Archives for Articles – Page 8

Religious Liberty in Jeopardy By Mandates

August 23, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Religious Liberty in Jeopardy By Mandates

Re: Florida SB 64- An Act Relating to Exemptions from School-Entry Health Requirements

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Florida has long been a State that shows great respect for religious liberty. That is about to change with the passage of SB 64. This bill would remove the right of free exercise of religion for Floridians all across the State by mandating them to engage in behavior contrary to their religious beliefs. Floridians must prevent this unreasonable intrusion.

SB 64 threatens religious freedom by imposing mandatory vaccinations upon individuals contrary to their religious belief by removing the right to object to those vaccinations based upon religious grounds (Florida Statute 1003.22(1)). Vaccinations have been available to Americans since the early 1800s. Once governments began attempting to mandate vaccinations upon citizens, many people began to object. Why would someone object if we are simply talking about eradicating disease?

Many religious faiths hold murder to be a violation of their beliefs and hold abortion to fall into the category of murder. Shockingly, the list of mandatory vaccinations for children include vaccinations that are derived from aborted fetal tissue. Vaccinations for Chicken Pox, Hepatitis-A, and Rubella, are produced from aborted fetal tissue and at this time, pharmaceutical companies offer no alternatives. According to a report issued by Liberty Counsel, most physicians who oppose abortion do not realize these vaccines are produced from aborted fetal tissue. The Rubella vaccination know as RA/27/3, developed during the Rubella epidemic of 1964, is so named based on the fact that it is derived from aborted fetal tissue: R stands for Rubella, A stands for Abortus, 27 stands for the 27^th fetus tested, and 3 stands for the 3^rd tissue explant. In layman’s terms, there were 26 abortions prior to identifying the right formula for the vaccination. Aborted babies were sent to two scientists at the Wistar Institute by the names of Plotkin and Hayflick. By dissecting the kidneys and lungs of these aborted babies Plotkin and Hayflick developed the virus strain identified as WI-38 (Wistar Institute 38). Further development of this vaccination was created in the 1970’s from a male baby at 14 weeks gestation. (HistoryOfVaccinies.org – Human Cell Strains in Vaccine Development) The cells from these aborted babies have also been used to create many other commonly used vaccinations, two of which are the Hepatitis-A and Chicken Pox vaccinations. With these facts we can discern that even vaccinations that may not actually contain aborted fetal tissue, were actually developed initially using the cells of aborted babies. (see Liberty Counsel report)

Not only does the Chicken Pox vaccination contain strains derived from aborted babies, it also contains monosodium glutamate (MSG), a chemical compound the FDA has identified as dangerous to infants, children, pregnant women or women of child bearing age, and people with mental or emotional disorders. According to the Liberty Counsel report, Dr. Arthur Lavin of the Department of Pediatrics at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, strongly opposes the chicken pox vaccine. Some experts believe the Chicken Pox vaccination can actually signal a more serious underlying chronic condition called “Atypical Measles.” (see Liberty Counsel report) Although the FDA claims less than a 10% chance that serious illness and death caused by vaccinations, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (a federal government program) pays nearly $100 million per year to victims and families for vaccine related disabilities and deaths.

In addition to the dangers and use of aborted babies to create vaccines, many people simply hold sincerely religious beliefs against vaccinations in general. One religious objection is the firmly held belief that God created the human body as a temple and that the body should not be destroyed by injecting a virus into it. Although a few of the vaccinations containing aborted babies have alternatives that do not contain aborted baby tissue, those alternatives do contain animal bi-products. There are many people in Florida that have firmly held convictions against ingesting any animal products into their bodies. Mandatory vaccinations that are designed to prevent sexually transmitted diseases also create problems for those with particular religious convictions. These parents believe sexually transmitted diseases ought to be prevented through abstinence and not injections into the body that condone sexual activity contrary to their religious beliefs.

There are less intrusive ways to deal with these issues and the courts are not inconsiderate of the rights of those with deeply held religious beliefs. For example, Liberty Counsel won two cases in New York City where the school system attempted to mandate the Hepatitis-B vaccination on the children of two families. These families expressed their sincerely held religious beliefs against vaccinations and the schools expelled the children of both families. Liberty Counsel filed a federal law suit on behalf of both families and the federal court held that the children had to be readmitted to school and the school could not force the parents to vaccinate their children.

In another case, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against Arkansas’s law mandating vaccinations and denying religious exceptions. Because of Liberty Counsel’s law suit, the Arkansas legislature promptly passed new legislations providing for exemptions for philosophical and religious objectors, as well as objectors who claim medical necessity.

We cannot allow our State level representatives to simply disregard the Religious Liberty of the people. America’s founders fought desperately to establish a place where all could be equally free to live true to their religious beliefs without government intrusion. The very principle of separation of church and state requires government to not infringe upon the religious beliefs of the people.

John Witherspoon founder of America and former president of Princeton University said, “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.” Senate Bill 64 is a deliberate expression of State mandates contrary to Religious Liberty through the removal the religious exemptions intentionally put in place to protect those essential rights.

For the preservation of civil and religious liberty for all, Floridians must say NO to SB64.

Please feel free to contact the attorneys at Liberty Counsel for specific guidance, in whatever State you might live in. https://www.lc.org/

Truth In History – The Underground Railroad

August 21, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

–A Note from KrisAnne: One of our missions at KrisAnneHall.com is to bring truth back into history. History is our greatest teacher, our founders often referred to history and experience as being an invaluable oracle used to make a better tomorrow. Consistent with that effort, our friend Kate Dalley has written a wonderful article on the History of the Underground Railroad & Harriet Tubman’s role in that era of history. With Kate’s permission we are publishing it in our Guest Article series.

Truth In History – The Underground Railroad

by Kate Dalley

I’m not sure how to put this, so I’ll just hope people realize I’m not looking to disparage anyone but our American history is grossly inaccurate and I’d like to correct one historic exaggeration that is affecting our nation right now in major headlines. Even if history bores you, please take two minutes and read this.

This is one of the reasons I do my daily radio show. Is to find the truth and hopefully get the truth out there. Had they told the following story accurately, I doubt this race war context would be a big headline.

When you think of the Underground Railroad (secret slave escape routes before the Civil War), what comes to mind? Probably the name Harriet Tubman. They have made her into an icon and called her the “Moses of Her People”. Most of us think she founded the Underground Railroad and if you google it – it all but proclaims her to be the founder. But, if you look a little deeper, they use odd language when describing her as the “actual” founder. They don’t really say that- they just heavily insinuate it in every way possible. They say she’s the “face” of the railroad, or the “spirit” of the movement.

And it’s not true.

She wasn’t born until 1820 and didn’t escape until 1849 using the UR herself -when a white neighbor gave her the name of a location to run to and a white family gave her a ride in their wagon. At that time, already 100,000 slaves used the UR to escape! 100,000!

The Underground Railroad actually started right after our country’s founding- in 1787.

Slaves couldn’t read or write and could hardly speak to other slaves living in other towns so coordinating the concept and on -the-ground locations would have been impossible for them to do under such oppression. So, who came up with all the safe houses, the secret code name concept of the “railroad terminology” like “stockholders” ( those who funded it) “conductors” (those who guided people from location to location “Station master” (Regional coordinator)and so on, back in 1787? Who built up this huge network all the way to Canada? Who put in all of the time, money and resources and kept it secret? As soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution, there was a huge movement to stop a widely accepted horrible practice of slavery and who had a love for mankind strong enough to risk losing everything to help free the slaves?

It was the white Quakers.

The man known to operate the first cell of the railroad, was a WHITE man named Issac Hopper- a Quaker in his late teens even, who risked everything to liberate over 1000 slaves himself and that number is modest.

Also the “President” of the UR was Levi Coffer. A WHITE Quaker who, along with his wife helped over 3300 slaves acquire freedom. Thomas Garrett several decades later, also a Quaker helped over 2700 slaves. They got entire Quaker congregations to hide people, pay money to help out and to create safe houses. There were at least 8 wealthy white men noted in history who were behind it but there were thousands more who helped. They made sure to compartmentalize the big plan so that no one person knew the whereabouts of all the safe houses -so they couldn’t be coerced into giving info if in-prisoned.

Harriet Tubman didn’t use the railroad herself until it was in its final 15 years of existence – the UR had already been going for almost 65 years strong.

She made 13 runs on the railroad with small groups that included her own family members and is responsible for freeing about 70 people.

Some of those 13 runs were only partly aiding those that were already in the process of escaping already. I’m not saying that isn’t wonderful or wasn’t brave- it was-but why she is called Moses and referred to in text as the founder or face of the movement? This is very inaccurate.

White Quakers, Native Americans, and Free Blacks worked together to free slaves. Those entire Quaker congregations knew they were risking their lives and wealth to participate but did it anyway.

The reason Harriet Tubman was recognized for this was because a friend of hers wanted to raise money for her and wrote a book about her in the late 1800’s about her efforts- a very glowing account that exaggerated her efforts into claiming she had rescued thousands and thousands and William Still wrote about her because he joined the movement at the end as well and wrote about several people involved.

I’m glad they acknowledge the following in the African American Experience (source)-

“The exact year in which the system began is unknown, but it is believed the Quakers started it in 1787. By the time Mrs. Tubman made her escape in 1849, escape via the Underground Railroad had become a frequent practice and it involved a much larger network of people….

By 1857, she had helped free dozens of slaves (not the hundreds often touted in history books; Tubman believed the figure was closer to 70), including her own parents and other family members”. Source-AAE

Books claimed that she sheltered people on her property as a philanthropist- but she actually ran a boarding business and charged people. They said she was a political activist in the women’s vote but if you look deeper, they said she “felt strongly about women voting and “LIKELY worked among those LIKE Susan B Anthony”- they don’t exactly say she did. There aren’t any actual accounts of this. They said she worked as a spy for the military and risked her life in battle as the first black woman to do so. Well, truth be told she found a couple of scouts for them to bring them into battle because she didn’t know the areas and wasn’t on the front lines.

I mean it’s great – she helped out, but they have grossly exaggerated her biography. She has since had museums, bridges, a naval ship, a postage stamp, streets, parks, statues- all named after her, movies made about her starring Cicely Tyson and also almost landed on our 20 dollar bill. And does anyone remember hearing about Issac Hopper in history class as the founder and inventor of the UR? I’m guessing not so much.

A writer in 1940 tried to write the truth – Earl Connor – and received threats and condemnation for wanting to write the truth. ( This makes sense knowing that our public education system was hijacked by the Carnegie Foundation to change our American history in the early 1900’s- as found right in their meeting’s written notes from 1908 and exposed in Congress hearings later on. Their main directive was to “re-educate” teachers with watered down and completely altered American history. By 1920, our nation was touting Tubman as the name associated with the UR- source Norman Dodd sent to investigate Carnegie Foundation by Congress).

They wanted a black woman to be the face of the Underground Railroad and that was that- regardless of true history. Apparently they also wanted to make it appear as though all white people were racist and loved slavery.

Can you imagine what our conversations would be like right now in America if we were constantly sharing this info about all of the White people that wanted to free those in slavery, risked it all and THEY made it happen- all along?

To make sure the UR was successful, many different religions, Methodists, Presbyterians and all kinds of clergy risked their lives. It took so many people from all over that cared about ensuring freedom and changing the (sadly) widely accepted practice of slavery. There were white slaves, Irish slaves and yes, black owners of black slaves.

By the way, this is also NEVER talked about, but starting in the 1600’s black AND white slaves were brought over together by ship and “indentured or “Durante vite”-meaning- in order to “pay for their voyage” – they had to be a slave for 4-7 years to pay for the voyage they didn’t want to take and work it off as a slave. They were also called “redemtioners”- they were the poorest amongst us and sold poor orphans too.

At the end of their pay back period they got 3 bushels of corn and some clothes when set free. Horrifying? Yes. But our history.

You can find all of this online. It is written about. But with today’s headlines and political posturing – you’d never guess that anyone ever read about this.

Ironically and shockingly, the first slave to be given “for life” instead of 4-7 years, was to a BLACK SLAVE OWNER in 1640’s – Anthony Johnson – who had black and white slaves by the way- and argued to the court that John Casor of the Virginia’s Colony , a black slave that he purchased, was to be for life and the court/Judge sided with Johnson that he would be his slave for life. A BLACK slave owner and his black Slave. “Johnson, insisting he knew nothing of an indenture, fought hard to retain what he regarded as his personal property, stating, “hee had ye Negro for his life.” On March 5, 1655 the presiding judge, Captain Samuel Goldsmith, ruled that “the said Jno Caster Negro shall forthwith bee returned to the service of his master Anthony Johnson.”

Johnson was one of the original “20” black slaves brought over from Africa and ironically, paid off his own indentured servitude and the bought slaves for himself- among them John Casor. – (source- Smithsonian Magazine Horrible Fate of John Casor).

Our media never mentions this though.

Harriet Tubman was a brave black woman who endured a lot in a very difficult time. No doubt. But she was hardly the face of or founder or “Moses” of her people. Many others sacrificed so much more, for so many decades and in a time when this practice had become so accepted, they also were brave in dedicating their lives and prosperity for the love of their “neighbor”. George Washington also was the first to say he would give up his own slaves and help this cause as he felt slavery was wrong.

I just want us to give history it’s due. Right from the start of America, we sought to correct accepted wrongs and America was the only land that espoused the religious and economic freedom for anyone to come and make a better life. Not every white person was a racist slave owner nor was every black person was a slave, either. We didn’t just passively let slavery happen for a 80 years- as soon as we declared our Independence – whites, blacks and Native Americans sought to end slavery. We are not a racist nation now and were not then. Only a select group – not our entire nation- were considered truly racist (full of hatred toward other human beings for skin color only) and saw others as non-human. To most it was horrible yes, but just economical to them. White Irish slaves (over 300K) were indentured slaves as well. They never talk about this.

The truth matters and our history book lies and misinformation have shaped our thinking of this country and it’s so unfortunate.

Had this been taught all along- how different would the last 100 years have been for us? How different would our headlines be right now and how different would our perceptions be for people of all color. How would this have impacted what became the Civil Rights Movement in the South?

We need to start educating people about the truth. It matters. The truth matters.

-Kate Dalley

kate Dalley

Kate Dalley is a cutting-edge nationally recognized radio host! She is nationally syndicated in multiple markets -live -including Chicago and on Red State Talk Radio in drive time ( the world’s largest political online 24 hour station with 1 million listeners) along with other online outlets as well. Listeners from around the globe listen and stream her daily 3-hour political talk show (First hour Utah topics, followed by the 2 hour nationally syndicated show). http://katedalleyradio.com/

Southern Poverty Law Center Interview

August 20, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Southern Poverty Law Center Interview

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

An investigative journalist from the Southern Poverty Law Center contacted me today for an interview. She emailed me some questions and I provided a written response. In the interest of preserving the conversation and ensuring honesty, I am printing the SPLC questions and my written respsonse. I have no idea what portion of my response, if any they will publish, so here is the full monty. ~ KrisAnne

From Rachel Janik of the Southern Poverty Center:

I’m an investigative reporter with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I’m reaching out because we are writing an article about a talk you gave earlier this month at an event that included the group the League of the South. Here are my questions:

-Can you explain why you thought the League of the South venue was a good fit for your presentation?
-Would you be able to share with us the slides of your presentation, or a Youtube link to your speech? If not, can you give us an idea of what it was about?
-You believe in states having autonomy, correct? But what’s your position if a state wants to secede or implement a law contrary to federal statutes? May a state reinstitute segregation? Discrimination of LGBTQ people? Slavery?

Thank you so much for your time and attention to these questions. We are on a very tight deadline, and I understand if you are not able to get back to us before publication. If we hear back from you after the story is posted, we are more than happy to run an update with your comments.

My Response:

Greetings Rachel,

Thank you for your honest inquiry. I will be posting my response to you in full at my website. I will begin by letting you know how I work. I do not solicit events or venues. For nine years every event, for years exceeding 250 classes in over 22 States every year, all my classes are scheduled because someone invited me to come to their venue. I have no speaking fees and have never turned down an opportunity to teach any of the classes that I teach unless I could not physically do the teaching. I have spoken to groups of all political identities, all ages, and all levels of government. Your question of “why you thought the League of the South venue was a good venue for your presentation” does not apply to me. I do not seek venues that “fit” a particular class. My classes are not political, they are factual, historical, and constitutional; they are about Liberty and the responsibility in a Constitutional Republic to be an educated and self-governing people.

I discovered that I my teaching ran contrary to the position of The League of the South, namely I do not believe that the Constitution and the republic it created have failed. I do not believe that the “Empire should be dismantled and reformed.” So I felt it was an opportunity to promote liberty, unity and demonstrate that the system that the founders gave us can indeed be relied upon. Frankly, my classes fit every venue, every person, and every age. The blessings of Liberty are a gift to all people and are not contingent upon gender, sexual orientation, faith, or skin color, therefore I do not discriminate against any group who desires to know more about our Constitutional Republic and how it is supposed to work. Even more so, if the group is reputed to have offensive views I feel that the message of liberty for all that I teach is more than appropriate. I explained this in a post I already made in reference to this event. https://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/resources/articles/412-public-statement-on-racism

I have attached a google drive link of my PowerPoint presentation. Note the last slide. I always end with this slide and emphasize that our methods should lead us to liberty and unity, not hate, violence, and disharmony.

As to your question regarding LGBTQ, Slavery, and Segregation. The short answers are no, no and no. It is interesting that the assumption is that State sovereignty is intended to oppress people rather than to defend against oppression (like a state refusing to comply with the unconstitutional dictates of a despotic President for instance). Liberty is inherent to all people. All government, both State and federal are instituted to protect liberty.

“All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…and to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Declaration of Independence

When any form of government fails to secure that liberty, it fails to accomplish the single purpose for its existence and becomes an unjust government. Our system of Republican Federalism was established to exist with very powerful checks and balances to ensure that no form of government can deny the rights of the people unchecked. The separate spheres of government that exist in the creation of State and federal are designed to mutually check each other within their enumerated boundaries.

“Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different government will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself…” Federalist 51

“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject within their respective authorities than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” James Madison, Federalist 39

For instance when the federal government demanded that States return “fugitive slaves,” the State of Wisconsin, from 1854 to 1859 asserted its sovereignty and refused to comply with a power not delegated to the federal government and contrary to the rights of the people. (Ableman v Booth 62 US 514 (1859) If the designed checks and balances had been working properly, NO Japanese American would have been unconstitutionally and unjustly seized and detained in camps even though the president “ordered” it and SCOTUS “sanctioned” it.

As with any power in government non-compliance can be used for good and it can be used for evil. But the essential checks and balances our founders established within these separate spheres of government enable the people to ensure that one sphere will not become so powerful that it may exercise its will without restraint. This essential check and balance that exists in our Constitutional Republic is the shield against slavery, masters, and oppressors, not a restoration of it.

The Supremacy Clause upholds the authority of the Constitution and establishes that all Acts of the Legislative branch must me made consistent with the terms and enumerations of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause also very clearly establishes that any Act of Congress not made “in pursuance” to the Constitution is invalid and not binding upon the States.

“…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

“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. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Alexander Hamilton

I support the Constitution and the tenor of the commission under which it was created. Therefore I support every law of the Legislative branch creates under those terms and understand that every State has a duty to comply with those laws. I also understand, as instructed by those who wrote the Constitution, that every State has no obligation to submit to any federal law that is not made within those terms. And while I am not a proponent of secession, a state certainly has that contractual right when it feels that the compact has been irrevocably broken. Our states are not fiefdoms under subjugation to an unquestionable despot. Yet while a State may secede or be expelled, that State would lose all benefits and privileges afforded to it under the federal compact.

Blessings,

KrisAnne Hall, JD

HR 838 TAPS Act – You Are Being Lied To

August 19, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

HR 838 TAPS Act – Constitutional Review

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

The text of the TAPS Act is not the solution to gun violence many members of Congress are professing it to be. The unlimited and arbitrary authority this Act bestows upon a bureaucracy of 24 people, combined with the language of double-speak and contradictions creating loopholes allowing completely unsupervised and unchecked authority is reminiscent of the Sedition Act of 1798.

SUMMARY:

The TAPS act will create a brand new bureaucracy under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. A non-elected bureaucrat is authorized by Congress to appoint 23 other non-elected bureaucrats to invent the authority for federal and State government agents to “identify individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and then to “manage” those Americans.
The sole purpose of this bureaucracy of 24 will be to create State and federal policing bodies ruling over the perceived behavior of the American people- KGB-style agencies not only monitoring the behavior of Americans, but also functioning as judge, jury, and executioner.

The Task Force:

This Act mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force: a 24 member bureaucracy consisting of one government employee (level GS-15 or above) and 23 people from non-governmental organizations of the Secretary’s choosing. Not a single member of this 24 person bureaucracy will be elected by the people, therefore the people will retain no control whatsoever over the actions or activity of this newly created bureaucracy that will possess, by Congressional consent, an enormous amount of arbitrary and unchecked power over the people (see §4(a)).

Purpose of the Task Force:

The sole purpose of this task force is “identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior” and create a power to control those people on a federal and local level (§3(2)) This Act contains no clear definition of “concerning behavior.” As a matter of fact, the Act relies upon the Task Force (24 non-elected bureaucrats) to first DEFINE “concerning behavior” and then empower the “monitors” tasked with “identifying individuals” that exhibit that behavior. According to (§3(2)(a)) no actual criminal act must take place to invoke the power this bureaucracy will create. A federal or local agent must only believe an individual is “interested” in committing their definition of “concerning behavior” to summon this new and undefined power to action. The DHS will then be “empowered” to implement these arbitrary rules with no acknowledgement to any of rights of the people. To take the legal-eeze off it, this is intended to create a registry of people who may commit crimes at some unspecified and unknown time in the future. This registry will then be used to begin a step-by-step usurpation of their individual rights, from the assumption of innocence and due process to the 1st and 2nd Amendments and more.

Power from the Task Force:

Once an federal or State agent has identified an American believed to be interested in some kind of concerning behavior, §3(2)(b) authorizes the Bureaucracy to empower these agents to investigate and gather information from multiple sources (sources remain undefined in this Act) on this individual American to find “articulable facts” supporting whether this person is truly exhibiting an “interest” in committing “concerning behavior.” The 4^th Amendment requires government to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause (not articulable facts), supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the 4^th Amendment it is impossible for this Task Force to empower any government agent to do what Congress has authorized it to do. But the Act makes no mention of the 4^th Amendment or the government’s requirement to respect & secure the Rights of the people.

According to §3(2)(c) of this Act, after the agent has compiled its “articulable facts” by circumventing the 4^th Amendment’s requirements on government, the Bureaucracy will empower the government agent to “manage” the threat of “concerning behavior.” There is no definition within the Act for the word “manage.” However, the “Powers of the Task Force” are defined in §4(f) as follows:

“Any member of the Task Force may, if authorized by the Task Force, take any action which the Task Force is authorized to take by this section.”

While there are no guidelines created by Congress on how this Bureaucracy is supposed to define “manage” or “identify” the behavior of Americans, §2 of the Act establishes that the Task Force will create its own “ guidelines and best practices” in order to devise a “national standard” of action. Therefore, it seems indisputable through §2 and §4(f) that any member of the Task force can create any power for the agents to take any action it chooses as long the Task Force will establish the guidelines and practices for such action. The only limit of on the power of the government agent or agency as a whole, rests solely upon the whim of the individual bureaucrat and the bureaucracy to limit itself.

When a bureaucracy’s entire existence (funding & job security) relies upon the identification and subsequent management of Americans with “concerning behavior,” it is hard to imagine the bureaucrats will not find what they seek. The simple exercise of this newly invented authority will create a chilling effect on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and redress. Many Americans will choose to remain silent to avoid any potential exercise of this power over their lives. Our Bill of Rights was ratified to prevent precisely this kind of totalitarian power over the people. When Americans withhold their voice out of fear of reprisal, in First Amendment law, we call this the “chilling effect” of the unconstitutional exercise of unauthorized government power.

Congressional Oversight:

Congress retains no real authority to check, balance, limit, modify, or control the exercise of power created by this bureaucracy, whatsoever. The only requirement for this new bureaucracy is to create the new behavioral police in America and after one year the Secretary (the GS-15 government employee) will submit a report to Congress telling Congress what they have been doing for the past year. The Act then requires DHS to report to Congress once a year every subsequent year on how the guidelines are working, not as a check and balance.

A deceived member of Congress may attempt to assert that the only authority of the Bureaucracy is to make “suggestions to Congress” as to what the proper course of action should be. However, that assertion can be seen as pure error by reading §3(2)(c) of this Act.

A deceived member of Congress may believe that this federal bureaucracy will have no power over the State and local police powers. However §8 of this Act establishes that federal grant money will be given to local jurisdictions which will undeniably establish the power for this Bureaucracy to control our local and State authorities once they accept that money. (Surely the American people recognize this slight of hand by now!)

A deceived Supreme Court, upon legal challenge, will likely fail to recognize this Act to be vague and full of self-defining authority for a non-elected bureaucracy. SCOTUS has long held great deference to federal agencies and their agents to define their own authority and procedures when Congress leaves holes in the laws.

Constitutional Authority:

The Constitution delegates no authority to Congress to fund, recommend, or create a behavioral police for the people. The writing of this Act and the Act’s website proves that every co-sponsor of this Bill knows this as fact! First, the Act makes no mention of due process, the rights of the people, nor any reliance upon or limit established by the Constitution of the United States. Secondly, if you go to the Bill’s website and click on the hyperlink **“Constitutional Authority Statement” the link takes you back to a copy of the Bill text, with no statement of authority whatsoever. Underpinning this act is NOT the Constitution but fear of guns on the left and fear of terrorists on the right.

Conclusion:

So, with the passage of this Act, Congress will create a Bureaucracy who will be empowered to create its own guidelines and procedures on how it will operate to define, identify, and enforce government control upon its self-defined “concerning behavior” of individuals in America: Complete autonomous, arbitrary, self-defined authority resting in the hands of bureaucrats elected by no one, controlled by no one. This Act, on its face, violates the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and 8^th Amendments. But as in every arbitrary law, the whole truth of its offense to the rights of the people cannot be fully known until the law is put into action. If this Act is used as some members of Congress profess, it is highly likely that execution of this Act will violate large swaths of the Constitution — including 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th, and 10^th Amendments. Constitution and rights of the people be damned, the bureaucrats will have their power under the illusion of keeping people safe.

Members of Congress are championing this Bill as the be all, end all solution to gun violence in America, yet the Bill does not even once mention the words “gun” or “ammunition.” It should be clear now that the TAPS Act is not about gun control at all, it is about People Control. It will target any American who voices, types, or indicates a thought toward questioning government policy, people, or power. (See the FBI Memo defining and identifying the “new” standard for domestic terrorist.)

How any politician who professes a knowledge of the Constitution or professes a love for America, her people, and their rights could EVER back this insidious piece of legislation is completely beyond my comprehension. And as Patrick Henry said in 1788, Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. It’s time for the American people to hold these pretend patriots suspect and tell them to change their vote or change their vocation.

If any person, including members of Congress would like to discuss this with me, my door is open. My website: KrisAnneHall.com

**NOTE: Since the publication of this article, the Act website has been updated to include a reference to the “commerce clause” as authority for this Act. If you want to understand why this is not a valid use of authority for this Act, please attend this course at LibertyFirstSociety.com:

General Welfare & Commerce Clauses: https://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/preview-courses/254-general-welfare-and-commerce-clauses

Public Statement on Racism

August 10, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Public Statement on Racism

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Racism is and probably always will be a vile blight on humanity. I do and will always condemn racism and acts of violence. I am blessed beyond measure to have married into my biracial family and have adopted my biracial son. I couldn’t hate a race without hated those I hold so dear. But just to clarify for those who don’t know me personally:

Today, I had the opportunity of speaking to a group that is accused of having odious and racist views. Some accused me of sharing the same alleged views simply because I showed up to speak. I can’t speak to what any group or members of that group may believe, since I was there to share what I believe, which is that ALL deserve liberty and ALL deserve sound representation from elected representatives who operate within the confines of America’s Constitutional Rule of Law.

Obviously, what those listening believe does not change my message whatsoever. And I will never shy away from sharing truth to whomever is willing to listen, particularly if they are as messed up as people claim.

Today’s presentation on State and local responsibility always contains a message promoting liberty and love of neighbor. I always admonish those who cry for violence and civil war and tell them that our solutions are peaceful and that unity, not division, makes America strong. I said the same today as I spoke. Whether those seeds find root is between God and the hearer. But I don’t believe positive change takes place by each side shouting at each other from across the road. Conversion takes connection. This is the reason I am not intimidated by “guilt-by-association” slander. If I can sow seeds of truth to change the heart of even one KKK member, then I will speak to him. If I get called a racist for speaking truth to a racist, then so be it. I also have no beef with peaceful protesters. But if I am given access to those who need truth, I will always take the opportunity to speak directly to a person, rather than protest from outside.

While some may find disagreement with how I believe the Constitution should be applied, what you will never find is me conveying or promoting a message of hate and violence. God is no respecter of persons. There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, in the sight of God. I condemn any and all forms of racism, violence, or racial supremacy. There is no superior race or color, only sinners in need of God’s loving-kindness and redemption through Jesus Christ. My husband who is of African descent believes the same and my adopted son, who is Mexican, is being taught the same as well. We will go where the truth is needed and we will never be bullied into silence by the critics.

Racism is hate and hate must be overcome with truth SPOKEN in love. That takes contact. That takes the hard task of meeting face to face and speaking reason. You can shout the words love and peace through a bullhorn, but that will never make them a reality. Somebody is going to have to make a human connection. I am willing to be that someone, even if it means I must suffer the slings and arrows of those distracted by the current narrative of hate and c=deceived by the lies of those who continue to profit off the division of America.

Sovereign Duty Action Group

August 10, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Please read Alexander Hamilton’s warning (above) to HIS generation and then answer the following questions for OUR generation:

1. With the overwhelming public support for and fervent defense of these completely unconstitutional and anti-liberty laws called the #TAPSAct & #RedFlagLaws by way too many “Conservative Republicans,”

Is it time yet to leave behind the habits of the last 150 years and start VOTING Principle over Party?

2. Now that they are “coming for our guns” (yes- just one person deprived of rights IS a gun grab), never mind that freedom of speech, press, assembly, right to property & against unreasonable searches and seizures, right to due process and against unreasonable fines & cruel and unusual punishments has been destroyed for decades,

Is it time yet for Americans to physically stand together to put Liberty over security?

3. We know the government and media is lying to us. We know our favorite politicians believe moral relativism and selective constitutionalism (#EpsteinSuicided #HateCrimes legal double standard for politicians etc…)

Is it time yet for the American people to turn away from cult of personality and turn to the principle of Truth over Personality?

For over a decade (I am not quitting in spite of the haters) I have been teaching all over America the tools our founders put in our hands to peacefully & powerfully control our governments when those in power become power tyrants and prostitutes.

I am just wondering if its time yet for ALL who self-identify as “Lovers of America” to get to WORK (not just voting, campaigning, supporting a candidate or political party, attending activist meetings, etc…) and start employing those SOLUTIONS our founders gave us?

I for one do not look forward to a future of limited options for control of government. Nor do I want the future to look back on me with contempt because I participated in a generation more concerned with every day comforts than the eternal obligation to pass on the gift of Liberty to our posterity so they won’t have to fight to restore their own rights from the tyrannical government we created.

So I am just wondering is it time yet?

Or are we satisfied enough with the remaining benefits of society to say, “meh, let’s keep the status quo and see what happens.”

If you are ready, I mean really ready to not only hear the solutions, but learn to engage the solutions DAILY~ sign up here http://bit.ly/SovereignDutyActionGroup

SD Action

Can A State Alter Qualifications for Election of The President Of The United States

August 8, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Can A State Alter Qualifications for Election of The President Of The United States

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

The Office of the President of these United States was designed to be a representative of the States in foreign affairs and the chief executive of the federal government. Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the qualifications for this office, the conditions upon which the President is to serve and the limited powers delegated.

Article 2 section 1 establishes that the President will hold office during the term of 4 years. Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 provide that the President is not to be elected by popular vote but by representatives of the States, called “Electors.” The number of Electors of each State is established by the number of Senators and Representatives a State has in Congress. These Electors are appointed by the State Legislature and shall cast their vote for two people, one of which cannot be a resident of their own State. Article 2 section 1 clause 5 requires every person running for office of President must be a “natural born Citizen,” thirty-five years old or older, and have lived within the United States for fourteen consecutive years. The rest of Article 2 addresses the duties and obligations of the president once elected to office.

So in summary, the Constitution establishes that there are 4 requirements for an individual to be eligible to run for President:

Natural Born Citizen,
At least 35 years old,
Lived in the United States 14 years immediately prior to running for office, and
Be elected by the Electors of the States.

The Constitution of the United States was established as a contract between the States primarily to create a Union of States and a central government to establish a unified voice for the States in foreign affairs. The Constitution creates the federal government not only by establishing the offices of the federal government, but also by specifically enumerating powers to each of its 3 branches. The entire purpose for delegating each specific power to the federal government as opposed to reserving that power to the State was to create uniformity throughout the Union for specific federal and foreign functions. The Tenth Amendment orders that every power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States and the people. When a power is delegated to the federal government, all State-members of the Union are required by contract to be bound by the laws created to execute that particular power. Article 6 clause 2 is the law on this matter and it states the following:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The requirements for the qualifications of the office of the President are established by the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution establishing these requirements is so that the terms upon which a president is elected is uniform throughout the States. Therefore, the power to create the qualifications for the office of the President are not reserved to the States and the States are bound by the Constitution’s requirements upon the office of President through their agreement to be part of the American Union.

It is completely unconstitutional for a State to add to or take away from the requirements for the office of President established by the Constitution. Not only would that be a violation of Article 2, Article 6, and the Tenth Amendment, but it would create utter chaos during federal elections. If each State was permitted to establish their own independent criteria for election of the president candidates eligible in one State could be ineligible in another State. The American people could never be confident they had a qualified candidate.

There is only one circumstance that the Article 2 qualification for office of the President does not apply to a candidate and that is the selection of a presidential candidate through the primary election. A primary election is not a civic event. A primary election is a private corporate event. There is much confusion about this fact because Americans, over many decades, have been led to believe that political parties are part of the government. They are not.

Political parties are private corporate clubs which is why they can establish exclusive memberships and are exempt from certain provisions of the non-discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act. Primary elections are how political parties, aka private corporate clubs, choose the candidates that will represent them in the truly civic event we call general elections. For the purpose of primary elections, political parties can ADD qualifying criteria to the office of president. For example, a political party can require a candidate must be a member of the political party, must have served within the party for a designated number of years, or any other limiting factor as long as the party maintains the Article 2 qualifications as well. Because a primary election is actually a private corporate club event, many States hold closed primaries where only members of the private corporate club can vote in primary elections. In reality, primary elections should never be paid for by tax dollars and should not be coordinated using State resources or funds. The people of the State would never facilitate or fund the election of the CEO of Mc Donald’s Corporations so why are they funding and facilitating the election of the Chief Executive Candidate for the private corporations we know as Republican or Democrat Parties?

With these facts and the wisdom of the intent of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution we must conclude that no State government can constitutionally add or detract from the qualifications of the office of the President. To do so is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of the contractual agreement each State has with each other through the Constitution. In addition to this truth, any State that attempts to alter the qualifications of any candidate during a primary election would be a violation of that private corporate club’s right to the property of their corporate elections, it would be an unlawful government taking and a violation of due process.

So what are the remedies to unlawful interference with elections on the State government level? If that violation occurs during the primary election, the private corporate club party, the candidate, and the members of that club should sue the State and every Supervisor of Elections in a court of law for an injunction to prevent the interference and compel compliance. If that violation occurs during a general election, the people of the State and the candidate should again sue the State and every Supervisor of Elections in a court of law for an injunction to prevent the interference and compel compliance. In addition to the private law suit, the governor of every other State should issue a Resolution of Condemnation to the offending State for violating the terms of the Contract, the Constitution, and issue a demand for redress and restoration of the constitutional standard. If the offending State should refuse to comply, according to Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 3, the President of the Senate must refuse to acknowledge the ballot from that offending State as it does not comply with the Constitutional Standard.

These remedies will only sound extreme to those who are not educated on the terms of the Constitution and the principles of contract law followed by those who ratified the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:

“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. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

We must get back in the habit of applying the Constitution as it was intended. When we do, we will see that the remedies are simple and based upon contract law and common sense. Government only becomes complicated when we set aside the standard of the Constitution and rely on the word of politicians, pundits, and professors instead of the words and intent of Madison, Jefferson, and Mason. The Constitutional crisis exist not in the failings of the Constitution but in the failure to abide by the Constitution.

An Adult Conversation About Article V & Nullification

August 1, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Nullification or Article V conventions?

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Article V Conventions and Nullification are NOT mutually exclusive, nor is one the magic pill for all of our federal problems. Each is a legitimate Constitutional solution, but each has a different aim and application. Each plan has its inherent dangers and there are legitimate concerns that should be considered and these dangers guarded against. They can be used together in the defense of Liberty as long as we understand each in its own context and consider the pitfalls involved. It must be noted that we are having this discussion because of the very fact that we have stepped so far out of the Constitutional boundaries given to this government that we are operating practically in a post-Constitutional America. At this point, it is unlikely that any solution will be perfect or without peril.

Two different animals

Article V Convention is a long term fix aimed at making corrections at the federal level. Nullification is an immediate defense at the state, local and individual level. Article V aims to make structural changes or further clarifications to the operations of the federal government and its relation to the states by amending the Constitution. Nullification aims to make no changes to the current Constitution, but is simply an assertion by the individual sovereign states and communities of the authority they already possess and a declaration of the limitations to federal power already defined by the Constitution. Article V convention in the current context seeks to fix what is assumed to be broken or lacking in the federal system and is to be used in the rarest of circumstances. Nullification, as intended by the framers, was to be a part of “republican maintenance,” whereby the central government was to be continually kept in check by its masters, the people through their states.

Both have their merits and their dangers. Let us take a look some concerns that the framers themselves noted. We should keep these things in mind so that we can work TOGETHER to defeat the common enemy…TYRANNY.

Some of the challenges with Article V:

WHO are the delegates and what is their motivation?

According to James Madison in Federalist 49, one significant problem with conventions is – WHO will be the delegates? Madison discusses two options for choosing delegates: either through the Legislators or through popular vote of the people. In each case he believed there was cause for concern.

In modern terms, when delegates are chosen by the legislators, what we could see are appointments based upon party loyalty, power or popularity rather than upon Constitutional expertise and dedication to Liberty principles. When the delegates are chosen by popular vote, typical election dynamics could determine the outcome. Voters would vote based upon party popularity and perhaps even a “lesser of two evils” and the same corrupt politicians would now be “fixing” the very problems they created. Madison framed the outcome this way, “The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention… They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.”

According to Madison, the real difficulty with delegates boils down to “motivation”. What will be the motivating force behind the delegates and their amendments? Madison recognized that the only reason we have our current Constitution is that the framers had just come from a bloody revolution that kept the delegates focused upon LIBERTY and that forced them to set aside their party politics and personal motivations and it was still no easy path:

“We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the antient government;” ~ James Madison Federalist 49

Madison seems to be telling us that without some overriding and unifying motivation, the convention would likely degrade into another Republican vs. Democrat drama. If we cannot get delegates that are properly constitutionally minded rather than driven by political gain and greed, this will never benefit us.

WHEN will it be done?

One practical difference between nullification and convention is the time each takes to implement. Any advocate of Article V must admit that this is a LONG TERM goal and not a quick fix. To call convention, choose delegates, agree on amendments, an Article V convention could take several years, possibly 5 to 10 years. Adding to the time frame is the Article V requirement of 3/4 ratification by the States. That means EVERY AMENDMENT must be agreed upon (debated), individually, by 3/4 of the States to ratify. During such a time frame, it would be prudent to use nullification to puts the brakes on at the state level until corrections (if truly needed) can be made at the federal level.

What will be the scope and impact?

Probably the most debated aspect is the notion of a “runaway convention.” Some say the ¾ ratification is a check on a runaway convention, that ¾ of the states would never go along with a total rewrite of the Constitution or the addition of harmful amendments. Of course, ¾ of the states DID ratify the very harmful 16th and 17th amendments. Tinkering with the foundation is always risky business. SO at the end of the day it may well come back to the main issue of the motivation, focus and education of the people and their delegates. What about the opposite of a runaway convention? What about a do-nothing convention? What if we do open-heart surgery on the Constitution for something as cosmetic as a balanced budget amendment?!

Nullification:

First, Nullification is a constitutional solution not because it is enumerated per se, but because the Constitution is a contract (technically a compact) among the States that created the federal government. The States are the parties to the Constitutional Contract and the federal government is the PRODUCT of that contract. Inherent in EVERY contract is the right of the parties to that contract to control the product of the contract. The States are the representatives of the people in this contract and have a DUTY to keep the federal government within its constitutional boundaries and thus protecting the rights of the people. It is inherent in the very nature of the Constituion. Nullification is that act of the PEOPLE through their States to keep the federal government within in its “limited and defined” boundaries and should be as regularly carried out as an oil change in your car. Madison states this principle again in Federalist 49:

“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

This is not the forum for a full explanation of Nullification. If you are unfamiliar with this term or have in the past heard that it is not an option available to the States for a myriad of reasons, please take the time to read the FACTS about nullification before you give in to any one position. THIS LINK will get you started.

Fear of Nullification

The first problem with nullification is fear and lack of education. For some, nullification’s association (rightly or wrongly) with the Civil War and slavery (despite the fact that it was used to resist slavery) throws a veil of fear over the entire issue. So care must be taken not to add fuel to the fire of racial division because those who capitalize on such things will use it for their own design. Many mistruths and misconceptions regarding this Liberty solution must be overcome in order to even utilize this option. Retorts such as “the South lost the war,” “SCOTUS says no,” or “it’s the law of the land” are common among those ignorant of the concepts of State and local autonomy and nullification.

Even as nullification happens all around us today with, States legalizing marijuana and same sex marriage; states denying the federal government power to enforce the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012 and Obamacare; local and state governments refusing to enforce federal gun restrictions, some will still say that nullification is an obscure and outdated concept. With more than 100 years of distorted history, overcoming fear and lack of education surrounding Nullification is no easy task.

Participation by the States:

Whereas Article V requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment, Nullification can be achieved on a State by State basis. However, many staes that would at first glance be thought to be inclined to resist federal encroachment are often controlled by “federal supremacists,” those who believe that the federal government is superior to the states. Many state legislators do not understand the true nature of the states’ relationship to the federal government and they understand the states’ right and duty to interposition even less.

Federal Enforcement of Unconstitutional Acts

One more roadblock to nullification is the acquiescence to federal bullying and bribery. The dirty little secret is that the feds generally do not have the resources to enforce most of its dictates; it must co-opt state and local resources. This is done primarily through bullying and legalized bribery. The feds use state EPA, state DOE, state and local law enforcement elements to enforce its demands. In most cases the state and local entities comply. Without such compliance the federal dictates would be ineffective and in most cases unenforceable. The most obvious attempt at forced compliance will be through the withholding of federal funds. Any State who intends to maintain their supremacy over the federal government will have to be able to become self-sufficient in the face of federal funding withdrawal and brave leaders will have to be willing to call the bully’s bluff. In an arena where it’s all about the money and in a political system where politicians climb the ladder of power by giving and receiving favors this is also a significant obstacle.

Runaway Nullification

Sometimes opponents of nullification characterize the concept as “ignoring laws you don’t like.” The question at issue in nullification is not whether we like the law or not, the question is whether the law is constitutional or not. A possible danger is that states may wish to “nullify” inherent natural rights, such as those protected in the bill of rights from the abuse of the federal government. When such tyranny arises on the state level, the citizens must be ready to resist this tyranny as well, or else choose to live as slaves.

The REAL Solution lies within the operation of BOTH methods!

What Article V conventions cannot do to stop tyranny now, nullification can if successfully implemented accomplish with near immediate effect. Where Nullification ends, Article V provides a long term solution to strengthening the restraints on the federal government, if done by the right people for the right reasons in the right way. If we DO NOT engage in Nullification now, we will never survive as a republic long enough for the Article V Convention to have any hopes. If we just engage in Nullification and do not follow through with shoring up the established boundaries, I believe we will dissolve into individual sovereign States and the Republic will die.

We will not succeed if we are so caught up in our own causes that we have to defeat everyone else’s. That is egocentric and immature. Truth be told, we will not succeed without all the efforts of all the people working together in the defense of Liberty. We need nullification daily to maintain the Republic, yet if we continue to allow the foundation to erode, we may indeed need a convention to right the ship.

So let’s approach the defense of Liberty like grown-ups. Let’s work together instead of trying to punch each other in the eye to elevate ourselves.

I have confidence that when all is said and done, our future will look back and say, “Coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible. The original Constitution itself was not the problem; it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”

If you want more detailed information about this discussion go to my book Sovereign Duty! Also available thru many online book stores

Historical Proof- Why Britain MUST BREXIT- Now

July 23, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Historical Proof- Why Britain MUST BREXIT!

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

British history is rich with sacrifice for the principles of Liberty; understanding that Liberty is a gift from God and not a privilege granted by government. It was passionate battles for Liberty that drove the wisdom of limited government that is seen in America and around the globe. In those battles for Liberty we find several repeating mechanisms of despotism; foreign influence, corrupt courts, diminishing property rights and government intrusion in church matters, just to name a few. Our forefathers paid a dear a price to secure our Liberty.

Many have repeated the phrase, “Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.” King Solomon said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Human nature never changes, and those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. We are walking a path of destruction we need not trod. Our forefathers forged a way for us to avoid tyranny in government, but we have put down their lamp and now wander in the dark. We cannot restore Liberty, we cannot recapture our future, without thehard earned wisdom of the past.

aethelred Beginning with the Anglo-Saxon resistance to Danish rule in the early eleventh century, the British people paid a dear price for the wisdom necessary to forge the way for just government. Yet it appears this crucible of Liberty is not immune from tripping over the same obstacles of their past. The Anglo-Saxon communities of the eleventh century, seemed to have an inherent understanding of the evils of foreign rule. Having had Anglo-Saxon kings in the past and upon the death of Danish King Sven Forkbeard, the Anglo-Saxons re-established their former Anglo-Saxon King, Æthelred.

Æthelred was allowed to be King, but under new terms; a limited monarchy where the King was to be in submission to the will of the people. The Witenagemot, who was particularly strong during Æthelred’s reign, would ensure this limitation of power. The agreement with Æthelred would begin the future of Liberty Charters, creating the new limited monarchy that would make the Kingdom of England unique and pave the way for limited government and secured Liberty to the people in the west.

When Edward the Confessor failed to produce an heir, the people found themselves in threat of foreign rule, once again. The heir to the throne would be the Norman, William I. In an effort to keep Norman rule out of England, the people would attempt to establish Harold Godwinson, an Anglo-Saxon, to be their king. The appointment of Harold by the people was a direct affront to the man who had earned the nick-name “William The Conqueror.” William raised his Norman army and defeated Harold and the people in the Battle of Hastings, reaffirming his Right to be king.

William I was Norman and that was the style of rule he intended to establish in England. However, the Anglo-Saxon style of rule, where the king bore a certain level of submission to the people, had become too deep rooted for William to overtly overturn. William, determined to rule in the unlimited nature of a Norman king, decided to establish his style of rule in a more surreptitious way. Instead of declaring his Divine Right to Norman rule, William began by replacing the jurists in the English courts with men who were not loyal to English law, but loyal to the ideologies of the King. With these men on the bench, William could enforce his foreign, Norman law on the English people even when it was contrary to English law. Apparently William knew what history and human nature dictates, that people are less suspect of the courts to change the politics of the land.

William knew that if he was going to transform England into Norman rule and avoid armed rebellion, he would have to change the ideology of those in the kingdom. William used the foreign, Norman law, the force of the courts, and even the physical force of his reign to chase the land owners who opposed his rule completely out of the kingdom. By foreign, Norman law, when land became abandoned the ownership of that land reverts to the King. William used this law to assume possession of the land he cleared and invited his Norman allies to live on these lands and support his reign. By force and manipulating the courts, William hoped to change the ideology of the land; by filling the kingdom with those who supported his Norman style of rule and by putting fear in the hearts of those landowners that remained.

The Norman foreign law transformation would take place over the reign of William I and his son William II. This oppression of the Anglo-Saxon style of government – kings in submission to people – would end with the “accidental” death of William II in 1100 when an arrow from William’s brother, Henry I’s hunting party “accidentally” hits William II in the eye. Henry I became be king, but not without controversy. In his efforts to please the people, Henry agreed to sign the 1100 Charter of Liberties; a promise from Henry that the evil and oppressive reign of his father and brother would end: “And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed; which bad customs I here set down in part:…”

Henry restored England to “the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Edward” removing the foreign Norman rule over the people. This promise of Liberty would fade quickly in the minds of kings; nearly 100 years later, King John would engage in the very activity the Charter promised to eliminate.

King John was another Norman King, and is perhaps the most evil king England would ever know. The people described John as a “wicked, evil king,” that “even hell was fouled by the presence of John.” John was a massive taxation king. Those who could not pay their taxes found themselves in jeopardy of prison, mutilation, and even execution. John would transgress the boundaries and promises of Henry I’s 1100 Charter of Liberties. When the people chose Steven Langton to be their Archbishop, John denied the people their choice and inserted himself into the business of the church. This would be the last violation of the 1100 Charter of Liberties the people would tolerate: a rebellion formed against John. Through this rebellion, John was forced, by sword, to sign a new promise; The Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta reasserted the promises of the 1100 Charter of Liberties, but also established new limits upon the King.

This new limit on government, took a bold stand against the foreign influence that plagued the kingdom and required, “all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers” that aided John’s foreign Norman rule were summarily expelled from the kingdom. John would sign the Magna Carta with a sword at his throat and was removed from the throne less than a year later. The Magna Carta is often undersold in its importance. Prior to the Magna Carta, promises came by willing consent of the king. The Magna Carta established, in writing, the demands of the people upon their king and bound the limited monarchy to the control of a representative government.

The British people would have to battle with kings and queens for the next 4 centuries to maintain limited and local government and shun foreign influence to preserve the Liberties of the people codified in the 1100 Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta of 1215. The next true advancements in codified Liberty would come during the reign of Charles I.

Charles’ father, James I, would saturate the British government once again with foreign influence and power. This foreign ideology, along with its power and control, remained even as Charles assumed the throne. Charles’ refusal to be bound by Parliament and the people; his denial of the people’s rights in Liberty, led to next evolution of Liberty Charters; the Petition of Right of 1628.

The Petition of Right, an exercise of clause 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215, declared the grievances of the people against the King. This Charter listed eleven points of violation of the Liberties of the people and restated the violated provisions of the Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties.

Charles signed the Petition by the force of a sword to keep his throne. However, the promises he made to the people were clearly just to pacify his opposition; his blatant disregard for Liberty would continue. It is in the time of Charles’ reign that the people rebelled in the Bishop Wars against the king’s intrusion in their churches; a violation of both the Liberty Charter and Magna Carta. Charles was finally brought up on charges of treason in 1641, through the Grand Remonstrance.

The Grand Remonstrance, another Charter of Liberty, is a list of grievances against Charles’ violations of the three previous Charters. In this list we see, once again, the trials of the past that are direct warnings for our present and our future.

“The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established.”

This document is an invaluable lesson in human nature and government overreach. It is a survey of 600 years of kings and government, declaring a design in their actions whose only purpose is to overturn and undermine Liberty. Once again this document identifies the “malignant and pernicious design” as infiltration of foreign law and foreign influence upon government;

“Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home…to maintain continual differences and discontents between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative and liberty…to conjoin those parties of the kingdom which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide those who were most opposite…”

What were those foreign influences that were so destructive to liberty? A few examples found are the use of foreign law to deny people their guaranteed Rights through a corruption of the courts;

“And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them with informations in inferior courts…”
“The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound, still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve them…”
“and the diminishing the property rights of the people in the manner of William I and William II to consolidate power with the King; “The taking away of men’s right, under the colour of the King’s title to land, between high and low water marks…”
“The enlargements of forests, contrary to Carta de Foresta, and the composition thereupon…”
“Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture, under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out of the subjects’ purses, without any considerable profit to His Majesty…”
“Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without their consent, and against it…”

Charles was sentenced to death for his violations of Liberty and the people establish a higher standard of limited government than ever before. This influence of the people over government would have to be renewed in less than 40 years, during the reign of James II and through the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

James II boldly engaged in the same tactics of previous kings. Among his violations of the four previous Liberty Charters, James would completely ignore the separation of powers established between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches;

“By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;”

James, violating separation of powers, engaged in the writing of laws that were reserved to Parliament alone, so he could maintain foreign influence without Parliament’s obstruction. James also corrupted the judiciary by creating the Courts of Ecclesiastical Causes to circumvent the courts of common law, increasing the power of foreign law and influence, thereby wielding the law and judiciary by his will and that of his foreign advisers, contrary to the Liberty Charters and the will of the people;

“By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;”

James actions were as if he used the Grand Remonstrance as a guide book on what to do instead of a document limiting and denying the king’s authority. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the people’s response to James’ audacious disregard for the Liberties of the people. This revolution birthed the final installation of the Liberty Charters of Great Britain; the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It was in this document that the people would not only declare the evils of foreign influence but also establish an oath of office for the government; all must pledge to eschew all foreign influence from this day forward.

“I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

History proves that foreign influence is the enemy to Liberty. When government becomes yoked with foreign power it no longer needs the consent of the people; it no longer feels the control of the people; it no longer fears the condemnation of the people. A government with the aid of foreign influence has no respect for the Liberty of the people; it doesn’t have to. When the people cannot control their government, there is no limit to government power. A government with foreign backing will never allow limits by the people. Refusing foreign influence is the only way to maintain a limited government that respects the Rights of the people.

Foreign influence will also breed discord between the people and their government and the people with each other. When government refuses the limits of the people and enforces laws that are contrary to their Rights, both history and human nature dictate that hostility between the people and government will arise. Disharmony will arise between the people, pitting those who want to exercise their Rights and those who support the government and foreign rule. The irony of this inevitable consequence of foreign influence is that this conflict actually weakens the government and leaves it ripe for takeover by the very foreign power creating the struggle. Refusing foreign influence is actually essential in maintaining the security of the people and their government.

You cannot tame the fire of foreign influence. It does not want to help or guide; it wants to control and consume. But foreign influence cannot be controlled, molded, or even limited. Once allowed within your government, foreign influence is an all-consuming fire that will bring the destruction of a raging inferno. There has never been any other conclusion and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

How many of these same violations upon our Liberties do we find in government today? How often will we continue to blindly put ourselves at risk by yoking with foreign influence? In a day when we are believed to be more civilized and better educated than our centuries past, how can we be living with government engaging in the same “malignant and pernicious design” as these days of old?

Since we know that experience is an oracle of truth, where that experience shows the same results over and over again, wisdom says we must then hold those anticipated consequences to be an inevitability. History gives us those certainties about Britain remaining in the European Union.

This is not a conclusion based upon racism; that is an ignorant and ridiculous assumption. This is a decision based upon history, truth, and inevitable consequences. If Britain stays in the EU it will be the destruction of British Liberty and British government as you know it.

There are eternal consequences for our acquiescence to foreign power. History has given us all the direction we need to make a well-educated decision. We cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. If we neglect what we owe to God, our future, and the sacrifices of our past, our consciences will reproach us for our folly and our Posterity will curse us for our selfish considerations.

Who is Your Politician? Take the Test

July 19, 2019/in Archives for Articles/by kahalladminnew

Who is Your Politician? Take the Test

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

The fight for American Liberty began with one man in 1761, his name is James Otis, Jr.

Because one man said, “Consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed” the fight for Liberty was birthed in the hearts of our founders. We can learn a lot from the wisdom and conviction of this one man.

The way people conduct themselves is a clear identification of what they believe and who they are as a person. Through their actions, politicians will classify themselves. Otis teaches us about 3 distinct classifications of political personalities:

“I can sincerely declare that I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience’ sake; and from my soul I despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes.” James Otis, Jr. Feb 1761

Guilt- these whose who know the Constitution requires they limit government and the defend the Rights of the people, yet they choose to claim that the necessity of compromise justifies abandoning their duty to the people and the Constitution for to sake of action. I call it sacrificing principle on the altar of pragmatism.

Malice – these are the people are simply power hungry, greedy, and often times of a wicked morality. They willingly work contrary to the Rights of the people and the Constitution to satisfy their own greed, pride, and self-serving intentions.

Folly – these are the people who have the best intentions, but are ignorant of their true duty to the Constitution and the Rights of the people. Through their ignorance they end up working contrary to their good intentions and end up destroying the Rights of the people and the purpose of the Constitution.

Does your politician fall into any of these categories? If your politician is not defending Liberty 100% of the time, then he must fall into one of these groups. What we must be willing to accept is regardless of motivation driving your politician; whether compromise, ignorance, or wickedness, the end result is exactly the same- the destruction of the Liberty of the people. Otis is teaching us that we must boldly proclaim how these people have classified themselves through their actions and declare them a foe and not a friend.

That means we must make the hard choices. We must be able to set aside personal feelings, group loyalties, and familiar relationships to support only those who put the Constitution and the Liberties of the people FIRST. Identify which classification your politician falls into and show them their errors. If they give your excuses and/or refuse to correct their behavior then they have clearly classified themselves, and you must label them a foe to liberty no matter who they are. We can no longer be a people who settle for the “lesser of two evils” because in the end evil is all we will get!

Our founders are crying out through history and the ages with instruction and inspiration. They are reassuring us that they were able to make the hard choices and we can, too. The one advantage we have is that we are not living in a kingdom and revolution is not our only solution. Through their sacrifice they gave us a Constitutional Republic along with very powerful, yet peaceful means, to control those in government. We must simply be willing to get educated and implement the solutions they gave us. We must be willing to do the right things for the right reasons.

The bottom line is this: the people are not a reflection of their government, the government is a reflection of its people. If we want a government that chooses Liberty First and operates Constitutionally, then WE must be a Constitutionally and Liberty minded people, First. We can do it, it is in our blood.

Learn more about James Otis, Jr here: http://bit.ly/HistoryRevisionDebunked