The Boston Tea Party- History of Resistance to Government Controls
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
257 Years of Resisting Tyranny
I recently anticipated with joy reading a conservative blogger’s attempt to connect the TEA party movement to its historic roots; a topic I have been meaning to write about for months now. The blogger rightly said that the “the historical precedent for today’s Tea Party Movement wasn’t the Tea Party event in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.” I actually uttered an “Amen, brother!” He went on to describe the Continental Association established on October 20, 1774 by the First Continental Congress in response to the Intolerable Acts. That’s when I realized that I have waited long enough to write this article.
6 Little Know Facts About The Bill of Rights
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
Here are 6 little known facts about the Bill of Rights to help you defend Liberty.
1. The Bill of Rights is not an afterthought of the founders to "correct" the Constitution. It was actually a negotiated condition for ratifying the Constitution.
The delegates of of 5 States were refusing to ratify the Constitution, Virginia was one of those States. Virginia delegates agreed to ratify the Constitution only if there would be a guarantee of debate on provisions to add a Bill of Rights.
On 7 Mar. 1788 the Virginia Baptist General Committee discussed the Constitution:
"Whether the new Federal Constitution which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”
Without Virginia's consent there would be no Union, no Constitution, & no federal government. In order to form the Union, the other 8 States agreed to adding a Bill of Rights.
2. The Bill of Right was not established to “control” the federal government. It was written to “remind” the people to never let government control their inherent rights.
In the debate of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the argument was made proving the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights. Not a document to control government, but a document to remind the people. In The Letter From A Federal Farmer To The Republican #6 this truth is articulated:
“…Fortunate it is for the body of a people, if they can continue attentive to their liberties, long enough to erect for them a temple, and constitutional barriers for their permanent security: when they are well fixed between the powers of the rulers and the rights of the people, they become visible boundaries, constantly seen by all, and any transgression of them is immediately discovered: they serve as centinels for the people at all times, and especially in those unavoidable intervals of inattention.”
The Bill of Rights was permanently placed within the Constitution to be a “constant reminder” to the people to control the limited power of their government. The Constitution is not a restraint on government, as it is simply a paper with ink. Our founders said the Constitution was simply a “parchment barrier” without the “true republican jealousy and vigilance [of the people], the strongest guard against the abuses of power.”
***Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not "establish" or "grant" rigths to the people. It recognized the rights of the people that already exist!***
3. “You have the right to remain silent and everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to an attorney and have him present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided to you for your defense” is not from a Supreme Court case, it is a summary of a few of the principles in the 5th & 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The 5th Amendment reminds us: No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
The 6th Amendment reminds us: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
These are not rights “bestowed” by judges in a courtroom. These are rights that are essential to the protection of the inherent rights of all citizens.
I actually penned these words in 2013 after a Conservative Majority House voted in an unconstitutional and immoral spending bill. In reviewing these words, the only thing that has changed after 5 years, is now we have had a Conservative House and Senate passing the same over and over for 5 years. And NOW socialism and Marxism is seen as a reality in government, back in 2013 we thought it was just a threat. Samuel Adams was right, Ignorance and Debauched Manners are causing the fall of America.
Here is what Samuel Adams would say to our Americans today, especially those in office. Afterall, he said the same thing to his people back then.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
You have my permission to share this song, but please refer back to this website and give the proper by-line. Thank you! #LibertyFirst
New American Version~ My Country 'Tis of Thee
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
My country 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of Prosperity,
Of thee I sing.
Land where NSA does spy!
Land where our freedom died!
From Congressmen who lied,
Let Spending Ring.
My native country thee,
Land of the shopping spree,
Thy revenue I love.
I love thy welfare fills,
Their dark green fiat bills;
My heart with rapture fills
For the fedral gov.
Let free stuff swell the breeze,
And fall from all the trees
Sweet Congress song.
Let socialists awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let Marxists their silence break,
Our father's God to, Thee,
Author of Liberty,
To Thee we sing.
When will our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Purged from this soulless blight,
Great God, our King!
The Unbiased Truth About Political Parties
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Political Parties are not government. We seem to be very confused on this fact quite regularly. But knowing this is essential to keeping the proper perspective on elections.
Often people get upset when party leadership demands very specific acts of party loyalty. Maybe they make candidates sign a loyalty pledge. Maybe they chastise politicians of their party for breaking ranks. The members of these political parties can righteously be upset at the hypocrisy of their leadership. HOWEVER…
Members of the political parties have no right to be upset about this demand by their leadership. The Republican Party is not government. The Democrat Party is not government. Both parties are private corporate clubs. They are not required to be “open minded.” As a matter of fact, the entire purpose of a private corporate club is that they CAN discriminate based upon their platform. So there exists no “freedom of speech” within a private corporate club political party.
It is well within the rights and the powers of the private corporate club called the Republican Party to require their members to sign an oath of loyalty. It is well within the rights and the powers of the private corporate club called the Democrat Party to require their members to sign a “non-compete clause.” People cannot be outraged by that; they cannot even be surprised by that.
If there is outrage over the private corporate club called the Republican Party imposing these requirements upon its members, it only proves that we are fundamentally confused about WHO these parties really are.
The problem is NOT that theses private corporate clubs require party loyalty. The problem is that these private corporate clubs hold quasi-governmental power! The problem is that people mistake these private corporate clubs for government entities.
Ever thought how ridiculous it is that a private corporate club has the power to dictate where, when, and how we vote? Ever realized that an election primary is not a civic function, but the choosing of the representative of that private corporate club? Ever think how tyrannical it is that all Americans are forced to fund primary elections of private corporate clubs to choose their representatives?
Ever thought how absurd it is that a private corporate club can decide which laws we have and don’t have? Ever thought how outrageous it is that a private corporate club can determine who will be our representative, governor, or president?
That is exactly what happens when the people take up loyalty to a political party. That is exactly what happens when government is run by establishment party politics. Think about it. How many laws are debated on the platform of party? How many decisions are made in government based upon party politics? I know you have heard these arguments:
“We cannot support that because the Dems…”
“We must pass this because the Republicans…”
“We cannot pass because the Republicans won’t…”
“We must support this person or law because it’s a Republican…”
If we actually grab hold of this reality, we might better understand why we are strung along from election to election. Remember in the 2010 election that the mantra was “take back the House.” All we need is a Republican majority in the House, and we will change the world. We gave it to them. What changed? Then the demand in 2014 was, “We must have a Republican majority in the Senate to stop this out of control president!” We gave it to them, and nothing changed. Then we heard something along the lines of: “We can’t change anything unless you give us a Republican President.” After 8 years of being strung along, can we see any difference in the operation of our government in the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branches? During each election, on my radio show I ask our listeners to make a list of things they want “their candidate” to accomplish if elected. Pull our your list. Has anything changed? Have they reduced spending or debt? Have the every even passed a real budget? Have they begun to respect the rights of the people or the limits of government required by the Constitution?
The Constitutional reality is that if Americans want reduced spending, get a budget passed, or reduce government as a whole, all we need is a Constitutionally minded House majority. We don’t need private corporate club unity throughout the entire government. The only reason for total party is control is total political power, not the rights of people.
Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution gives the simple majority of the House alone the power to fund and defund. The Constitution establishes a budget system that is based upon the “power of the purse” resting in the House alone. The Senate “may” offer “amendments”; but if they don’t, then constitutionally the House budget stands. There is NO constitutional power for the president to veto any budget. Budgets are not law because they expire, so they are not bound by the same process as laws. There is a very specific reason that budgets were left in the sole power of the House: to concentrate the power of government in the people. And the truth is that a simple majority in the House could defund ANY activity funded by the federal government, whether it is Planned Parenthood or the executive branch!
“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” James Madison, Federalist #58
“The Constitution places the power in the House of originating money bills. The principal reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.” James Madison, 15 May 1789
Knowing the truth makes you ask the right questions. If changing the House was all we needed, then why did nothing change in 2010? If a “conservative” majority in the House is all we needed to get a balanced budget and control of the executive branch, WHY do we keep getting all these excuses?
Here is another “right” question that is HUGE. Did you know that in every federal election 435 House Reps are up for election? But did you also know, at that same time, there are over 30,000 seats up for election on the State and local level? Why are we then absolutely and completely consumed, in conversation and media, with presidential elections that will involve, ultimately, only two people?
The answer? Because it is NOT about fixing the government; it is about consolidating power. The office of the President was not created to represent the people. That office was created to represent the States in foreign affairs and federal appointments. Because of the agenda in politics and education, the American people have been deceived into believing the President is the representative of “the people.” Because of this deception and loyalty to private corporate club politics, our presidential elections have become nothing but one private political club consolidating all government power within their corporate leadership, and the other private corporate club just waiting for their turn. It is nothing but prostituting for power.
That's why nothing ever changes. Each party understands there is simply a shift in whose turn it is. The power the other party accumulates, is a power they will in turn exercise. So if they eliminate power for the other party, they also eliminate power for themselves. It doesn't not serve either's interest to reduce power, spending, or control. Consequently they assume the posturing of conflict to convince the people there is a battle, when in fact, both parties are battling for the exact same thing... more power, more control, more personal wealth.
George Washington warned us about this very consolidation of power in his farewell address:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Finally, here are the REAL questions we must answer:
Why will the people be more upset about a private corporate club requiring their membership to be loyal to the club than they are by the fact that our laws are made and our government is run by private corporate clubs? When will we start choosing candidates based upon their Constitutional qualifications and character instead of the color of their party?
UPDATE: Since I wrote this article in June of 2018, the Colorado Civil Rights Division did exactly what I predicted they would do, and perhaps what the SCOTUS wanted them to do. They didn’t stop persecuting Mr. Phillips. Instead they took the SCOTUS advice and changed their methods of persecution so their actions would be viewed as “legal.” It will be interesting to see where the persecuted go from here. It will be interesting to see if those will admit this case was no victor for Religious Freedom, but quite the opposite. We must see truth if we are going to be effective in defeating the lies.
SCOTUS Gay Wedding Cake Decision Did Nothing To Protect Religious Freedom
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
The Supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion on a highly anticipated case regarding the right of a baker to refuse to design and create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony based upon his religious convictions. However, for SCOTUS, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom, but one of unjust government discrimination.
Jack Phillips, a practicing Christian, often refused to design and create baked goods based upon his religious beliefs. His store was closed on Sundays and other Christian holidays, he refused to create or design desserts for Halloween, and he refused to make desserts that contained alcohol.
Phillips did not refuse to serve the same-sex couple who later filed a complaint. He only refused to design and create a cake for their wedding. He remarked that he would be happy to design and create cookies, birthday cakes, shower cakes or brownies, but not a wedding cake due to religious objections.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the commission, after several hearings, decided that Phillips had violated Colorado’s public accommodation laws by refusing to create and design this wedding cake for the same-sex couple. The commission did not accept Phillip’s defense of religious conviction. In fact, members of the commission, on record and as justification for their decision, mocked Phillip’s beliefs and compared his religious convictions to slavery and the Holocaust.
The Supreme Court found in favor of Phillips in a 7-2 opinion, based particularly on the statements of the Colorado commissioners.
There are some very significant points that must be made to clarify this carefully written opinion. Because of the great public anticipation over this case, there will be a tendency to make more of what was said than was actually said and mischaracterize the magnitude of this decision.
The court did not render its opinion on the basis of religious freedom. They did not declare that private business owners are free to discriminate based upon religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, they said the opposite:
“It is the general rule that (religious and philosophical) objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and public services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”
Phillips made multiple statements asserting his refusal to make the cake was based upon his religious convictions. However, it seems the court only references these objections for the purpose of condemning the Colorado commissioners’ apparent discriminatory statements voiced against Phillips. This court never asserted that Phillips was justified in his refusal based upon his right to religious freedom.
It is therefore not clear that this is an overall victory for private business owners or Christians to publicly maintain their convictions.
The court took time to clarify that it should be “assumed” that “when it comes to weddings … a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform that ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”
It is interesting that the court feels it should be obvious and therefore not questioned that professional clergy maintain full rights to expression of their religious freedom but a baker does not. It would seem that the court sees the possession and expression of fundamental rights like freedom of religion as inherent in a profession rather inherent to all persons.
This court did not declare that Phillips’ personal objections justified his refusal to bake this cake. Instead, it took a safer and more politically correct approach by finding that the Colorado commissioners’ statements applied the Colorado public accommodation law in a discriminating and biased manner.
The court said, “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” However, the government cannot use Phillips’ religious beliefs as the basis for the application of their laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that when commissioners on the Colorado board made statements describing Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” and equating his refusal to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage to the acts of slavery and the Holocaust, they began down the path of discriminating against him.
In addition to these condemning statements, the Colorado commission had, at the same time, determined that three other bakers could refuse to bake cakes critical of gay marriage, contrary to their secular convictions, making clear their bias and discriminatory application of this otherwise “neutral” law.
The majority opinion determined that it was this discriminatory act by the Colorado commission that required the court to overturn this case. Again, for the majority opinion, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom of expression, but one of unjust government discrimination.
The court, almost in passing, also mentioned that Phillips’ may have been justified in his refusal to design and create this wedding cake because Colorado had not legalized gay marriage yet. His refusal, at that time, was not only in compliance with state law, but also a refusal to participate in an illegal activity.
Kennedy added this point of fact as a way of publicly warning business owners in states that have legalized gay marriage that they have no religious freedom argument to withhold services if state law otherwise compels them.
There is one aspect of personal rights the majority opinion mentions but strangely never fleshes out: the matter of freedom of speech.
The majority court introduces the question: Is the government’s law forcing Phillips to design and create a cake contrary to his personal message a violation of freedom of speech? But then, in what seems to be a lapse of concentration, the majority opinion never answers this question definitively.
It isn’t until we get to Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence that we find a truly worthy discussion of this important element. Thomas’ opinion on the matter of freedom of speech is so thorough and so supported by precedent it makes one wonder why the majority court refused to give this topic its due consideration.
Thomas points out that it is well within the history of the Supreme Court to support the expression of offensive beliefs in the name of freedom of speech. After all, he reminds us, if the burning of a flag or a 25 foot cross (Virginia v. Black), or designing and creating “a film featuring Klan members brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the niggers,’” (Brandenburg v. Ohio) are all protected speech, then surely designing and creating a cake ought to fit these categories as well.
By the terms laid out by Thomas, this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of Phillips on the merits of freedom of speech. Why the majority court would introduce this element but then fail to complete its thought on the matter is puzzling. Why the majority court would choose a single justification for their opinion when they could have had two compelling arguments is equally puzzling.
One final matter worth discussing is the dissent written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, Ginsburg feels that this case should have been decided in favor of the same-sex couple. However, her argument against the majority opinion is so weak it makes clear her bias.
She does not address the fact that gay marriage was illegal at the time Phillips refused to design and created the cake. She does not even broach the freedom of speech aspect. Instead she asserts that the biased statements of a few commissioners against Phillips, during a government hearing in judgment of Phillips, do not rise to the level of “hostility” toward Phillips and therefore cannot be the justification for overturning this case.
Apparently, Ginsburg believes in a lower standard of discrimination for government than private citizens by claiming that these clear and impermissible words of hostility placed on the record by members of the commission and used as justification for their decision were not an exercise of content discrimination, yet the baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage that was then against the law and violated his religious beliefs was discrimination.