusation will be the transcripts of President Trump’s speech. In this transcript we see no language that fits the Brandenburg Test definition of inciting. What a reader of this transcript will find is:
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Using the Brandenburg Test, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States, it must be concluded that President Donald Trump’s speech did not rise to the criminal level of inciting. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinions, the speaker over a group cannot be held accountable for the actions of that group unless the speaker “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND the speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” It is highly dubious to assert that directing a crowd to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” incites violence and insurrection. There can be disagreement as to the appropriate nature of President Donald Trump’s words in general. There cannot be disagreement as to the statements made in his speech, since they are recorded and freely available.
This is the only reasonable and moral way to maintain the essential standard of freedom of speech as enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights. Any standard that deviates from this test in favor of criminalizing speech oughto be unacceptable in a nation built upon the essential principles of personal liberty.
The Supreme Court held in Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989) that freedom of speech is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” In RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992), the Court held that even “hate speech” is protected under these terms of the First Amendment. Finally, the Supreme Court held in Gregory v Chicago 394 US 111 (1969), “To let a policeman’s command become equivalent to a criminal statute comes dangerously near making our government one of men rather than of laws. There are ample ways to protect the domestic tranquility without subjecting First Amendment freedoms to such a clumsy and unwieldy weapon.” To allow disagreement over words and meanings, to allow political dissention to become the standard of criminal activity violates the Constitution and the standards established by the Supreme Court, transmutes America away from a land whose foundation is settled in due process and rule of law to the “clumsy and unyielding weapon” of politicians, mob rule, and arbitrary standards that are antithetical to everything that embodies our Constitutional Republic.
Because President Donald Trump’s speech does not meet the two-prong test as established by the Supreme Court, it must be concluded that his speech has not risen to the level of criminal activity. Since the standards of due process lead us to conclude that no crime was committed, the House Impeachment accusation is unlawful as there was no violation of a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Finally, because the criminal elements of inciting are not met, President Trump cannot, under the law and the Constitution, be convicted by the Senate at trial.
Stop The Steal Contact Your Rep Scripts
Stop The Steal Contact Scripts
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
KrisAnneHall.com
The calls and emails are making a difference, but we need to keep encouraging and demanding our Senators AND our House Reps join the objections to these fraudulent Electoral College votes. Please call and email both of your State Senators AND your House Representative and demand they Stop legitimizing fraud. We have included a sample script to help you.
If you don’t know how to contact your US Senator please go to this link: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
If you don’t know how to contact your US House Representative, go to this link and enter your zip code: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Together we can save our Constitutional Republic.
Call and Email script for Senator “Stop the Steal”
I am contacting the Senator because I am alarmed and outraged by the evidence of voter fraud of our last election being exposed through the various State hearings. The American people are being disenfranchised by this blatant violation of the laws. I want the Senator to know that we demand to be heard and the Senator is our representative with the duty to speak on behalf of our State. The Senator MUST second the objection to the Congressional certification of the Electoral College votes in question. The Senator must make every intention to object immediately public to encourage others to take a stand and do the right thing. The Senator must publicly and actively stop the theft of this election or I will never vote for the Senator again. The actual fate of America’s election process rests upon our representatives to Stop This Fraud.
Thank you for your time and public efforts to save our Constitutional Republic.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
Call and email script for Representative “Stop the Steal”
I am contacting Representative (NAME) because I am alarmed and outraged by the evidence of voter fraud of our last election being exposed through the various State hearings. The American people are being disenfranchised by this blatant violation of the laws. I want you to know that we demand to be heard and as our representative you have a duty to speak on behalf of our district. As my Representative you MUST second the objection to the Congressional certification of the Electoral College votes in question. As my Representative you must make your intention to object immediately public to encourage others to take a stand and do the right thing. You must publicly and actively stop the theft of this election or I will never, in good conscience, be able to vote for you again. The actual fate of America’s election process rests upon our representatives to Stop This Fraud.
Thank you for your time and public efforts to save our Constitutional Republic.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
A New York Bill to Imprison and Force Vaccinate Without Due Process is Up For Vote
A New York Bill to Imprison and Force Vaccinate Without Due Process is Up For Vote
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
On January 6 New York Assemblymen will be asked to vote on a bill that will authorize the Governor and/or health officials to seize custody of New Yorkers, imprison, and force vaccinate them without due process. This bill is not only a threat to the Constitution of New York, the people of New York, but also everyone in America if you consider the way certain legislation can spread throughout America in the age “crisis.” We must stay vigilant, not only of our own legislation, but also of that which could impact other States.
The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Nick Perry (District 58) is titled A-416 “An Act To Amend the public health law, in relation to removal of cases, contacts, and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.” This legislation is not only dehumanizing by referring the people of New York as “contacts or carriers” it violates multiple sections of the New York Constitution and robs New Yorkers of their fundamental, inherent rights.
If passed this legislation will place in the hands of the Governor, or his designated agent, the full and autonomous authority to “order” the “removal” and “detention” of every person the Governor or his “delegee” determines “may pose” a “significant and imminent threat to public health.” The bill refers to these people as a “carrier” or “contact” of COVID-19. Once some health department worker thinks a New Yorker is a carrier or contact to a carrier, that person will be seized and held without hearing, trial, due process, or bond for a period of time to be determined by the health department.
A-416 does graciously establish that any person once detained “shall not continue to be detained once the health department determines” that person is “no longer is or will become contagious.” What is the standard for that completely arbitrary determination by the health department you might ask? The legislation leaves that entirely to the discretion of agent of the health department and their personal “due diligence.” Only if and when the person detained formally “requests” to be heard will the health department be required to grant the “opportunity” to be heard…within 3 – 5 days. To give some real due process perspective, if a New Yorker is arrested and accused of murder they are guaranteed, automatically without asking, a hearing within 24 hours. If a New Yorker is picked up on the whim of some health department worker, they will have to wait at least 3 days to have a hearing — but only after a hearing is formally requested, from your detention cell, in a yet to be determined State designated facility.
In short:
1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials. New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution.
2. A-416 arbitrarily reduces the well established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some worker in the NY Health Department which violates New York’s constitutional principle of separation of powers.
3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process related to a search and seizure of their property and their body.
These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed. New Yorkers cannot allow that to happen. Everyone in New York needs to contact their Senator and Assemblyman and DEMAND they vote no on A-416. Everyone in America needs to contact their State and demand that such legislation never be drafted.
**NOTE: Here is a sample script created by Liberty First Legal, INC. for every New Yorker to use if they want to contact their representatives and demand they vote NO!
Dear Assemblyman (insert name)
I am writing as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416.
On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies. This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.
A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution.
1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials. New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution.
2. This bill arbitrarily reduces the well-established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some executive bureaucrat in violation of the essential principle of separation of powers.
3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process before a search and seizure of their property and their body.
These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed. We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker, I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO. Thank you for your time and service.
Sincerely,
Sample phone script for New York A-416
I am calling as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416. On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies. This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process. A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution. These are very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed. We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO. Thank you for your time and service.
The Unseen Consequences of Any COVID “Relief” Bill
The Unseen Consequences of Any COVID “Relief” Bill
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Every State Constitution recognizes that “All political power is derived from the people.” However, when our House and Senate sends money to Governors and local government leaders who issue orders resulting in the unconstitutional & catastrophic shutdown of our businesses and economies, the power of the people is supplanted by an overreaching ever growing federal government. This unchecked perfect storm of power inevitably creates governments that become like some veracious and villainess vampire operating with an insatiable and rapacious appetite devouring the substances of our future.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Declaration of Independence, 1776
When the people hold the proper power they can exert control over their State & Local government by refusing to support legislation, funding, and elections. Our State and local offices were created to be a servant of the people and a security to their individual rights. It is the control and influence of the people that confines those in office to that intended limited authority. Yet with every dollar Congress gives to our Governors & Locals, they are incentivized to become the very Monarchs and Robber Barons our founders vowed to banish from America. Here is the unseen yet inevitable consequence of any and all federal COVID relief money: State and local tyrants are actually encouraged to keep our economies shutdown and regardless of how much money is distributed to the States or to the people directly, the power of the people is undermined and eventually completely eliminated.
We must resist the temptation to seek this handout that will take more than it will give. The only true and long-lasting solution to the problems created by the COVID shutdowns is to OPEN our businesses, get our lives back in order, and restore property rights and personal prosperity. It is not cliché, it is truth: Every business is essential. Those in powerful places of government should never be allowed to define what is “essential” thus becoming the creators of winners and losers in our economic system.
So the question becomes, as it originally was, do YOU choose to be free? It must begin with an individual choice and a personal resolve. WE must choose, as INDIVIDUALS, to take a stand against this debauchery under the guise of government. With all the chatter about accountability in government, we must accept the responsibility that WE are the only true accountability to government that exists. We must choose to do the difficult thing and never re-elect those, who by vote or decree, destroy our future by plundering our present.
WE must choose, as INDIVIDUALS, to refuse to comply with the arbitrary theft of our businesses, homes, livelihoods, and lives in the name of a pretended government with a manufactured purpose. WE must choose, as INDIVIDUALS, to do what is right by our neighbors, our honor, and our future- regardless of the difficulties that may rise before us.
“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding…May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity…” Mercy Otis Warren to John Adams, 1774
Without the courage and perseverance of the individual there is no group, no community, no body that will form in defense of the Constitution, the Rights of the People, and the future of Liberty in America. United as a people, as we once were in America, is the only formula for a future of prosperity and freedom. But that unity cannot be forged in the sands of political party or personality. It must be secured in the bedrock of Liberty- a firm foundation that will withstand the winds and waves of avarice and greed. Without UNITY in the purpose of Liberty we will be overtaken like the lame prey in the path of a swift predator. Our future will be left orphaned to the hands of those who hate them so much they would devour them today if it we’re not more advantageous to keep them alive and captive for their succeeding profit.
Here are our choices-
Do we choose freedom for our children or comfort for ourselves? Do we choose true Liberty in life and business for our posterity or the phantom of safety & security for ourselves? The foundation of America was built upon these choices and the future of America depends upon us choosing correctly.
Thomas Paine wrote in 1776, “a generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;’ and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”
Choose you this day. Choose wisely. Which will it be? Your toilet paper today or your children & grandchildren’s freedom tomorrow?
The solutions are within our reach. They are powerful and they are peaceful. But every day we refuse to employ them, we ensure a future who will not have those options. We will force our future to purchase back a Liberty we were supposed to give them.
We have created a documentary to help people understand these solutions. Please go to NonCompliantMovie.com to watch the Trailer and sign up for notification for the release date.
Who Will Be President January 2021
Who Will Be President January 2021
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
- No President has ever been elected in November.
- The Popular Vote does not elect a President, the vote of the Electoral College elects a President.
- The date to count the Electoral College vote is set by law as January 6 and cannot be delayed without passing a new law.
- It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to have a delay in announcing the winner in the Presidential race.
- Nancy Pelosi cannot legally or constitutionally be “acting” President due to a delay caused by counting votes.
Fake News Alert! It is a deliberate false narrative that the Speaker of the House would be appointed as acting president if the popular votes are not all counted by Jan. 20, 2021. This narrative is derived from a false conflating of the Twentieth and Twenty Fifth Amendments. The fact checkers ought to be telling Americans that by law, there is no way a delay in counting the popular vote can create a delay in electing the president and no way Nancy Pelosi can legally be appointed as “acting” president until a popular vote count dispute is resolved.
The false narrative that invokes the Twenty Fifth Amendment’s “line of succession” ignores the language that indicates that the line of succession applies to vacancies in the presidency from the president’s death, disability, resignation or removal from office; it does not apply to a delay in counting popular votes nor from a normal expiration of a term of office.
The first thing that an honest fact checker would point out is that no president has ever been elected in November as a result of a popular vote count. As a matter of law, US presidents are elected on January 6 of every year (unless this date is changed prior to January 6 by passing of law), when the Senate President counts the electoral votes not the popular vote (3 U.S.C. §15). Popular vote is not used to directly elect a President, therefore having an accurate and complete popular vote count is not a factor in delaying the January election.
The next thing your fact checker would have to tell you is that the deadline for counting elector votes is set by law, therefore a delay is not legally permissible. On the contrary, federal laws were established to avoid a repetition of the extraordinary delay incident to the electoral vote controversy surrounding the 1876 presidential election.[1]
Here is how it works according to the Constitution and according to the law:
After the electors have voted in each state, they make and sign six certificates, seal those certificates, and certify that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President. Those certificates are then sent to the President of the Senate, and the Secretary of State of their State.
Should there be delays or failures of state electors to submit electoral votes to Congress, there is no need to wonder, create, or invent a procedure, there is established precedent that guides us. Federal law establishes that if no certificates of votes or lists have been received by the President of the Senate or the Archivist from electors by the fourth Wednesday in December, then the President of the Senate is directed by law to request the State’s Secretary of State to immediately forward the certificates (3 U.S.C. §§12,13).[2] The States whose electoral votes are missing are sent a collection notice from the Senate President warning that their electoral votes are due immediately. The process, along with specific deadlines for counting electoral votes submitted and disregarding electoral votes not submitted, is well established by historical precedent, federal law, and the Constitution.
Every fact checker should know the date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election unless the date is changed by law (3 U.S.C. §15). The votes that are submitted in compliance with the deadline are counted. The Votes that are not submitted in compliance with the deadline are not counted. The Twelfth Amendment requires only a simple majority of electoral votes to elect a Presidential. Precedent establishes what happens if some electors’ votes are not received in compliance with the deadline and are not counted. For example, in 1865 only two of the three Nevada electors cast their electoral votes and only two Nevada votes were counted and included in the “whole number of electoral votes” to elect the president. Similar instances of votes “not given” by electors that were not included in the “whole number” of electors reported, occurred in 1809, 1813, and 1817.[3]
Additionally, pursuant to congressional act, a State’s elector’s certificate of vote can be rejected if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection. This means the votes from the electors in question are not counted. In 1873 both Houses decided not to count the electoral votes from Arkansas and Louisiana.[4] In 1864, all of the votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected, and in 1872, all of the votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected.[5]
The drafters of our Constitution were concerned that a delay in counting the vote could result in a quiet, non-violent political coup by one party or one or more states, where one or more disgruntled States would hold the entire election hostage. The framers of the Constitution even warned that the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House should never be given the powers of the presidency because they are elected members of one political party and are therefore partisan. Representatives Morris and Madison warned that in order to pass their party’s political agenda those in power in the Congress could affect a political coup by indefinitely delaying the legitimate election of a president.[6] The system they established for electing the president is clearly established through the Constitution, Amendments, historical precedent, and Congressional law to prevent any delay and prevent that sort of political coup.
The facts presented in this article are in a Congressional Summary Report which is available to Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. Now you know what your member of Congress should already know and what the talking heads in the media don’t know or are deliberately falsifying to create uncertainty, destroy trust in our elections and foment chaos aimed at the overthrow of our Constitutional government. These facts cannot be denied. Know these facts. Demand they be followed. Expect them to be followed.
“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.” Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1817.
[1] Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Sessions, Including objections by Members of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Maskell, Jack and Rybicki, Elizabeth November 15, 2016, page 12.
[2] Ibid, page 4-5.
[3] CRS Report RL30769, Electoral Vote Counts in Congress: Survey of Certain Congressional Practices, by Jack Maskell et al.
[4] Congressional Globe, vol. 46 (February 12, 1873), pp. 1305-1306.
[5] David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313.
[6] Records of the Federal Convention by James Madison, August 27, 1787.
One Congress to Rule Them All
One Congress to Rule Them All
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
We may see something in November that we have never seen before and it’s all connected to the 12th amendment.
Before the ratification of the 12th Amendment, the presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes was elected president and the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes was elected vice president. However, in the presidential election of 1800, there was a tie between the top two candidates. To provide a solution if that should ever happen again, in 1804 the States ratified the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The 12th Amendment of the Constitution establishes that there must be two separate ballots in every presidential election: one for the president and one for the vice president. The Electors, casting two votes, choose the president and the vice president in two distinct ballots. If there is a tie on the presidential ballot, that tie would be broken by a vote of the House of Representatives under very specific instructions laid out in the 12th Amendment. In those instructions, the House is to select the President after January 6 but before March 4 of the same year. (Note- the new House Members will be sworn in on January 3rd, meaning the NEW HOUSE would select the President). Because separate elections for the President and Vice President are required by the Constitution, the newly elected Vice President would serve as President if the House does not settle the tie before the March 4th deadline.
In 1832, with no fanfare and no constitutional amendments, political parties began choosing presidential and vice-presidential candidates to run together on a single ballot. In the election of 1844 this practice became solidified across party lines and political parties submitted a single Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket for that ballot; a vote for one is a vote for both. Finally, in 1940 after winning two previous elections, FDR had a political temper tantrum claiming he would not run for a third term unless HE got to choose his own running mate. This began the tradition of presidential candidates “choosing” their own running mates.
In the 2020 presidential election, some claim something could happen in our election that hasn’t happened since 1800: a tie in the electoral college vote for President. The 12th Amendment was written to provide the constitutional procedure for such an occurrence. The 12th Amendment reads:
“The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President…if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President…before the fourth day of March next following then the Vice-President shall act as President…”
However, since Americans have allowed political parties to ignore the Constitution for one hundred eighty-eight years, there is no separate ballot for President and Vice President as the Constitution demands. As a result, there is no Vice President to act as President if the House cannot submit a tie breaking vote on March 4th. Here is where it gets interesting.
The 12th Amendment provides that in the event of a tie for the office of the President the House gives the tie breaking vote. If there is a tie in 2020, the House will pick the President, but the House is NOT authorized by the Constitution to pick the Vice President. The 12th Amendment establishes that in the event of a tie for vice-president, the Senate gives the tie breaking vote:
“The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President…if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President…”
With the creation of single ticket running mates, there would be a tie in both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. This means if there is a tie in 2020, the President would be chosen by the House and the Vice-President would be chosen by the Senate. For the first time in the history of America, the President and Vice President would be chosen entirely by the Legislative Branch rather than by the electoral college or vote of the people. Our long slow march away from our Constitutional foundations will blur the lines of separation of powers beyond recognition. The separation of powers doctrine ensures that one branch of government does not assume total control over another branch. James Madison remarked in Federalist #47, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” The power to appoint is the power to control. Because we have allowed our federal government to ignore our Constitution and operate our elections based upon the needs of parties and not the rule of law, our present Constitutional Republic is being transformed, as James Madison warned in 1798, “into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” Having traded the rule of law for the law of rulers, we are a nation far adrift from its Constitutional moorings. If we want to avoid the crash against the rocks we best reconnect with our anchor.
KrisAnneHall.com #LibertyFirst
2020 Florida Amendment Voter Guide
2020 Florida Amendment Voter Guide
Introduction:
This guide is designed to inform the voter on the 2020 Amendments to the Florida Constitution. The voter is always ultimately responsible for their vote. I do not take responsibility for anyone’s vote; we will all answer individually for our choices. With that in mind, be sure that you VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!
As a general rule, I am opposed to Constitutional Amendments, unless it is a truly Constitutional issue. Our Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the State, establishing guidelines for government, fundamental rights belonging to Floridians, and principles by which we are to govern. Statutes, on the other hand, are supposed to be the instrument we use to enact laws through legislation in our Republican form of government. Florida has gotten very lazy about these distinctions.
I had hoped we had learned about cluttering up our Constitution when we passed the “pregnant pig” and the “super train” amendments. With those two examples in mind, I would like those who view this guide to keep in mind a few things:
When you vote YES and pass a Constitutional Amendment you are creating an established RIGHT to something which includes the appropriate government protections and assignments.
These rights must be provided under equal access of the law to all citizens of the state, without discrimination.
If you do not agree with part of an Amendment you should vote No.
If you cаn’t understand any part of the Amendment, then you should vote No.
If you vote YES on a Constitutional Amendment, the only way to fix that amendment is through another Constitutional Amendment which requires a 60% vote in favor of that change.
- Amendment 1, Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative (2020):
This Amendment would change the wording of Article VI section 2 of the Florida Constitution as follows:
|
Every citizen Only a citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if registered as provided by law, shall be an elector of the county where registered |
This is a Constitutional issue. The Amendment doesn’t really change the meaning of the text but is intended to clarify that Only US Citizens who are 18 years of age or older, permanent residents of Florida, and registered to vote will be qualified to vote in the State of Florida.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1 would: Change the wording of Article VI section 2 in an effort to ensure that only permanent residents of Florida who are citizens under the Uniform Rule of Naturalization as established by the US Constitution are qualified to vote in State & Federal elections in the State of Florida.
- Amendment 2, $15 Minimum Wage Initiative (2020):
This Amendment will change the wording of section Article X section 24 of the Florida Constitution as follows:
|
(c) MINIMUM WAGE. Employers shall pay Employees Wages no less than the Minimum Wage for all hours worked in Florida. Six months after enactment, the Minimum Wage shall be established at an hourly rate of $6.15. Effective September 30th, 2021, the existing state Minimum Wage shall increase to $10.00 per hour, and then increase each September 30th thereafter by $1.00 per hour, until the Minimum Wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30th, 2026. On September 30th of 2027 and on each following September 30th, the state Agency for Workforce Innovation shall calculate an adjusted Minimum Wage rate by increasing the current Minimum Wage rate by the rate of inflation during the twelve months prior to each September 1st using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index as calculated by the United States Department of Labor. Each adjusted Minimum Wage rate calculated shall be published and take effect on the following January 1st. For tipped Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip credit in 2003 |
Amendment 2 would increase the state minimum wage from $8.56 in 2020 to $15.00 in 2026 by yearly increments:
$10.00 on September 30, 2021;
$11.00 on September 30, 2022;
$12.00 on September 30, 2023;
$13.00 on September 30, 2024;
$14.00 on September 30, 2025; and
$15.00 on September 30, 2026
This is not a Constitutional issue. It does not concern fundamental rights of Floridians. It deals with the minutiae of various benefits, the details of which are apt to change frequently due to external variables. The taxpayers pay the legislature to pass such measures. This type of “legislation” should have NEVER become a Constitutional Amendment
This issue should be returned to the Florida Legislature and removed from the Florida Constitution.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 2 would: Make it a Constitutional RIGHT to be paid a minimum of $15/hour by the year 2026.
- Amendment 3, Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative (2020):
This amendment would ADD a section to the Florida Constitution as follows:
|
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5. Primary, general, and special elections. — (c) All elections for the Florida legislature, governor and cabinet shall be held as follows: (1) A single primary election shall be held for each office. All electors registered to vote for the office being filled shall be allowed to vote in the primary election for said office regardless of the voter’s, or any candidate’s, political party affiliation or lack of same. (2) All candidates qualifying for election to the office shall be placed on the same ballot for the primary election regardless of any candidate’s political party affiliation or lack of same. (3) The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast in the primary election shall advance to the general election. For elections in which only two candidates qualify for the same office, no primary will be held and the winner will be determined in the general election. (4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a political party from nominating a candidate to run for office under this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a party from endorsing or otherwise supporting a candidate as provided by law. A candidate’s affiliation with a political party may appear on the ballot as provided by law. (5) This amendment is self-executing and shall be effective January 1, 2024. |
This is a Constitutional issue. This Amendment would change the way primary and general elections are conducted in Florida for the executive offices: Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Chief Financial Officer. Florida elections for these officers would stop being closed primary elections and become top-two open primaries.
CURRENTLY IN FLORIDA:
Primary elections are funded with the tax dollars of every Floridian, yet only registered members of political parties are allowed to vote. There are currently at least 17 states that have open primaries for some or all offices.
First, this Amendment creates an OPEN PRIMARY so every executive candidate is on the same ballot and every registered voter is permitted to vote in the primary regardless of the political affiliation.
Secondly, it establishes a “top-two” voting system for primaries. “Top-Two” voting means that the top two vote recipients would move forward to the General Election regardless of party affiliation.
If approved by 60% of the voters, the top-two primary system would begin in 2024.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 3 will do ALL the Following:
Establish Florida as an Open Primary State where all registered taxpayers may participate in the primary election they are paying for. Currently all taxpayers pay for the Primary but only those registered to the political parties can vote in the Primary.
Establish that the top two vote recipients from the Open Primary will move on to the General Election, regardless of party affiliation; the candidates in the General Election will be those chosen by the majority of voters instead of only members of the political parties.
- Amendment 4, Require Constitutional Amendments to be Passed Twice Initiative (2020):
This amendment would amend Article XI sections 5 and 7 of the Florida Constitution by adding text as follows:
|
SECTION 5. Amendment or revision election. — (a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing. If the proposed amendment or revision is approved as provided in subsection (e), it shall be submitted to the electors a second time at the next general election occurring at least ten weeks after the election in which the proposed amendment or revision is initially approved. (b) A proposed amendment or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, by initiative shall be submitted to the electors at the general election provided the initiative petition is filed with the custodian of state records no later than February 1 of the year in which the general election is held. If the proposed amendment or revision is approved as provided in subsection (e), it shall be submitted to the electors a second time at the next general election. (c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.[5] |
This a Constitutional issue because it involves the process of amending the Florida Constitution.
Currently, the Florida Constitution can be amended by a single ballot initiative when 60% of the voters approve the initiative. This amendment to the Florida Constitution would require any future amendments to approved by 60% of the voters through two consecutive elections instead of one.
Arguments
Proponents:
Since 1968 the Florida Constitution has been amended 140 times. In 2018 alone the Constitution was amended 11 times. Included in the 140 Amendments are Constitutional Amendments for:
- a bullet train that nearly bankrupted the State before it was repealed by a subsequent amendment.
- constitutionally established rights for pregnant pigs
- an amendment to stop gambling on dog racing that will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and put hundreds of dogs in jeopardy of being euthanized.
- dozens of issues that should be handled by our Legislature instead of cluttering up our Constitution.
According to proponents for this Amendment, requiring two subsequent ballot approvals would reduce the number of “whimsical” and costly constitutional amendments.
Opponents:
The ability of the voters of Florida to amend their Constitution via ballot initiative is an important tool that should not be made “twice as hard” and “twice as costly” to utilize. The opponents argue that Constitutional Amendments will not reduce in number, but this amendment will establish that only wealthy groups will be able to afford the cost of a ballot initiative twice.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 4 will require every Amendment to the Florida Constitution to pass by 60% of the votes in two subsequent elections.
- Amendment 5, Extend “Save Our Homes” Portability Period Amendment (2020):
This amendment would amend Article VII section 4 and ADD a new section to Article XII of the Florida Constitution by adding text as follows:
|
ARTICLE VII FINANCE AND TAXATION SECTION 4. Taxation; assessments.— (8)a. A person who establishes a new homestead as of January 1, 2009, or January 1 of any subsequent year and who has received a homestead exemption pursuant to Section 6 of this Article as of January 1 of any either of the three two years immediately preceding the establishment of the new homestead is entitled to have the new homestead assessed at less than just value. If this revision is approved in January of 2008, a person who establishes a new homestead as of January 1, 2008, is entitled to have the new homestead assessed at less than just value only if that person received a homestead exemption on January 1, 2007. Article XII SCHEDULE Transfer of the accrued benefit from specified limitations on homestead property tax assessments; increased portability period.—This section and the amendment to Section 4 of Article VII, which extends to three years the time period during which the accrued benefit from specified limitations on homestead property tax assessments may be transferred from a prior homestead to a new homestead, shall take effect January 1, 2021.[4] |
This is a legislative issue and should not be in the Florida Constitution. It does not concern fundamental rights of Floridians. It deals with the minutiae of various benefits, the details of which are apt to change frequently. The taxpayers pay the legislature to pass such measures.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 5 will extending the period during which a person may transfer Save Our Homes (Constitutional Amendment, 1992) benefits to a new homestead property from two years to three years. Currently, if a person moves to a new home, they have two years to transfer their “Save Our Homes” benefit to have the new home assessed “at less than just value.” The amendment would increase that time to three years rather than two.
- Amendment 6, Homestead Property Tax Discount for Spouses of Deceased Veterans Amendment (2020):
This amendment would amend Article XII section 6 of the Florida Constitution by adding text as follows:
|
Article VII Text of Section 6: Homestead Exemptions (2) If a veteran who receives the discount described in paragraph (1) predeceases his or her spouse, and if, upon the death of the veteran, the surviving spouse holds the legal or beneficial title to the homestead property and permanently resides thereon, the discount carries over to the surviving spouse until he or she remarries or sells or otherwise disposes of the homestead property. If the surviving spouse sells or otherwise disposes of the property, a discount not to exceed the dollar amount granted from the most recent ad valorem tax roll may be transferred to the surviving spouse’s new homestead property, if used as his or her permanent residence and he or she has not remarried. Article XII Text of Section 36 Ad valorem tax discount for surviving spouses of certain permanently disabled veterans.—The amendment to Section 6 of Article VII, relating to the ad valorem tax discount for spouses of certain deceased veterans who had permanent, combat-related disabilities, and this section shall take effect January 1, 2021.[3] |
This is a legislative issue and should not be in the Florida Constitution. It does not concern fundamental rights of Floridians. It deals with the minutiae of various benefits, the details of which are apt to change frequently. The taxpayers pay the legislature to pass such measures.
The section has already been amended 12 times since 1980. Thus, it exemplifies the very argument against legislation through Constitutional amendments. If the original provisions had been passed through the appropriate channels of legislation, a simple amendment to the statute could have been easily passed while the legislature was in session. Instead, Floridians will incur the cost of employing our legislators to (not) do their job, AND the cost of amending the Constitution over and over.
A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 6 will allow a homestead property tax discount to be transferred to the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran. The discount would be in effect until the spouse remarries, sells, or otherwise disposes of the property. If the spouse sells the property and does not remarry, the spouse’s new primary residence may receive a homestead tax discount not exceeding the dollar amount from the most recent ad valorem tax roll. The amendment would take effect January 1, 2021.
How KrisAnne Hall would vote:
|
Amendment 1 |
Yes |
|
Amendment 2 |
No |
|
Amendment 3 |
No |
|
Amendment 4 |
No |
|
Amendment 5 |
No |
|
Amendment 6 |
No |
©2020 KrisAnne Hall www.KrisAnneHall.com
Four Things You Need To Know About Our US Constitution
Four Things You Need To Know About Our US Constitution
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
- The Constitution is the standard for Government. Not the Supreme Court. Not a majority vote in Congress. Not the need or will of the People.
“…the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law. ~ James Wilson, PA Ratifying Convention, 1787
2. The Constitution is a contract between the States that created the federal government. It is not an agreement between the feds and the people. That is a temporal impossibility. The federal government cannot be a party to a contract when they didn’t even exist until the contract was ratified.
“…consequently, that the ultimate right of the [States], to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” ~James Madison, 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions
3. Original Intent is the only legal way to apply the terms of the Constitution. Contract law dictates that the “meeting of the minds” is the controlling standard for any contract. Ask your professor, pundit, or politician if they will allow their employment contract to be applied as a “living breathing document” and quickly see how hypocritical they really are.
“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.” ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78, 1788
4. The Constitution created a Constitutional Republic; a government limited and defined by specific enumeration of authority where laws are made by equal representation of the people. If it is not enumerated, it is not Constitutionally authorized. We are not a democracy and our government and it’s laws are not dictated by majority mob rule.
“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.” ~ James Madison, to the House of Representatives, 1792
This is merely a short list of the many truths we neglect to teach and learn about our Constitution. The miseducation perpetrated upon the American people is not by accident. It is a coordinated effort to expand the power of those in office and extinguish the inherent liberties of the people. Our founders warned us of this danger:
“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” ~ Samuel Adams to James Warren, 1775
America has the greatest history in the world of Liberty and inherent rights for ALL. None other compares. We have the greatest Constitution in the world.
“In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of hateful things; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purpose.” ~ Frederick Douglass, 1852
Our government problems are not because of the failings of the Constitution. The many crises in America are because we are failing to enforce our Constitution and demand those in government operate according to this standard. That will change and our American experience will cease to decline when the people have the knowledge and courage to turn away from the dictated errant narrative and learn to speak and stand for truth.
~ KrisAnne Hall, JD