US Congress's HR 5376 will spend billions of your dollars hiring 87,000+ new IRS agents. According to the IRS job listing these agents must be “willing to use deadly force, if necessary.”
America does NOT need a larger militarized IRS. America needs border protection & a functional immigration system.
North Carolina Sen. Ted Budd has written a proposed amendment in response to the H.R. 5376 "Inflation Reduction Act.”
Rep. Budd’s amendment would take money allocated to the IRS and use it where it is needed: Border Security & Improve Immigration Procedures.
WE MUST DEMAND Rep. Ted Budd’s amendment be passed and here is WHY:
Follow The Instructions & Send a Message Your US House Reps & Senators & DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
NOTE: this website will NOT collect or save any of your personal information.
THIS IS THE EMAIL THAT WILL BE SENT WHEN YOU COMPLETE YOUR FORM:
I am writing in support of Rep. Ted Budd’s proposed amendment to H.R. 5376 to redirect the billions of dollars allocated to the purchase of additional IRS agents into the budget for border protection. America does NOT need a larger militarized IRS. America needs border protection & a functional immigration system. Rep. Budd’s amendments would:
Purchasing tens of thousands IRS agents is an irresponsible use of tax dollars, especially when we have such an enormous crisis on our borders and the excuse out of Washington DC is “lack of funding and manpower.”
The American people as whole recognize border protection as an overwhelming issue for the 2022 elections. Restoring border security, not bloating the IRS, is what the American people want from you for 2022-2023.
VOTE YES AND TELL EVERYONE YOU SUPPORT MORE BORDER CONTROL & NOT MORE IRS AGENTS
Please use the link below that corresponds to YOUR STATE & complete the form instructions:
New Hampshire: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c7bbb5f08
New Jersey: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c7fe62bc3
New Mexico: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c8380ecd5
New York: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c865c426a
North Carolina: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c88c1d808
North Dakota: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c8c042290
Rhode Island: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c9b4aa6ec
South Carolina: https://reps.to/?c=62f7c9f1d1be9
South Dakota: https://reps.to/?c=62f7ca26aa17e
West Virginia: https://reps.to/?c=62f7cbace2150
The Recent Notion That Rights Are Not Absoluteby KrisAnne Hall, Constitutional Attorney
(Link to download & printable version)
Americans Should Not Be Stripped of Their Ability to Defend Themselves Against Lawlessness
Recently many in government and politics, in reaction to a violent and lawless few, have reignited the cry to “limit the legal ability” of Americans to buy and possess certain firearms. The states must protect the people from such federal overreach.
President Biden and others have said that our Rights are “not absolute” therefore those in government possess the authority to limit, define, and regulate away our Rights. If this rhetoric is true, then no one in America possesses ANY rights, they only have privileges granted at the pleasure of government. How is it that inherent rights endowed to man by the Creator are “not absolute,” but the crisis-driven dictates from the everchanging turnstile of elected officers ARE absolute?
Here's the truth: that which is absolute in our republican form of government is the Constitution (Article 6, Clause 2). It is the Constitution of the United States that limits and defines the authority delegated to the federal government. Within that Constitution there is NO AUTHORITY resting in the federal government to regulate, define, or limit the Rights of the People. This is particularly true with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Not only is there no power delegated to the federal government to create any law or regulation regarding the purchase or possession of firearms (no, that’s not where the commerce clause kicks in), the Second Amendment has very absolute language prohibiting the federal government from limiting or regulating this right (Not to mention that to guard against a tyrannical federal government is the core reason WHY this inherent right is enshrined within the Constitution).
It is not “the will of the majority,” as politicians and pundits suggest, that is the basis of government. When the majority’s will advocates the suspension of due process and the revocation of a person’s natural rights (rights which all officials involved in this debate swore an oath to uphold), that is how slavery gets its legal foothold.
The solution to a federal government overreaching its delegated authority as presented by those who drafted our government’s blueprint is straightforward: the States must refuse to impose and enforce these laws and prevent the federal government from doing the same within their State.
The Supreme Court of the United States quoted James Madison’s explanation of this action in Mack, Prinz v. US:
“Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments 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.” Federalist 39
The States are a “double security” to the preservation of the people’s rights because the State will be a control on the unconstitutional exercise of power by the federal government against pretended power within the states’ jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court of the United States reiterated this principle in the majority opinion of NFIB v. Sebelius, when Justice John Roberts wrote:
“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting the “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The states are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”
The right to individually secure our life, liberty, and property is no different than our rights to freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, or freedom to worship and live out our faith. A law that prohibits a person from possessing any degree of property, but especially property essential to the personal security of individual rights, without due process, ought to be rejected. Capricious legislature moved by the tragedy du jour should not be the model for sound and stable government charged with protecting liberty. Rather than removing liberty under the guise of protecting children, we should protect liberty so that people can be free to protect themselves. *Remember, violent criminals don’t obey gun bans and the victim is always the first person on the scene, So why not empower the would-be victim to protect themselves, rather than removing their ability to do so? The cold reality is that a gun-free zone is a stripping of Americans’ natural right to defend themselves and has led to the death of many innocent children, as violent criminals ignore the signposts and slaughter the law-abiding.
State Governors, Legislators, and Sheriffs must declare publicly and openly that they will uphold their oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their State by refusing to enforce and refusing the federal government the jurisdiction to enforce any limit upon the Rights of the People, to include the Right to keep and bear arms.
Sincerely and In Liberty,KrisAnne Hall, JDConstitutional Attorney
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of (name of State), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability. Oath of Office
For those who want a more detailed explanation:
The Declaration of Independence lays before us the premise and purpose of all governments, past, present, & future. It states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Sole Purpose of Government:
It is evident that the entire purpose of any form of government is to secure the rights of the individual citizen. The Rights our foundational documents refer to are those classified as “inherent rights:” and they consist of life, liberty, property, and the right to personally secure them in the best manner possible. The most basic of natural rights is the right to self-preservation, to which the natural right to secure property is connected. No person is secure in their life if they cannot also personally secure that life and the property upon which life is dependent. If a person is in danger of loss of life, liberty, or property and has not the personal right, along with the individual ability, to secure these essential rights, then each person is dependent upon someone else’s desire to protect them, reducing every person to that of an indentured or tributary slave, indebted in life to those who are tasked with its security.
Origin of Legislative Power:
The legislator with his delegated responsibility, cannot be exalted above the inherent rights of the individual which he is charged to protect. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because people have legislators who have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused people to entrust legislators with the power to make laws in the first place. So the justification “it was passed by the legislature,” does not and should not override an inherent individual right, even more so when the legislature is admonished by the Supreme Law to not infringe upon said right.
The Definition of “Just Power”
Therefore, it is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his, individually and personally. It is because of this duty to protect the individual’s natural rights that every government in these United States incorporates the requirement of due process for the suspension of these Rights. It is not a just government, nor is an individual’s right secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the comfort or peace of mind of the rest (even if the rest constitutes 60% of the population).
The Definition of “Unjust Power”
The mere existence of a majority desire does not override the natural rights of the minority. To create and enforce laws merely because the majority (60% of the people) desire the law to be so, absent any regard to personal and individual rights, is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. It is through this errant political motivation that history’s greatest injustices have taken place, even here in America. It was once the majority opinion that a minority of people could, by law, be placed in a state of permanent and inherent servitude. It was once the majority opinion that a minority of people could be legally classified as mere property or chattel. It was once the majority opinion that legally enforced physical segregation of the majority from a minority was appropriate. It was once the majority opinion that a minority of Japanese Americans and Hopi Indians could lawfully be imprisoned indefinitely in internment camps without due process. Americans ought to be learning from these mistakes, not fighting to repeat them. The majority of Americans would agree that a single dictator with the power to oppress all is a wicked and unjust government. Please then explain, how the tyranny of the majority is any different than the despotism of one in the lives of those whose rights are violated?
Majority Rule is synonymous with Tyranny of the Majority Not with Liberty
The “Rule of Law” is a term that has been understood throughout history to mean a standard to limit the overreach of government and curb lawlessness. It is does not mean the authority of the government to rule over the people. The independent states of America and their central government were created with written Constitutions to maintain a written limited standard for government to prevent the will of the majority and those who govern to usurp the rights of the individual. The so-called “will of the majority” cannot be synonymous with the rule of law. If that be the case, then those who are disposed to usurp the rights of the people, need only to control the will of the majority; either through manipulations, coercions, fear, or brute force. It is because of this truth of the tyranny of the majority that every government in these United States is required to exist as a republic, not a pure democracy; that every law to be created through equal representation, and is to be governed by and limited to the ultimate purpose of all government - the security of the Rights of the individual through written Constitutions. When any form of government operates contrary to these foundations, that government has exceeded its proper function, acting in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective. It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain, to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. It has converted lawful defense of life, liberty, and property into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense of these essential and natural rights.
When the Laws of Government Operate Contrary to Individual Rights:
It becomes the duty of all who love and respect the Rights of their children to protect the citizen from the unjust operation of government.
When those entrusted in government to secure the rights of the individuals turn that trust into a tool to deny those rights, it is incumbent upon those who understand the obvious limits of government and the necessity of those limits to stand in opposition to that unjust use of authority. Just as those in America’s past, who refused to enforce the Federal Fugitive Slave Act because of its obvious abuse of power and destruction of rights wielded by those legislators who ratified it into law. Those who have taken an oath to secure the rights of the people, who understand the magnitude of that solemn promise and the unavoidable and tragic consequences of failing to uphold that promise, feel morally compelled to take a stand. How noble an example would American history have if there was just one Sheriff in Montgomery, Alabama who recognized that a law, ratified by legislators, signed by a governor, reflecting the will of the majority, was not a just law after all. What if instead of arresting Mrs. Rosa Parks, that Sheriff refused to enforce a law that deprived an individual of her rights and instead protected those rights, escorting Mrs. Parks, in which ever seat she chose, all the way home? Those, who are dedicated to their just and lawful duty to secure the rights of the people, understand that at these times the “will of the majority” and the distortion of the rule of law’s definition must be resisted.
If those in the federal government mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and every inherent right of the individual. If they truly wish for a free and strong nation, they will endeavor to sacredly guard all forms of individual property and resist all desires to violate the individual’s right, regardless of the opinion of the majority or the fleeting emotion of the day. They will not seek to “target the bad guys” by stripping law abiding citizens of their inherent rights and turning otherwise lawful behavior into crimes. Our inherent rights are not killing innocents, so why are our rights targeted? Oppression doesn’t bring safety. Our governments should seek to be a pattern of liberty and an example of just government so that our posterity may be truly free.
Full Audio of Article -
Panic propaganda is a political tool designed to elicit an emotional response rather than a reasoned and factual one. Panic propaganda doesn’t have to be completely false, as a matter of fact the best propaganda contains a very serious element of truth that is dressed in the most fantastic deceptions causing the people to react in fear rather than analyze in facts. Biden’s Panic Propaganda du jour is the notion that he is about to sign an agreement with the World Health Organization that will “end American sovereignty.” It is true that the countries of the WHO are going to meet on May 22 to sign a health agreement. It is true that the Biden Administration has proposed certain amendments. That is where the element of truth ends, and the rest is panic propaganda and here is why:
The President of the United States has certain authority in foreign negotiations established by Article 2 of the Constitution. The President does have the authority to negotiate Treaties according to Article 2 section 2 clause 2 of the Constitution. However, those treaties are not finalized and binding upon the States and the people of America without a two-thirds majority of the Senate:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”
The President is not authorized to make unilateral “deals.” As a matter of fact the office of the President was intentionally denied that authority because it was an authority that resembled too closely that of a king. The creators of our Constitution were particularly concerned about the power of Kings, for good reason.
The [President] would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the [King] is the sole possessor of the power of making treaties. Federalist #69
If there is no Senate, then there is no Treaty. If there is no Treaty, then the “agreement” is not binding upon the people or the States. Even IF the Senate would sign on to a “treaty” that would allegedly “end American sovereignty” that treaty would not be binding on the people or the States because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control any aspect of America’s Sovereignty. This fact is codified in Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution:
…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… (emphasis added)
Any Treaty not made according to the terms of the Constitution (and every agreement) SHALL NOT bind the States. Therefore, legally and Constitutionally is it irrelevant what this administration signs. Legally and Constitutionally it is irrelevant how Congress votes on the matter. The WHO agreement does not rest “under the Authority of the United States,” therefore the States are not legally or Constitutionally required to follow it. And in those FACTS rests the solution to this administration (or any presidential administration of the past, present, or future) signing the WHO agreement, or any other like it.
As a matter of fact, this proffered “solution” is no solution at all. It is a distraction from the real and most powerful solution. In my opinion, herein lies the purpose of the “panic.” Remember, the purpose of panic propaganda is to sow fear in the heart of Americans and cause them to react as directed rather than to use fact and reason to actually solve the problem. Using facts and reason, since the WHO agreement is NOT ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and it is NOT “under the Authority of the United States” the “States are NOT bound” to it. Therefore, the solution to this WHO agreement problem doesn’t begin with the US Congress, it begins with your State and local governments.
Misdirecting the people to a federal non-solution has its benefits for those in the federal government. It keeps false power in place, keeps the people falsely focused upon the federal government instead of their local government, and keeps the people discouraged and defeated, thinking they have no power at all because the offered solution (as the only solution) will not work!
It is a reasonable and successful use of our resources to call, email, and speak to our Governors, State Legislators, and Sheriffs to make sure that they will not allow anything from this WHO agreement, if signed, to be enforced in your State or county. By shear consideration of population and geography, the people of a State have more access and reasonable ability to influence their State and local governments than the US Congress.
It is highly unlikely that the US Congress is going to listen to the people at this point. It is highly unlikely that the US Congress is going to do anything at all, except create political talking points. The Governors, Legislators, and Sheriffs of each State must send a clear and palpable message to the Biden Administration that if this WHO “agreement” is signed the States will not abide by its terms. They must tell the Biden Administration publicly and in no uncertain terms that the federal government will not exercise any authority deriving from this WHO agreement in their State and neither will the WHO. THAT is the reasonable, powerful, and successful solution to this WHO agreement problem.
I will let you ponder that question.