Get Informed - Get Equipped - Get Inspired

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties...
when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved"
- Sam Adams


Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter


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.

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.


KrisAnne Hall, JD

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter


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.


  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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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.


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 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th 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 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th 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:

**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

General Welfare & Commerce Clauses:

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

art racism


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.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

Hamilton curse


Please read Alexander Hamilton's warning (above) to HIS generation and then answer the following questions for OUR generation:
1. With the overwhelming public support for and fervent defense of these completely unconstitutional and anti-liberty laws called the #TAPSAct & #RedFlagLaws by way too many "Conservative Republicans,"
Is it time yet to leave behind the habits of the last 150 years and start VOTING Principle over Party?
2. Now that they are "coming for our guns" (yes- just one person deprived of rights IS a gun grab), never mind that freedom of speech, press, assembly, right to property & against unreasonable searches and seizures, right to due process and against unreasonable fines & cruel and unusual punishments has been destroyed for decades,
Is it time yet for Americans to physically stand together to put Liberty over security?
3. We know the government and media is lying to us. We know our favorite politicians believe moral relativism and selective constitutionalism (#EpsteinSuicided #HateCrimes legal double standard for politicians etc...)
Is it time yet for the American people to turn away from cult of personality and turn to the principle of Truth over Personality?
 For over a decade (I am not quitting in spite of the haters) I have been teaching all over America the tools our founders put in our hands to peacefully & powerfully control our governments when those in power become power tyrants and prostitutes.
I am just wondering if its time yet for ALL who self-identify as "Lovers of America" to get to WORK (not just voting, campaigning, supporting a candidate or political party, attending activist meetings, etc...) and start employing those SOLUTIONS our founders gave us?
I for one do not look forward to a future of limited options for control of government.  Nor do I want the future to look back on me with contempt because I participated in a generation more concerned with every day comforts than the eternal obligation to pass on the gift of Liberty to our posterity so they won't have to fight to restore their own rights from the tyrannical government we created.
So I am just wondering is it time yet?
Or are we satisfied enough with the remaining benefits of society to say, "meh, let's keep the status quo and see what happens."
If you are ready, I mean really ready to not only hear the solutions, but learn to engage the solutions DAILY~ sign up here
SD Action

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

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

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Art Pres Quals


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

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

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter