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.
Is it time yet to leave behind the habits of the last 150 years and start VOTING Principle over Party?
Is it time yet for Americans to physically stand together to put Liberty over security?
Is it time yet for the American people to turn away from cult of personality and turn to the principle of Truth over Personality?
So I am just wondering is it time yet?
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:
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.
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?!
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.
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!
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.
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;
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.