When Censorship Is OK

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

This may not be popular, but it is true:  One of the largest factors in the loss of #Liberty is the lack of understanding of the word "public."  The fact remains, just because I have a business where people can come in off the street & purchase my goods that does not make my business a public business.

The term "Public" as used by those who founded America was a term reserved strictly to places, products, and affairs conducted by government with the use tax dollars. Everything else is a "private" affair.

"...if once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress, & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. it seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions;"  Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

Americans have been taught to believe that just because I sell donuts in a store front to people I don't know, I am engaging in a "public" affair.

Lets be clear: Public property is property purchased, maintained, and operated by the use of tax dollars. Private property is property purchased, maintained, and operated by the use of personal funds.

Now we are rapidly sliding down an extremely slippery slope where if you are doing something that is seen or heard by other people it is now a public affair.

Here is the problem with that error - Everything becomes publicly governed and NOTHING is privately owned. Your business is not your own. Your website is not your own. Your words, your life, your choices will soon belong to whomever has the most control and power over the public realm.

Now we have people claiming that just because privately owned social media platforms allows people to use their privately owned, personally funded platforms they are now somehow "public domain;" either because the people say so or the federal government says so.

• The federal government has no delegated authority to designate a private business as public forum. When the FCC or some Federal Act, like the Communications Decency Act, attempts to force private businesses under government control by defining them as public businesses, Americans ought to recognize that as completely unconstitutional and fundamentally tyrannical (can you say communist?).

A shopping mall is NOT a public forum, it is a privately owned business. If a website, which is a privately owned and paid for internet address can be designated by the federal government as a public domain, what is to stop them from designating your home, a privately owned physical address, as a public domain? The communists actually did this in Russia.

• People do not have free speech, press, or assembly rights on someone else’s private property. They have those rights on public property. See the definition of of public & private above.

If someone has entered into a contract or a lease agreement with a private company (such as a social media platform) the remedy is civil - between two private individuals. It is NOT a matter for government force.

Americans who claim to understand the principles of Liberty ought not cry out to government to force private property owners to surrender their private property rights to government enforcement of any message foreign and offensive to their own. Americans ought to see that as an unconstitutional taking of property rights.

Hannah Winthrop, one of our founding mothers, said this:

“How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!” Hannah Winthrop to Mercy Otis Warren, 1773

When Americans who claim to be supporters and defenders of the Constitution conflate the terms public and private, demand freedom of speech "rights" on someone's private property, and then demand government use the power of many to force submission of a private business owner to opinions, subjects, pictures, speech, etc that they do not believe, these Americans are truly maddening on to their own destruction. They must be unaware of an axiomatic truth:

The power of the sword you give government to force your beliefs is the same power of the sword government will eventually use to persecute your beliefs.

The purpose of a just government is to secure individual rights not to establish by force one person's rights as superior to another.  This entire conversation is why I endeavor to always be, Liberty over Security, Principle over Party, and Truth over Personality.

Share this post

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/

Share this post

    -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 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/

Share this post

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

Share this post

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:

1. 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.
2. 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 Liberty First University:

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

Share this post