Sample Page – Page 211 – KrisAnne Hall

Real Women Worthy of Recognition

April 8, 2012/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

Many who would rewrite history, would have us to believe the women during the revolution were oppressed subservient wives of overbearing husbands who dictated policy in the home. Nothing could be further from the truth. The founding women of our nation carried themselves with dignity and strength; believing with their hearts and souls the value of Liberty was worthy of their families’ sacrifice. These were women of principle, of courage, and of great resolve, willing to sacrifice all so that their children could be free.

Many will recognize the men for their contributions, but true history will reveal that the wives of these men were just as important to the battle for freedom. We all have heard the jest that “if momma isn’t happy, then nobody’s happy.” That is not something that is said just because it’s funny. So why would we think that human nature was any different in 1774? The women of our founding nation were just as involved as the men, and often times bolder in their assertions.

When Parliament and King George began attempting to recoup the money spent during the French and Indian wars by imposing unreasonable taxes absent any representation for the people of the colonies, outrage was the response. Our founding families relied on the goods imported from England to conduct their everyday lives. The taxes imposed upon these goods and many others were seen as a form of slavery and oppression. When petition after petition to the Parliament and the King were ignored, more drastic measures were required. George Washington asserted that a boycott of English goods may be a more effective way of getting the government’s attention.

Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren

To stir patriotic sentiment even hotter, patriotic newspapers offered suggestions about colonial substitutes for imported teas, including sassafras, raspberry and mint. In support of these protests countless women gathered in private homes for spinning parties or participated in public spinning contests. Two women, whose names should be recognized, were Abigail Adams and her historian friend, Mercy Otis Warren. These were women of position, with husbands of reputation, yet they shunned tea and proudly wore homespun garments in lieu of British finery.

James Warren was the president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and member of the Sons of Liberty, but it was his wife, Mercy Otis Warren, whose patriotic efforts encouraged the war efforts. Mercy was a prolific author of anti-British propaganda plays and an historian of the American Revolution. Her friend, Abigail Adams, said in 1773 that Mercy was “a sincere lover of [her] country” It was said that Mercy was so grieved by Great Britain’s actions that she felt her nation to be “oppressed and insulted”.

Mercy Otis Warren was a vocal contributor to the independent efforts of the colonies and great pen pal to John Adams. John Adams often took great comfort from the words and advice of Mercy. In one letter, Mercy voices the sentiment of the American people.

“America stands armed with resolution and virtue; but she still recoils at the idea of drawing the sword against the nation from whence she derived her origin. Yet Britain, like an unnatural parent, is ready to plunge her dagger into the bosom of her affectionate offspring. But may we not yet hope for more lenient measures!”

Hannah Winthrop, wife of Dr. Winthrop, describes Mercy in January 1773 as “That noble patriotic spirit which sparkles must warm the heart that has the least sensibilities, especially must it invigorate a mind of a like fellow feeling for this once happy country. How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!” As we look around today, I know that we can certainly empathize with Hannah’s frustrations.

Hannah Winthrop, Penelope Barker and Elizabeth King

Shortly after Samuel Adams and his men threw tea up and down the coast of America, a second Tea Party protest erupted within the hearts and minds of the women. A great revolutionary heroine by the name of Penelope Barker wrote a public statement in which she endorsed a boycott of tea and other British products, such as cloth. Ten months after the famous Boston Tea Party organized by men, Barker led a “Tea Party” on October 25, 1774, in the Edenton Home of Elizabeth King. She and fifty other women signed the protest statement. At the meeting, Barker said, “Maybe it has only been men who have protested the king up to now. That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard. We are signing our names to a document, not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party. The British will know who we are.” The women of this Tea Party signed a declaration that stated, “We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

The amazing part of this public protest and notice sent to parliament and the King was that these were women whose husbands and fathers were men of reputation. Many of the men related to these women were English merchants. The fact these women signed their names to a document of protest showed their courage and their dedication to the principle that the Liberty of their children was more important than a paycheck or even their lives.

On Jan. 1st, 1774, Hannah Winthrop’s patriotic spirit cries out.

“Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard. May they yet be endowed with all that firmness necessary to-carry them through all their difficulties, till they come off conquerors. We hope to see good accounts of the tea cast away on the Cape. The union of the Colonies, the firm and sedate resolution of the people, is an omen for good unto us.”

Elizabeth Adams

These brave women of resolve did not simply support the efforts of the men fighting for Liberty; they themselves sacrificed everything for Liberty. They were outcasts to the Loyalists. They were called “harlots” and “loose women,” and were literally chased from their homes, sometimes as their homes burned to the ground. Elizabeth Adams, wife of Samuel Adams, had to hide in a small cottage far from the city, since her father was an English Merchant. In a letter to Samuel, she does not chastise him or berate him for his neglect of their family. Instead she reassures him that all is well at home and that he should concentrate on the battle at hand. She writes;

“I beg you would not give yourself any pain on our being so Near the Camp; the place I am in is so Situated, that if the Regulars should ever take Prospect Hill, which God forbid, I should be able to make an Escape, as I am Within a few stones casts of a Back Road, Which Leads to the Most Retired part of Newtown …. I beg you to Excuse the very poor Writing as My paper is Bad and my pen made with Scissars. I should be glad (My dear), if you shouldn’t come down soon, you would Write me Word Who to apply to for some Money, for I am low in Cash and every thing (sic) is very dear.” Feb 19 1775

Mary Bartlett

Mary Bartlett wife of Dr. Bartlett, was as ardent in her patriotism as her husband. When their home lay in ruins and the family were driven to seek shelter and safety elsewhere, she fled to their little farm, which she managed from then on, leaving her husband free to devote himself almost entirely to the fight. In all her letters to her husband and her children, there is not one word of regret for his situation or pity for herself, left alone to bear the duties forced upon her by the tyranny of the British government. She had no complaints, only a spirit of loving, helpful sympathy for everything that her husband was going through.

These women believed their sacrifice was just as much a fight for Liberty as the lives lost on the battlefield. These were women of courage and resolve, willing to give everything for Liberty. Mercy Otis Warren wrote, they were “…ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen claimed by Americans from the sacred sanction of compacts.”

Mercy was amazing at voicing the feelings and fears of these brave women in the battle for Liberty.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; and I should blush if in any instance the weak passions of my sex should damp the fortitude, the patriotism, and the manly resolution of yours. 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.”

There is a story told, about a British officer reporting to British General Cornwallis of the progress of the war with the colonies. As it is told, the British have become very frustrated and even discouraged by the opposition of the colonists. In relaying the affairs of the troops, the British officer says to Gen. Cornwallis, “Sir, we may destroy all the men in America, and we shall still have all we can do to defeat the women.” You see, by that time, the colonial women had nearly decimated the British linen industry with their boycott.

We could learn a great deal about what real women act and sound like from the words and deeds of these great heroines. And, as I am sure you can now see, the revisionists have been lying to us for many years. These women were not oppressed by their chauvinistic husbands to the point of servitude. They were bold and brave women of resolve. They were dedicated to the cause of Liberty and the battle against tyranny. In her display of patriotism, Hannah Winthrop uttered the following battle cry,

“And be it known unto Britain, even American daughters are politicians and patriots, and will aid the good work with their female efforts.”

These women believed in their hearts and in their souls that without Liberty, life was not worth living. They supported their husbands and gave everything they could to ensure that their children would live free. As Mercy put it, “We will stand against tyranny today or our children will bow tomorrow.” How can we deny these great women their due? These are the women of Liberty and they are heroes worthy of recognition. Without them, America would not be the shining city on a hill and the last bastion of hope. We should honor what these brave women have done not only for America, but for the world.

Exclusive: Secret Group Helping Obama Destroy the Constitution

March 28, 2012/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

On March 2, 2012 I gave a legal analysis of HR347/S1794 (which included some links to frightening government abuses) and how it unquestionably violates the First Amendment. Upon hearing numerous reports the following week, I realized that the people are not getting the whole truth.

For those who have not read my blog, please do so, but here is a brief summary. HR 347 and S 1794, the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” has nothing to do with improving landscaping around federal buildings. This bill is being presented as a No Trespassing bill. Reasonable people understand that restrictions and protections are needed for government officials and government functions. However, this legislation makes it a federal crime to simply DISRUPT the ORDERLY CONDUCT of government. The violator doesn’t have to be on the grounds where the government business is being conducted, just within the vicinity of the so-called business. The law is not limited to buildings or locations as the title suggests, but seems to be “roving” and follows persons protected by Secret Service wherever they go. The language could be interpreted to refer to an official who is eligible for Secret Service protection and not protected by them at the moment of the alleged violation. How long before we hear the argument that federal officials are “protected” by secret service even if secret service is not present at the time? The bottom line is: Your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble – is now a federal crime.

In one particular report on this bill, Fox News focuses the blame almost entirely on the President. The report even leads off with the headline, “Suppressing Free Speech? President Signs Anti-protest Bill.” The report includes an interview with Judge Napolitano where he gives a brief review of the potential impact of this bill. The entire focus is again on Obama’s signing of this bill and what he will do with it. The fact is that there is a group of individuals that played a much more significant role in this and it is becoming one of the greatest cover-ups going on today. I will now do what no one else seems to have the guts to do. I will tell you their names. Are you ready?

A quick look at the roll call for this bill will show you that only 3 Republicans in the House voted against this Constitutional atrocity: Ron Paul (R-Tx), Paul Broun (R-Ga), and Justin Amish (R-Mi). That means that every other “conservative” House member that thought it important enough to show up and vote, voted for this bill and against the Constitution. Who was your “Tea Party” favorite in 2010? Who did you elect on the promise to uphold the Constitution and Constitutional Principles? Was it perhaps Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Jeff Landry, or Joe Walsh? “I am a patriot,” they say. Yet, how did they vote when the Constitution was on the line?

What about the Senate? You don’t have to work hard to decipher the roll call for S1794 because the vote in favor of putting government over the Constitution was UNANIMOUS! Again, who was your “Tea Party” favorite in Senate? Perhaps Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson or, dare I say it, Marco Rubio?

How will they answer when you question them on this? Will you hear, “security over liberty” arguments? Will they tell you that the threat against our representatives deserves greater consideration than our Constitutionally protected rights?

One vote is no big deal right? Maybe, but some votes are not inconsequential when they destroy the very safeguards of Liberty. But it is not one vote; there is a pattern forming here.

Look at the roll call for HR 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This is the bill that authorizes indefinite detention of US Citizens and repealed the law against bestiality in the military. Do not believe the lies from Congress, this bill does authorize indefinite detention and if you still don’t understand it, watch this legal analysis video, it will help you. It is a direct assault on our rights protected in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th Amendments.

In the roll call for the Constitution-shredding bill HR 1540, we find some familiar names: Allen West, Jeff Landry, and Joe Walsh among other “Tea Party” favorites. You see only 43 “conservatives” voted against this bill and for the Constitution. But what about the Senate side? Did your “Tea Party” favorite vote to indefinitely detain US Citizens? It is quite likely, because only 3 Senators knew enough about the Constitution to vote against giving the President that kind of power. That means once again Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Ron Johnson and, dare I say it, Marco Rubio voted against the Constitution!

What about the debt ceiling vote? Who were the “Tea Party” members in the house that voted to send our children into financial slavery? Ooops, there we have those names again… and guess who is 3 for 3? Allen West.

And finally, what about the Patriot Act? You know that act that gives the federal government the authority to seize property, records, and even people without a warrant that complies with the 4^th Amendment and then hold them in violation of the 5^th Amendment? Whose names will we find on that roll call? Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Jeff Landry, and Joe Walsh, among others. When the House voted again on this bill, only one member from this list changed his vote, Allen West. What about the Senate side? Only Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against this bill and for the Citizens of America. Yes, you guessed it, that means that Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Ron Johnson and, dare I say it, Marco Rubio are all in favor of defeating the 4^th and 5^th Amendments of the Constitution.

To summarize, we have seen direct attacks on our Constitution perpetrated NOT by Obama alone, but aided and abetted by our Congress. HR 347/S1794 is a direct assault on our First Amendment. Sections 1021 and 1022 are violent attacks on our 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th Amendments. And the Patriot Act, the beginning of it all, shreds our right to be secure in our persons, property, and papers, all in the name of security. What security would that be, by the way? The security of knowing that the President is devising secret law and secret legal interpretations of these laws to create further Constitutional abuses as uncovered in the letter to Eric Holder from Senators Wyden and Udall!

This battering of our Constitutionally protected rights does not rest on the shoulders of the progressives; nor, does the responsibility belong to one man. The destruction of our Constitution rests firmly on the heads of the men and women in Congress – “R” AND “D” – Senate AND HOUSE!

Those we trusted with the Liberty of our children have betrayed us on the highest level. Which one of these men and women do you want to be president or vice president? Which one of these men and women do you want in charge of being the guardian of Liberty for your children? When we elected them, they were given fair warning that they MUST PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. They accepted that charge and THEY HAVE FAILED miserably. Are YOU willing to stand by your word and make these traitors unemployed? Are you willing to make the sacrifice necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty for our posterity? Look at these roll calls. Find out who voted Against the Constitution and DO NOT SUPPORT THEM.

Let me remind you: These are not the principles our founders died for! These are not the principles for which Crispus Attacks was shot in the streets, or for which Richard Stockton was tortured, or for which Thomas Nelson Jr. destroyed his own home. These are not the principles about which Phyllis Wheatley or Mercy Otis Warren wrote. These are not the principles for which Washington’s men left bloody footprints in the snow! This despicable, spineless group of egotists in OUR government is a disgrace to the legacy of Liberty! They must all be dismissed at the earliest opportunity!

Our founders would have never allowed the government’s desire for orderly function to outweigh the right of the people to speak, assemble, or air their grievances!

Use your voice while you still have it! Build your influence while you still can!
We must continue to rally the forces of Liberty!
We must continue to stand against corruption!
We must continue to expose the spineless and the hypocrite!
We must inform the ignorant and fire the incompetent!
We must not retreat, we must not surrender! Liberty is worth the fight!

Justice Ginsburg Violates Her Oath

February 3, 2012/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

If you are wondering what causes the destruction of America, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, may give part of the answer to this question.

Al Hayat TV in Egypt interviewed Justice Ginsburg asking her for the advice she would give Egypt in writing the Constitution for their newly formed government. Her reply to this question gives insight into this her thoughts and understanding of the very Constitution she has given an oath to support and defend.

“I can’t speak as to what the Egyptian experience should be” she said, “because I am operating under a rather old Constitution, the United States in comparison to Egypt is a very new nation, yet we have the oldest Constitution still in force in the world…”

Immediately, Ginsburg diminishes the value of our Constitution because it is the “oldest Constitution”. She is completely ignoring the fact that it is the oldest Constitution because of the very foundation and principles it espouses. Our founders, although wise and possibly geniuses, were not making up things as they went along, they built a nation upon 700 years of experience with human nature, tyranny, and Liberty in mind. Our Constitution is not over 200 years old, but in reality, its principles and practices are over 1,000 years old. And it IS its age that gives it its credibility. It IS the tried and tested principles and practices that make America the shining city on a hill and the envy of the world.

But Mrs. Ginsburg’s criticism of our Constitution doesn’t end there. When asked by the reporter if Egypt should look to the US Constitution as an example to form their own, her response is shocking.

“You should be aided by all the constitutional writings that have gone on since the end of World War II, I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

Yes, you heard right, she is telling Egypt to disregard our Constitution when drafting theirs. She offers up, rather, the Constitutions of South Africa and Canada. She even strongly suggests the European Union’s Human Rights statement as a BETTER example of Constitutions.

“I might look at the Constitution of South Africa, that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights; [they have] an independent judiciary, it really is, I think a great piece of work that was done, much more recently than the United States Constitution. Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms that dates from 1982. You would most certainly look at the European convention on human rights…”

Can we glean from these statements that Mrs. Ginsburg does not believe OUR Constitution was a “deliberate attempt to embrace basic human rights”? I am really beginning to wonder what Mrs. Ginsburg actually KNOWS about our Constitution. After all, how is a nation founded upon the principles that “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” not deliberately attempting to embrace basic human rights? Maybe she missed Sam Adams’ explanation of the rights of the colonists when he said they were “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.” I guess in Mrs. Ginsburg’s books, those are not principles of basic human rights. In this interview, Mrs. Ginsburg says she is “a very strong believer in learning and listening to others”, unfortunately she never took the time to learn and listen to the men and women who founded this nation.

Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge the wisdom of our founders but points out the absence of women at the Constitutional Convention:

“…we were just tremendously fortunate in the US that men who met in Philadelphia were very wise, it is true they were lacking one thing, that is there were no women as part of the Constitutional Conventions, but there were women around, who sparked the idea…”

It is interesting that even if it is just in passing, Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge that women were involved in the foundational “ideas” of this nation. Yet she does a great disservice to the women of that era by completely ignoring the magnitude of their input. Her perpetration of revisionist history even becomes part of her advice to the country of Egypt.

“John Adams who was one of our first presidents, and instrumental in the Constitutional Congress, his wife Abigail was very well known, intelligent, said “Now John when you write that Constitution, please remember the ladies.” And he wrote back something amusing, he said, “are you suggesting that women should be part of the political community, look if we do that everyone will be claiming the right to vote, 12 year old boys will be claiming the right”, he treated like a joke…”

The internet is an amazing thing. It was not difficult to find the letters between Abigail and John that she references and John Adams said NOTHING like what Mrs. Ginsburg claims. Most historians not in the business of rewriting history are quick to acknowledge that John Adams held his wife in very high regard and often relied on her wisdom. Additionally, most of our founders felt the same way about the strong women in their lives. To suggest as Mrs. Ginsburg does, that the men excluded women from this process because they were tyrants and oppressive husbands, is as ridiculous as her rendition of the letters she quotes. Liberty, as John Adams describes in this letter is contagious. Our founders knew that with patience and proper focus on Liberty, in time, all would enjoy as much or as little Liberty as they wished to obtain. This is a valuable point Mrs. Ginsburg would do well to point out to a newly forming nation.

The truly puzzling thing is that she admits that our founders were “wise” and calls them “genius” and even admits that women had a role in sparking the “idea” of Liberty. But she then immediately perpetuates the liberal lie that our founders were not interested in women’s rights and wanted slavery to remain a guiding principle in this nation. May I remind Mrs. Ginsberg that the Declaration of Independence states “ALL” men are created equal. Not all men of a particular race, color or creed, or not even just all AMERICANS, but all men. In my dictionary “all” means “all”. In “listening and learning” from our founders they made it clear that slavery was something that must be abolished. It is precisely why they set a “sunset” for the institution of slavery. Maybe Mrs. Ginsburg doesn’t understand that provision since our current government doesn’t respect “sunset” provisions and simply votes to perpetuate them.

To our founders, who were focused on Liberty, creating a union of states was the most important aspect to ensuring that Liberty would prosper. They knew they could not plow new fields overnight and if they tried to change the world in one move, the union would never have a chance, and Liberty would not have its way in all the states. They understood the fundamental aspect of Liberty, that if the focus of a society is on Liberty, that Liberty will be contagious. People who observe others enjoying Liberty will always want to enjoy it for themselves. Our government was established as a Republic so once that desire for Liberty began to spread, a minority group could have a society-changing voice. Our founders deliberately did not establish a democracy, because in that form of government, the majority would always choke to death the desire for Liberty of a minority. Yet another point that Mrs. Ginsberg might be wise to share with Egypt instead of encouraging them to strive “to achieve a general democracy…”

The dichotomy of her praise and criticism of our founders and our Constitution shows that she is greatly misinformed of both. The fact that she would lift up the European Union’s Human Rights statement should greatly concern us. But the finality of her statement to a newly forming nation, that they should NOT look to the wisdom of our founders and use our Constitution as a guide gives us the greatest insight into what she believes about the founding of our nation and the supreme law of the land.

I have begun to understand that those in our government repeatedly take oaths that they do not understand do not actually believe. Taking an oath and not understanding what that oath means, is the equivalent of taking no oath at all. Mrs. Ginsberg is a great example. Here is the oath every Supreme Court Justice takes:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

According to an online dictionary the word “support” means to keep from weakening or failing, to strengthen. Synonyms for this word are uphold, back, advocate, champion. According to the same online dictionary the word “defend” means to keep safe from danger, attack, or harm, to ward off an attack. It seems to me, that putting down our Constitution and lifting up others above it is a very strange way to keep it from weakening, to advocate for it, and to ward off attacks against it. This justice, whose entire job depends upon the definition of words, seems to have forgotten the meaning of these vital words. Mrs. Ginsburg might do well to pick up a dictionary and put down her distorted Constitutional law books.

Mrs. Ginsburg did make one statement that was right on. When asked her ideas on how to draft a constitution, her reply should cause every patriot to sit up and take notice.

“A Constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom if the people don’t care, then the best Constitution in the world won’t make any difference, so spirit of liberty must be in the population.”

Bravo, Mrs. Ginsburg, you have the fundamental foundation for being a patriot. Now, put down your law books, put down your revisionist history, set aside your agendas and REALLY “learn and listen” to the men you called genius. Learn WHY they were able to pledge their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor so ages and millions yet unborn could live in the greatest nation on the planet protected by the greatest human rights statements ever drafted. You may just then begin to understand the pledge you took, and the principles embodied in the document you are supposed to support and defend. You will then be qualified to maintain that seat on the Supreme Court. May I be so bold as to suggest a really great book for you to get started? Not A Living Breathing Document, Reclaiming Our Constitution.

Expatriation – No Citizenship, No Constitutional Rights

January 10, 2012/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, again, here comes another dangerous tool aimed at avoiding Constitutional restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism. It is clear that our Congressmen believe that the pesky Constitution severely limits them in their noble efforts to keep us poor defenseless little citizens safe. Members of Congress vehemently defended their vote for NDAA by stating that US Citizens were specifically excluded from detention under the counterterrorism provisions. Although we know that to be doubtful, Senators Joe Liebermann and Scott Brown along with Representatives Charles Dent, Jason Altmire, Robert Latta and Frank Wolf are working to make that defense irrelevant – eliminate the person’s citizenship and he HAS no Constitutional rights – problem solved. These men have submitted for review S. 1698 and H.R. 3166, bills that will be better known as the Enemy Expatriation Act.

Interesting how the words of our founders still come back to haunt us. In the Letter from a Federal Farmer 8, the author warns us that:

Men may always be too cautious to commit alarming and glaring iniquities; but they, as well as systems, are liable to be corrupted by slow degrees.

That is exactly what has happened. The elimination of Constitutional rights of US Citizens are being eroded by slow degrees. Consider the following:

Immediately after 9/11, Congress passes the Patriot Act, legislation that in part allows the FBI to conduct warrantless searches and seize people and property without probable cause and without judicial review.

Next we have Janet Napolitano issuing in an OFFICIAL REPORT of the Department of Homeland Security stating that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion, along with others who hold conservative American values are the real potential terrorists.

Recently, in April of 2011, the Government Accountability office reported that State Department and DHS officials could not agree on “what degree of ‘association’ with a terrorist is sufficient to render an applicant ineligible for a visa.” Through this report we know that our US Visa offices are and have been granting legal resident status to citizens who have documented terrorist affiliation. We also know that these legal residents have been granted full citizenship in spite of their documented terrorist affiliation. Case in point; consider Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber, who was granted a student visa and then full citizenship all the while being on a terrorist watch list. Because of Faisal Shahzad’s terrorist attack on America, Eric Holder went on a campaign, not to fix our immigration system or to limit the real terrorists, but to declare that OUR Constitutional rights should be “more flexible” so we can combat terrorism.

Every move that has been taken by this government moves us closer and closer to the death of the Constitution in the name of combating terrorism.

Next, the National Defense Authorization Act declares an indefinite worldwide war on terrorism and makes provision for the indefinite detention of those whom the government labels terrorists, or belligerents, or hostiles, or…?

Congressman after Congressman has declared that these sections EXCLUDE US Citizens. They ignore section 4 that authorizes open and unchecked waivers of any established limitations. They claim that the language of this Act, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” gives that exclusion, even though telling a government agency they are not required to do something is not the same as prohibiting them from doing it. Not even close. We have declared open and undefined war on the nebulous enemy – “terrorism”, and we have given the President the ability to detain US Citizens indefinitely. Never fear, while admitting that NDAA grants such authority, the current President has promised he will not use that power.

Obama will never have to keep that promise if the Enemy Expatriation Act passes, since this act will strip US Citizens of their citizenship for simply being suspected of association with terrorist activity.

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes guidelines of how a citizen can “lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”. The act then proceeds to list seven ways someone can relinquish their citizenship, among those acts is treason. The Enemy Expatriation Act adds an additional criteria, language straight out of those troublingly worded sections of NDAA that we were told were not aimed at US Citizens. According to Senator Leibermann and others, citizens both by birth and naturalization do not deserve their citizenship if they are suspected of:

engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.

We should be asking ourselves, why do we need this language in addition to the crime of treason already listed as a way to lose citizenship. The key may lie in the definition of treason in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist of only levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving Aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution and the provisions in the Immigration act both require a conviction of treason in court. The standard of engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting, as stated in the Enemy Expatriation Act contains no requirement for CONVICTION of these activities. The Patriot Act allows the government to build their suspicion upon information obtained using warrantless searches. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have made it clear who they think the enemy is and that they believe these “enemies” deserve no Constitutional rights. But I guarantee, those in favor of the Enemy Expatriation Act will claim that they have now defined “hostilities” and this will protect those citizens who have “nothing to hide”. The act declares “hostilities” for THIS SECTION means, any conflict subject to the laws of war. This does not define “hostilities” for any other document in effect. We must remember NDAA has declared open and continual war on terrorism. This “limitation” is no limitation at all.

Do not be fooled. Arm yourself with the truth!

Will a Spineless Congress Allow More Obama Lawlessness?

January 4, 2012/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

About six months ago I gave REAL reasons why Obama should be impeached. Now as part of President Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, this lawless tyrant is intent upon completely overturning one of the most fundamental characteristics of our Republic; Separation of Powers. The checks and balances in the American system were instituted for the express purpose of combating the rise of a tyrannical and oppressive government.

Nonetheless, on December 31, 2011 Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary said, “the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better,” But, he added, “that’s no longer a requirement.” The president did not waste any time in thumbing his nose at the rule of law. Just today, the President announced the “recess appointment” for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations board. So what is the problem? Congress is NOT IN RECESS. The President has made a complete end run of Congress and has violated his limitations in Separation of Powers. But what is the big deal about Separation of Powers?

James Madison points out in Federalist 47 that,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Our founders spent a great deal of time discussing separation of powers and believed that such separation was essential to the protection of our liberty. The discussion of the time was not whether these branches SHOULD be separate, but to WHAT DEGREE they should be separate; the founders knowing, as Madison points out, that a separation of the three branches of government was necessary to preserve Liberty. They all agreed that the accumulation of all powers by one person or a single group of people is the very definition of tyranny. “Where the accumulation of power is possible, no further argument is necessary” to support a division and separation of those powers. Madison declares: “…by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. “

Our Founders also believed that a certain amount “blending” of these departments was necessary to prevent one Branch from usurping power over the other. This blending is what we know as checks and balances. Madison understood that simply enumerating powers and identifying boundaries on paper would be an insufficient barrier “to the encroaching spirit of power.” Liberty cannot be preserved unless you allow for departmental oversight. Madison made this point very clear:

”But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

The abuses of this President definitely need to be controlled. The absolute amazing thing about this entire scenario is that a President was IMPEACHED for the very thing that our current lawless Executive is doing. On March 3, 1867 Congress enacted the Tenure of Office Act over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The Tenure of Office Act was designed to prevent the President from removing any office holder appointed by a past president without the advice and consent of the Senate. Johnson did not acknowledge this limitation and publicly declared the 39th Congress was not a Congress at all. He then removed the then Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton from office and appointed Ulysses S. Grant in his place. On February 24, 1868 the House of Representatives brought 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson according to article 2 of the Constitution. Ten of these articles were dedicated to Johnson’s ignoring this Separation of Powers. Johnson was successfully impeached by the House, but was acquitted after trial. Although several Governors had been impeached in the colonies, this was the first sitting president to be impeached. Most impeachments have occurred due to the executive branch ignoring its limitations through separation of powers.

In this case, unlike today, Congress fulfilled their responsibility in the “checks and balance” aspect of the Separation of Power and impeached Johnson. Our founders knew that these checks and balances MUST be utilized to prevent the natural course of men who wish to be tyrants. Madison explains:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

If such strong checks were and are necessary to resist the tyranny of men, then why are these checks not being employed? History and experience prove not only that Obama’s attempts to completely destroy liberty must be stopped, but that Congress has the ability to stop him. What has happened to the integrity and resolve of the men and women we have elected to protect Liberty? I believe much of it has to do with a complete ignorance of history and a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. The House of Representatives, by their complete inaction, will allow another dangerous precedent to eat away at America’s Constitutional foundations. The House must begin the impeachment process and end this unconstitutional usurpation by the executive branch, TODAY. We cannot allow this tyranny to continue. Congress must know if they will not stand for Liberty, WE WILL. Just a reminder, Congress, YOU WORK FOR US. Your job obligations and responsibilities are clearly identified in the law, in the Constitution and in the “operator’s manual” written by those who wrote the Constitution. If you don’t understand them, I am more than happy to come and teach you. But do hear us, Congress… Do your job or be fired!

Step up and defend Liberty.

The Inalienable Right to Life

January 4, 2012/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

It seems to be growing increasingly popular to use the 10^th Amendment to justify carte blanche legislative authority within the states. Even some Presidential candidates have implied that because of the 10^th Amendment, states can “pass whatever laws they want.” Recently, others have said that if a state wants to legalize abortion, the 10^th Amendment gives the state the power to do so. I would like to assert that some issues cannot be legislated by the states and in particular abortion is NOT a state’s rights issue, and here’s why:

We cannot fully understand the 10^th Amendment until we understand of the 9^th Amendment as well. The 9^th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And to understand the 9^th Amendment we must understand the debate that produced it. The debate was over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton was not in favor of incorporating the Bill of Rights. As he states in Federalist 84,

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (emphasis added)

It was Hamilton’s belief that the Constitution was very clear as to the limitation of powers for the Federal Government. His greatest fear was that by incorporating a “list” of rights, it would provide those in power the opportunity to spread tyranny and liberty through interpretation and regulation.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights. (emphasis added)

In other words he is saying that those in power would see the enumerated list of rights as areas that the branches of government must define and regulate – else why would they be listed?

In the end James Madison felt he had the solution to this problem.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (Emphasis added)

Madison, when speaking of the “last clause of the fourth resolution,” was referring to what we now know as the 9^th Amendment. He was telling all of those who were not comfortable in ratifying Bills of Rights, that the 9^th Amendment would solve all those problems. Madison believed that specifically stating that the Bills of Rights do not in any way give the government more power than was already given and reaffirming that these rights belong to the PEOPLE and not the government, would create a barrier of protection against encroachment of these important rights belonging to the people.

The key to the 10^th Amendment is understanding that our Founders went out of their way to make sure it was abundantly clear that the Rights enumerated belong to the PEOPLE and not to the Government – neither state nor federal. So when the 10^th Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, our founders were NOT creating three separate seats of power in the United States: the Feds, the States, and the People. They were saying, in conjunction with the 9^th Amendment, hey United States, hey States, these rights belong to the PEOPLE through the States. The founders never intended for the States to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the Federal government of the United States to disparage them.

Our Founders never intended to invest in the states the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance, otherwise the Second Amendment would not say,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If a state could have power to eliminate the right of its citizens to bear arms, the objective of maintaining a free state would be defeated and that state would become a tyrant over its people. Our founders never intended for the States to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, right to religious liberty, or takes someone’s person, property or life without due process, else the states again, would be the tyrant over its people. While there are many things, in fact most things, that the States should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away.

Life is not something that should be legislated away. Life is an inalienable right. That this right begins at conception is a biological fact. This fact was not “overturned” by science in Roe v. Wade, but by manipulation of facts through law. If real science had been used and not legal manipulation, denying life in the womb at conception would have failed. The argument of viability, as established by Roe, is based upon the argument that if you remove the fetus from the womb at a certain point, that fetus (or if you prefer those cells) would die and therefore was not alive and not a person. Logically speaking, by admitting that this life will die implies that it was alive at some point. Using this same logic to determine that life never existed does not hold up in science either. There are many single celled organisms that will only survive on a particular growth medium. You will be hard pressed to find a microbiologist tell you that these organisms were never alive, because they failed to live outside their nutrient rich medium. Additionally, by the very definition of abortion, you must admit life exists at the time of abortion. You cannot abort an action that has never begun. Therefore, Roe is not only unconstitutional, but logically and scientifically unsound. Even the judge in Roe admitted if it would be established in court that life began at an earlier stage, this life would have rights. This error is not a matter of science, but a matter of incompetent legal argument.

Finally, to use the 10^th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of life is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both very clear as to the founder’s understanding of the right to Life. If we do not have life, we have neither Liberty, nor an opportunity to pursue happiness. In fact, our founders repeatedly declared that they were pledging life, fortune and sacred honor for “ages and millions yet unborn.” Abortion is not a state issue as assigned by the 10th Amendment, nor is it a “social” issue not to be discussed; it is that very matter of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness upon which our Constitution is based. A state cannot adopt laws to eliminate free speech and cannot pass laws to legalize murder and the 10th Amendment cannot be used to justify abortion. To claim to be a Constitutionalist and say the 10th Amendment permits a state to legalize abortion is to misunderstand the Constitution and the 10^th Amendment itself.

Some would use the same Constitutional argument against the death penalty. Just like abortion, one may be morally opposed to the death penalty, but there is a difference in these two issues from a Constitutional perspective. You have the ability to forfeit your Liberty, through the application of due process, by committing a capital offense. Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.

We must remember that Liberty is not only freedom, but freedom fettered by morality. Some “social” issues that touch on morality are a matter of Constitutional relevance, and are essential to maintaining Liberty. Sadly, we live in a society that increasingly believes, as Suhas Sreedhar, 26, an engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan who states in a USA Today article, “God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function.” You do, however, need to have an opinion of these things to maintain Liberty.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson.

Ignorant Judges are Lethal to Liberty

December 28, 2011/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

It seems that every week there is some new attack on Liberty. Last month, it was the US Navy trying to remove Religious Liberty in the name of “Separation of Church and State.” Last week it was our Congress, removing the right of trial and habeas corpus from US Citizens. I attribute this to the dismal state of our education system. We the people are so very ignorant of not only what our Liberties are, but of their source and value. Ask someone to tell you the five specific protections that exist in the First Amendment and you might hear one or two, followed by a blank stare and silence. Those that hate the fact that Liberty is an inherent possession of the people and want Liberty to be something the government gives to the “worthy” have really taken advantage of this gross negligence. If we do not know, if we do not understand what our Liberties are, how do we recognize when they are under attack?

Our legal education system is no better. Rulings that fly in the face of our founders’ intent illustrate the shaky foundation given to our lawyers and judges. In a recent example a US District Judge, Marco A. Hernandez, has taken it upon himself to decide who has the right to freedom of the press and its protections and who does not. This judge has done so by determining that a blogger, who has over 400 blogsites that publish her work, cannot possibly fall under the title of journalist. After all, we all know that the only people that are journalists are those represented in the White House Press Corp or paid by top media corporations. We definitely cannot accept someone who considers themselves a “blogger” and only prints on the internet as a REAL Journalist!

That is exactly how this federal judge has ruled. Oregon statute reads:

“[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by . . . a judicial officer . . . to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise . . . [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public”

“Medium of communication” is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

However, this judge has claimed that this woman is not a journalist because she:

“fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system”

I am amazed at the focus of this Judge. He has taken the examples in the statute as the litmus test for determining media, completely ignoring the very plain statements “any medium of communication to the public” and “not limited to”. Any other time, a judge would be using this language to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink. This stinks of motive. But the Judge is not finished with his definition of media. He claims in order for Ms. Cox to be “media” she must show…

“evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.”

This time, however, the Judge uses no statute, no legal source to develop this further definition. This is apparently something he has come up with all on his own. I wonder if many in mainstream media could hold up under this standard. I know for fact that today’s “journalists” fail in at least 5 out of 7 of these benchmarks. I mean really, when was the last time you heard this level of journalism from any US mainstream media? Because Ms. Cox does not fit this Judge’s internal definition of media, she is therefore not afforded the same protections as a paid member of the mainstream media due her under Oregon statute.

Would our founders, so vital to the very establishment of Liberty, have qualified as journalists under these standards? What about the Committees of Correspondence founded by the likes of Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, and James Otis, Jr.? These committees were dedicated to the purpose of providing the colonists with the truth about the activity of the British Government. Many colonists were tired of the propaganda and false reports coming from the King, Parliament, and their dedicated media and wanted to know the truth. The committees of correspondence provided this truth. They also became the Sons of Liberty and sparked a revolution.

I’m sure Thomas Paine would’ve landed on this federal judge’s chopping block, as well. After all, he was not paid by any media corporation and was definitely not approved by the crown for his Common Sense publications. We cannot forget about Mercy Otis Warren, who through her prolific writings of articles and plays encouraged a nation to stand against tyranny. Once again, I doubt if she would have been considered a “journalist” under this judge’s guidelines; she had no education in journalism, she was not employed by a major media outlet, and she certainly didn’t interview “the other side” to get both sides of the story. She didn’t have to, she was living it.

But how did our founders intend to handle this “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press”? The best argument I can offer is that of Alexander Hamilton’s as he states in Federalist Papers 84.

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton argued with the likes of James Madison and Richard Henry Lee that an incorporation of the Bill of Rights would be a danger to the very liberty that they hoped to protect. He believed to his core that if the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the Constitution, that it would provide to those who wanted to control Liberty the very excuse to do so through definition and regulation.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted… I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton actually uses the illustration of the freedom of press. He reasonably argues that there is no need to insert a protection of freedom of press, because the federal government had been given no power to interfere with this Liberty. Hamilton knew, as Madison points out in Fed 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.” Madison continues to specifically list those powers as “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Hamilton pointed out that regulation of freedom of press, or any of the proposed rights, was not part of the powers given to the federal government so they would have no right to attempt to regulate it.

Hamilton’s greatest fear was that by attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, evil men who wanted to control Liberty would then claim a right to regulate Liberty. Here we are, fulfilling Hamilton’s greatest fear, coincidentally using his very illustration.

Our Constitution and our Liberty is in peril because our legal professionals have no idea the history behind our Constitution and the reasoning our founders put into its provisions. Our lawyers and judges cannot honestly honor their oath to the Constitution, because they have no true understanding of its meaning. They cannot do as John Adams commanded, “have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it”, and ensure a “free republican government” when they are ignorant of the founder’s intent.

We the people must fill this void. We must become the ones educated enough to make that conscientious determination to support the Constitution. Reading it is not enough. Knowing case law is not enough. Just as any legally binding contract, we must understand what the parties intended the obligations and limitations of government to be. Otherwise we just end up pooling our ignorance. In this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is the death of Liberty.

Yes Patriot, There is Hope for America – Merry Christmas

December 22, 2011/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy this year in the fight to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. As we enter into this Christmas season with many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered, let us be reminded of a hope rooted firmly in the American experience.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could have the greatest nation the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with a courage and a hope that would build the greatest nation in the world. Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

Patrick Henry had more than knowledge of history. Patrick Henry knew their victory was guaranteed not only by the lamp of experience, but also because they served a “just God who presides over the destinies of nations” and when standing for Liberty, a gift from God, they could not fail.

He declared,

“We are three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Benjamin Franklin reiterated this understanding to our founders when he proclaimed:

“In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor…and have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Though we may become reacquainted with the history that provides us with a guaranteed victory when we choose to stand for Liberty, we are still wanting until we reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that Liberty. Thomas Jefferson warned,

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty.

There is a story told of Daniel Webster – one of the greatest orators of our time – on his death bed, being ministered to by his dearest friend and physician. When his friend realized he could no longer minister to Daniel’s physical needs, he began ministering to his spiritual needs. He read to Daniel his favorite hymns. He read, “There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Emmanuel’s veins…” and when Daniel’s friend read the last verse to this hymn “Then in a nobler sweeter song, I’ll sing thy power to save, when this poor lisping stammering tongue lies silent in the grave” one of the greatest orators the world has ever known uttered his final three words, “Amen, Amen, Amen.” Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

This is not the darkest hour of our nation by far. We still live in the greatest nation in the world. A nation built upon the principles of Liberty. The principles that cry all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. A nation where all men have equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other nation can make that claim. No other people have that birth right. But with that gift comes great responsibility to secure that Liberty for generations to come. We cannot lose hope. We cannot let Liberty slip. Because, it is not our hope, it is not our Liberty, it is the hope and Liberty of ages and millions yet unborn. We must reacquaint ourselves with the lamp of experience that gives us the courage to see a guaranteed victory. But we must also reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that gift of Liberty and the provider of the hope of victory.

In one of the darkest moments of our history, a story is told of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Henry’s wife had been tragically and fatally burned in June of 1861. Henry, himself, was badly burned trying to put out the fire that consumed his beloved wife. He was so consumed by grief over the loss of his wife, at Christmas he wrote in his journal, “How inexpressibly sad are all holidays.” One year later, Henry wrote, “A merry Christmas’ say the children, but that is no more for me.” That following year, Henry learns that his oldest son was severely wounded in the Civil War after a bullet passed under his should blades damaging his spine. His journal was blank on Christmas on 1864. However, on Christmas day, 1865, Henry penned the words to “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”. During one of the darkest times our nation has ever known, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow found his hope;

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

“There is no peace on earth,” I said;

“For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,

The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Henry awoke from his despair and realized that God is not dead and is still the Giver of peace and hope. He knew that God promises victory to those who trust in Christ and will stand for God’s gifts. He was able to express that hope in the phrase, “God is not dead; nor does he sleep! The Wrong shall fail; the Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men!” That same promise belongs to us, the greatest nation this world has ever known. We simply must place our trust in the right place. Now that’s some hope and change I can rely on!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Predator Drone Used in Arrest of Farmer

December 12, 2011/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

I have voiced my firm opposition to SB1867 because of its potential use against US citizens, I have been called an extremist, a chicken little, etc. Now multiple News sites have reported an incident that made my hair stand on end. In June of this year, a predator drone was used by local law enforcement to facilitate the arrest of a North Dakota Family.

RT reports: “This is the first time in American history that an unmanned aircraft has been used to assist police in making an arrest on US soil.” As if to assure the reader that this isn’t a misprint, the report continues with “By “drone” we do mean military reconnaissance and assault flying machine used by the US Army (sic) and the CIA, mostly abroad…To be precise, this is the same Predator drone that the US Army (sic) uses in military missions across Afghanistan, Pakistan and any other theater…”

Local law enforcement using a military drone – is this some military sci-fi novel we’re reading? Nope. Apparently DHS has been using these drones in the states for YEARS, yet this story was noticeably absent from American media sources at the time of the arrests. Sadly many people still have faith in the American media, especially if the source purports to align with their own political views. Here’s how it went:

The local Sheriff, Kelly Janke, ran into some trouble while looking for some wandering cows, six cows to be exact. Fortunately for the local sheriff, the Predator drone was returning to Grand Forks Air Base from a mission on the US/Canada border and had some fuel left, so what the hey, let’s send it to North Dakota to look for some cows. Really?

According to local reports, these cows were not alleged to be stolen, they had wandered onto the Brossart farm. According to certain local reports, Mr. Brossart believed these animals to be unclaimed and, in accordance with certain open range laws, the cattle belonged to him. When questioned in court, he answered repeatedly, that the cattle were “his property.” Because of this property dispute, legally speaking, this is now a civil matter. Yet, the Sheriff’s office served a criminal warrant to look for these cows.

When Mr. Brossart refused to honor the warrant, he was tazed and placed into custody. Mr. Brossart was not armed. Mr. Brossart’s sons also refused to honor the warrant, and told law enforcement officers to get off the property. Initial reports say the boys had long guns, and later reports claim high powered rifles. This all resulted in a standoff where no shots were fired and no one was harmed.

Now, as a former prosecutor, who has a deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement and the dangers they face, I understand the problem with people brandishing guns in the presence of officers. But it appears to me that the situation was incited by criminalizing a civil dispute. This was reasonably a civil dispute over livestock ownership which would require a review by a judge and full hearing involving all parties before property is taken. But here is the really disturbing part. The next morning, a tip to law enforcement told officers that the boys were out on tractors harvesting and were not armed. Did the officers now come to the property and attempt to serve this warrant peaceably? No, they responded with MASSIVE force.

“Next thing they knew – a mini army and a Predator B drone have been called in. State Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulance, deputy sheriffs from three other counties and a drone arrived at the scene, reports the Los Angeles Times.”

I have been involved with law enforcement as a prosecutor for nearly nine years. NEVER did I see such a display of force over a civil dispute involving “stray cows”. And what did this assault team find? Exactly what they were told, boys harvesting and no weapons and…

“A search of the property turned up four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows and a samurai sword, according to court records. Police also found the six missing cows, valued at $6,000.”

There you have it, a small Army called out to subdue cattle rustlers who have four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows, and a samurai sword on their 3,000-acre farm. Huh? All this over cows?

And now “the rest of the story.” Apparently, the residents of this farm are members of the Sovereign Citizens Movement, a so-called “anti-government group which the FBI considers extremist and violent,” according to the LA Times article. The primary reason for this is that Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen. However, don’t forget who else DHS considers potential terrorists. Remember the report that claims veterans returning from Iraq and those who are against abortion are also “potentially violent terrorist?” Here is an excerpt:

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely…It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.”

Take some time and read what the ADL says about the Sovereign Citizens. If you refer to yourself as a Constitutionalist, you might be a terrorist. If you believe that government governs best when it governs closest to home, you might be a terrorist. If you take issue with the 16^th or 17^th amendments, the Federal Reserve, Fiat money, or you believe in the Gold Standard, you might be a terrorist.

Just a week ago the crafters of the SB1867 said they could not conceive of the extraordinary powers given to DHS being used against US citizens; it only applies to “terrorists.” Now we have military drones being employed in the US in police actions against citizens. Really? How inconceivable is it for US citizens to be subjected to the extraordinary powers outlined in SB1867? I believe the purpose of SB1867 is to manipulate the people into giving permission for this abuse of power in the name of security; in the name of fighting terrorism. Are we to believe that they didn’t have this in mind when they wrote that bill?

I am reminded of a similar ploy advanced by King George III against our founders. In his defense of the British Colonies, in the name of National Security, George deployed British troops in the colonies to enforce his laws. In order to properly facilitate this military action, George and parliament passed the Quartering Act.

Whereas there may be occasion for marching and quartering of regiments and companies of his Majesty’s forces in several parts of his Majesty’s dominions in America: and whereas the publick houses and barracks, in his Majesty’s dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces…

Understand that George already had the troops in route. He already KNEW there would not be sufficient barracks to house them. There was no question in George’s mind what his intentions were, what resources were needed, and how he was to obtain them. But he could get the people and parliament to agree to this violation of our founders’ rights by softening the language and dealing with a “potential” danger. This is the same disingenuous tactic our Congress has used to perpetrate the gutting of our Bill of Rights and the destruction of our Constitution in SB1867. So, this is only for terrorists? Again, I ask you, WHO IS THE TERRORIST?

So what do we get? Not what Congress said we would get. Not the near impossibility of using this type of military force against US Citizens, but the first use of military predator drones on US Soil based upon a civil dispute over the ownership of cows. NOT against one of the many known al-Queda terrorist camps located here in the United States.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84, quoting Justice Blackstone, gave us this very sober warning:

“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.

This is EXACTLY what SB1867 does. Why are we so deaf to the cries of our founding fathers? Why are we like the spoiled teenager who believes he is immortal and our fathers are simple old fools who have no idea the problems we face today? They had a deep wisdom, based upon centuries of human nature and experience. We must recognize that human nature does not change; there is nothing new under the sun.

George Washington is quoted to have said: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

This parallels Patrick Henry’s warning: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

Now do you see why Americans are so concerned over SB1867? The 93 Senators that voted in favor of this atrocity are participating in the destruction of our Constitution and it apparently doesn’t bother them any more than it bothers the rest of America.

SB1867 Revisited (NDAA)

December 7, 2011/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

On December 1, 2011 I published an article that gave a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). There seems to be quite a bit of controversy on this matter. Some feel that the citizens who are concerned with their liberty should be dismissed as alarmist, “Chicken Littles.”

Additionally, I recently discovered congressional aides are telling people there are no worries about NDAA because Mrs. Feinstein’s Amendment, SA1456, saves the day. No, it does not. SA1456 is more political maneuvering that is full of empty language that has no real effect what-so-ever. The language states:

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

With the “Chicken Littles” and Mrs. Feinstein in mind, I would like to address just a few more points on this issue and then I am done with this subject. I am confident I have done my part to educate on the truth. Unlike the popular media today, I do not feel it is my responsibility to force anyone into my opinion. What you do with the truth, is up to you. I do feel that given what we know from history, both ancient and recent, there is cause for concern.

First, the mere fact that the provisions in question are stuffed inside a must-pass bill like NDAA, instead of standing muster on their own, is worthy of great suspicion. Take into account that every time these provisions have been presented independently, Congress has consistently denied them; case in point, “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”.

Secondly, these bills are written by lawyers, men and women who are trained to be wordsmiths. They are trained to use just the right words to ensure that the desired effect is unavoidable. Many attorneys (including this one) have concluded that the language in these sections is not direct and clear enough to exclude US citizens. The natural conclusion is that the drafters did not want to exclude US Citizens. First of all, Constitutional rights are not granted to non-citizens. So, why the legislative gymnastics to declare that fact? If the bill is aimed at non-citizen terrorists, then the legislative gymnastics are unnecessary. The proponents of this bill argue that these sections specifically limit actions of the government to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists involved in 9/11, that Section 1032 does not cover US citizens, and that section 1032(b)(1) specifically excludes US citizens. As an attorney, I contend that if the drafters really WANTED to exclude US Citizens, they would have used language that is common to similar legislative acts.

Here is what I mean: In section 1032(b)(1) of the NDAA, the language specifically says that, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2) establishes an exemption from prosecution for employment discrimination violations if the circumstances are based in religious governance. The language specifically states, “it shall not be an unlawful employment practice…” and then goes on to list the organizations that are exempt from the provisions of this federal law. Florida’s statute § 1002.20(3)(b), defining K-12 student and parent rights regarding immunizations states, “The parent of any child attending a public or private school shall be exempt from the school immunization requirements upon meeting any of the exemptions in accordance with the provisions of s. 1003.22(5). These provisions are very clear that these laws shall not apply to these specific segments of the population. They do not say they are not required, they say they SHALL NOT or SHALL BE EXEMPT. And neither does SA1456.

Finally, we cannot lose sight of the real issue. The federal government can never have the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of US Citizens without due process, because the government is not the source of those rights. All other argument against or for these provisions become irrelevant when there is even a possibility of US Citizens having their Constitutional rights suspended either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the federal government.

One prominent “journalist,” attempting to refute the criticisms of concerned citizens, said that “The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. It endows Americans with protections against U.S.-government overreach.” In fact, the Constitution doesn’tendow citizens with anything. The founders in the Declaration of Independence clearly state that these inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator and in the words of Patrick Henry “the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect US Citizens from an unlawful and arbitrary government. This bill clearly leans in the opposite direction and this is something every citizen should be concerned about.