Declaration of Independence P2

/in /by

Today we continue the study on the Declaration of Independence. Learning from history we find out that our current government, according to Thomas Paine, are nothing but a bunch of Tories. We learn how the principles of the Affordable Care Act, according to Alexander Hamilton, are the REASON we declared independence from Great Britain. We also lay the foundation for understanding the phrase, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. We cannot remain free and be ignorant…so Lets Get Educated!

Listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on  YouTube

Declaration of Independence P1

/in /by

This week, by overwhelming demand, we will be doing an educational study of the Declaration of Independence. Why did we do it? What does it mean? Is it relevant to us today? You will be AMAZED by what we learn and what we must know to secure liberty TODAY! Stay tuned all week, because we are going to GET EDUCATED and defend our Liberty!

Listen to this edition of the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

Sheriff Mack Interview

/in /by

Today I will be interviewing Sheriff Richard Mack, President and Founder of the Constitutional Sheriff & Peace Officer Association. (CSPOA.org) He will give us his personal experience of being on the scene when the Bureau of Land Management refused to return Rancher Cliven Bundy’s cows. You don’t want to miss this!

Right To Resist

/in /by

Recently someone said that God never calls someone to act in anger. If that’s so we must ignore the fact that in John 2:15 Jesus, himself got angry at the money changers in the temple and made a whip and overturning tables started driving people out of the temple :

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; -John 2:15
Although the Bible teaches that anger without cause is akin to murder. Anger is not a sin. If so, then Jesus sinned in the temple that day and God the Father sinned, as the Bible is replete with testimony of God’s anger and the expression of His wrath. But that anger was not without cause. There was a REASON for that anger. There is a right to resist oppression inherent in our nature to be free. It should make us angry when abuses, usurpations, and oppressions remove the Liberty that has been given to us by God. The framers of this nation knew this, and so did David when he fought Goliath, Elijah when he got angry at King Ahab for stealing Naboth’s vineyard, Nathan when he got angry at King David for his sin with Bathsheba, Samuel when he got angry at King Saul for his disobedience to God. So did the Hebrew nursemaids when they refused to carry out government mandated abortions, Daniel when he refused to eat the Kings meat or to stop praying, the Hebrew boys when they resisted the executive order to bow to idols, the Apostles when they refused the local authorities’ order to stop preaching the Gospel.

Resistance to Tyranny is the DUTY of Liberty Loving People. I simply have to sigh at the premise offered by some in positions of authority and influence when they attempt to appear knowledgeable about certain events in history or certain perspectives of the framers and yet profess that revolution or secession or resistance is a form of anarchy. The notion that those who are taking a stand are godless rebels seems to me to ignore the numerous examples of resistance to civil authority we find in the Scripture. God did not make it a sin to resist tyranny. God made it clear he wants us to submit to LAWFUL AUTHORITY not to tyranny. I don’t believe the resistance we see today is an attempt to violently overthrow the lawful authority. I see people taking a stand and not backing up, even if it means being tazed or body-slammed. The people have had enough of heavy handed federal overreach. It may mean we go into the fire like the three Hebrew boys in Daniel, but we’ve made up our minds, we WILL NOT BOW.

Patrick Henry, in his wisdom asked these questions, “Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne…Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

Samuel Adams reminded us in 1772 that “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” We believe as our founders did that we have a NATURAL RIGHT to defend life, liberty and property from oppressive and tyrannical governments.
I don’t believe the following men and women were godless provocateurs. On the contrary, I believe they were God-fearing patriots committed to standing for what was right, regardless of the consequences, even if it meant their friends and fellow countrymen mocked them and disowned them. They knew they had a duty to God to resist unlawful authority as a testimony of the Righteousness of God.

Here are series of statements from the founders of our nation and other wise men and women. Consider the following direct statements, old British spelling and all:

Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

Alexander Hamilton: Is it not better, I ask, to suffer a few present inconveniences, than to put yourselves in the way of losing every thing that is precious? Your lives, your property, your religion, are all at stake. I do my duty. I warn you of your danger. If you should still be so mad as to bring destruction upon yourselves; if you still neglect what you owe to God and man, you cannot plead ignorance in your excuse. Your consciences will reproach you for your folly; and your children’s children will curse you.

Justice Blackstone: To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances-and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”

Samuel Adams: Every one knows that the exercise of the military power is forever dangerous to civil rights; and we have had recent instances of violences that have been offer’d to private subjects, and the last week, even to a magistrate in the execution of his office!- Such violences are no more than might have been expected from military troops: A power, which is apt enough at all times to take a wanton lead, even when in the midst of civil society; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary, to awe a spirit of rebellion, and preserve peace and good order. But there are some persons, who would, if possibly they could, perswade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights or terrify them from doing it.

Alexander Hamilton again: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government…

James Madison: But ambitious encroachments of the Foederal Government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every Government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole…But what degree of madness could ever drive the Foederal Government to such an extremity?

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams Feb 22, 1787: The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

Samuel Adams, Speech [1771] Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.

Noah Webster “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ”

Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788: “The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone… Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Mercy Otis Warren: May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.” “The principles of the revolution ought ever to be the pole-star of the statesmen, respected by the rising generation.”

Patrick Henry: Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The Right To Resist

/in /by

We have been told that we cannot get angry about what we see in government. We have even been told that God doesn’t want us to get angry about tyranny and violation of Liberty. Let’s look at what God REALLY says and lets look at what our framer’s said. Better to get our info from the original sources…

Listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

Pay Up Mr. Holder

/in /by

At least Congress is looking for some way to enact justice against the lawless leader of the Justice Department. Probably won’t go anywhere, probably will embolden Holder but hey, at least someone is trying to push back.

Listen to this edition of the KrisAnne Hall Show on  YouTube

Don't Break The Law

/in /by

Harry Reid says Americans shouldn’t be allowed to break the law and get away with it. Hey Harry, I agree. So what shall we do about you and your cronies violating the Supreme Law of the land and stealing from the America people? Any suggestions?

Listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

Alter And Abolish

/in /by

Now that we have stepped up in Nevada, time to step forward and take back more power from the federal government. What is the biggest threat to Liberty today? Regulatory Agencies. Learn how they have been lying to us for DECADES to justify their unconstitutional regulations. Learn how the courts have been submitting to their lies to take our Liberty. Time to GET EDUCATED!

Listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

These Are Our RIghts

/in /by

While Congress complains about not making enough money to destroy our liberty, I’m gonna give you a sneak peak of Captain America and the seeds of liberty that can be sown through popular media. Then we’ll talk about a farmer in Michigan who successfully resisted government tyranny, a high school student fighting common core and a mom who won’t be silenced. What we are doing really does make and really IS making a difference. So, we must keep fighting because these are OUR rights!

Listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

Cliven Bundy, Cows And The Constitution

/in /by

Cliven Bundy, is a Nevada rancher standing in defiance of a 2013 federal court order requiring his family to cease and desist cattle grazing on land that their family has used since 1887. Shiree Bundy Cox, daughter to Cliven Bundy explains this background:

“My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival (sic) of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.”

So what’s the problem? The federal government came into the picture with gifts of plastic beads and promises to “help” the ranchers manage this land. The RANCHERS then paid a fee to the Bureau of Land Management to pay the salaries and keep the department operating under the premise that the BLM would be working to help the ranchers better their usage of the land. But just like all negotiations with government, the money got big and the federal control got even bigger.

Ms. Cox explains:
“[To] to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use[d] to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s (sic) against the ranchers.”

This is not a case of a gray area of personal property vs. federal property. And now we are repeating a history of Kings and Tyrants because we forgot that the federal government has no Constitutional right to own land. Period. The only authority for federal land ownership is through precedent and practice. As a matter of fact, James Madison WARNED us of this very tyranny in 1792:

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers – but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

Our founders went to great pains to create a limited and defined federal government so we would not have to negotiate with Kings. With amazing foresight, Madison explains the consequence of allowing the federal government to turn these “clauses” into defined powers:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare…”
Madison knew exactly what would happen if we ignored his warnings:

“I venture to declare it as my opinion that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

Make no mistake, what is happening to Cliven Bundy and his family is the direct fulfillment of Madison’s warnings. We are seeing just what it looks like to “transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.” Madison will, in a few years, identify this type of government as one who will be “transformed” from the “present republican system” into “an absolute, or, at best, mixed monarchy.”(Virginia Assembly Report 1800) What is the greatest indication that this has already occurred? Alexander Hamilton gives us a telltale sign. In Federalist Paper #78 Hamilton warns that if the People allow the federal government to maintain unconstitutional legislative power, we will declare “that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

These are the times we live in. Congress continually creates unconstitutional laws, unconstitutional agencies, and unconstitutional regulation of powers that were to remain in the States. Now, We The People suffer a government that feels it is superior to the People themselves and has the power to rule and reign over them. That, Patriot, is NOT a republic, that is a Kingdom…just as Madison warned.

But don’t worry, the Congressional Research Service has issued a report that says the federal government is perfectly legal in their ownership of land. Rich, isn’t it? That the federal government can tell us what they can and cannot do? I thought we were a government “established among men deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the GOVERNED.”
In the “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data” report issued February 8, 2012, the Congressional Research Service, the brain of Congress, declares that they have the RIGHT to own land. But they can only arrive at this conclusion if we are ignorant of the proper limitation of power for the federal government. Madison explains in Federalist Paper 45,

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… The [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (emphasis mine)

But the CRS says their right to own land comes from the ability to create States. That is a complete misapplication of this power. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the federal government seizing land that is already part of a State and controlling it. As a matter of fact, Madison says the EXACT OPPOSITE. This is CLEARLY a power that is “reserved to the several States”. But since they do not have legal authority they will, as mentioned before, cite “practice and precedent” as the source of their power.

The States have been struggling with the federal government over land for a very long time. And the acquiescence of the States to the usurped power, has created the problems in Nevada today. The CRS clearly states the purpose for federal land:

“Federal lands and resources have been important in American history, adding to the strength and stature of the federal government, serving as an attraction and opportunity for settlement and economic development, and providing a source of revenue for schools, transportation, national defense, and other national, state, and local needs.”

And the federal government has added to its strength to the point that the States are no longer the masters over their creation, but the federal government is supreme over the States. Pay close attention to the “results” of ownership of federal lands and resources…”schools, transportation, and other national, state, and local needs.” This is EXACTLY what Madison warned us would happen if we did not prevent the Congress from obtaining unlimited spending and unlimited power.

From the beginning, federal ownership was not supposed to be permanent. But the government never gives up anything once it has control. In 1976 with the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Congress decided that all the remaining federal land would remain in federal ownership. No more honoring their “expanded” boundaries, they are going to expand them even further into permanent ownership. This sparked what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, an effort to provide state or local control over federal land and management decisions. How did the States choose to fight Congress over the possession of State land? In the federal court system. How do you think this is going to work out? You guessed it. The CRS practically “brags” about it:

“To date, judicial challenges and legislative and executive efforts generally have not resulted in broad changes to the level of federal ownership.”

This is NOT an issue of ranchers and cows. This is NOT about turtles and the environment. It is NOT about missed payment of fees. The feds are going to spend significantly more enforcing the fees, than the loss of the fees themselves. This is NOT about enforcing federal laws. How can cows grazing on land they have been eating from since 1887 be viewed as illegal, and yet the federal government allows illegal aliens to cross borders. Let us not forget, that Congress is trying to change immigration laws to fit the criminals. But when it comes to a man and his cows, we have to enforce this with SWAT teams! Really?

This IS an issue of a federal government completely out of control that acts more like a Kingdom than a republic. The question remains, America, what kind of government do YOU want? A Kingdom or a Republic? The choice is ours, because the powers delegated to this government do come from the consent of the governed. What are you willing to consent to?