Are our Rights inherently ours or do we possess them at the permission of government. How we answer important questions about local government will tell us the answer to this very important question.
Alternatively you can listen to “Do We Possess Rights or have Privileges?” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube
What is the 6th Amendment? Why is it important? How is it being destroyed right in front of our eyes? Let’s get educated!
Alternatively you can listen to this edition of the “KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube
History provides us with a valuable gauge to know how much tyranny has beset a nation and just how comfortable people are in their servitude. Are Americans immune to such maladies today? History proves the answer to that question to be a resounding “No.” Let us take a snapshot from history, however, and you can make the decision on your own.
The Boston Tea Party sparked a chain of events that would alter the face of the world forever. The British government had to act quickly and decisively to put an end to the uprisings in Boston. Parliament passed a series of acts, one which closed the port of Boston on 1 June 1774. Two additional acts, what we know as the Intolerable Acts, would be next. These three acts, together with the Quebec Act and the Quartering Act, are all together known as the “Coercive Acts.”
The driving force for the Coercive Acts, was another piece of legislation called the “Declaratory Act,” passed March 18 1766 which stated that Parliament “had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” The British government had declared itself to be all powerful, and outside any criticism, punishable by a charge of treason and death. To put that in perspective, the government declared itself the power to make and enforce any law, and then wrote laws that gave the government the authority to enforce laws with armed force. This did not go well with the colonists.
In May of 1774 General Thomas Gage was appointed military Royal Governor over Massachusetts. Gage would become very aggressive in the efforts to control the colonist and subdue their “seditious” behavior. He was going to enforce the “Coercive Acts” upon the colonists whether they liked it or not.
Gage passed laws that forbade any town meetings without his approval and would only legally allow one town meeting a year. At one point he sent troops to disband and eliminate a crowd that had gathered in Salem, Massachusetts. The people, outraged at the display of force, responded by gathering over 3,000 armed colonists, causing Gage’s men to retreat. This would not be the end of Gage’s tyranny.
Gage was told by the King to get the colonists under control. But Gage did not have the force necessary to control the colonists, because the colonists outnumbered Gage’s troops and out-armed them, as well. Gage had the solution to his problem; take control of the gun powder and ammunition.
Early morning on September 1, 1774, Gage’s troops would seize hundreds of barrels of gun powder from the Charleston powder house. The colonists did not take this show of force lightly. By the end of the day over 20,000 armed colonists, aged 16 to 60, began to march their way to Boston. The colonists were sending a message, if the government was going to use the force of government to take their arms and powder, the colonist would take that to be an act of war! The colonists were now going to “ready themselves”.
Just five days after Gage’s act of war against the colonists, the militia of Worchester County took over their government from the rule of the King. Replacing all leaders appointed by the king with those selected by the people.
The same day in Suffolk County, the people gathered together, issued a list of nineteen grievances against the government, and then promptly took all control of the militia away from the Governor and vowed to have open arms training every single day. The First Continental Congress unanimously endorsed the Suffolk grievances and encouraged all other colonies to send aid to those in Boston.
Remember, only five days have passed since Governor Gage took the gun powder from one city in Massachusetts.
In response to the colonists stand against the government, Governor Gage ordered his men to conduct warrantless searches on the colonists seizing their arms and ammunition.
Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America ordered Gage to disarm the people. Gage told Dartmouth that it would not be possible to control the colonists without force. Dartmouth then sent a letter to George III asking to have all import of weapons and ammunition to the colonies stopped. George fulfilled this request by requiring a permit for all exports of arms and ammunition from Great Britain and then refused to issue those permits.
The Boston Committee of Correspondence received information that the government was getting ready to seize all the ammunition, arms, and cannons from fort William and Mary, and the militia was able to take possession of these items before the government.
Parliament was getting really concerned. The reports they were receiving relayed that there were three million colonists, all armed and ready to defend themselves. They were certain that they did not have sufficient government force to subdue such numbers.
On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry gave his famous “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech. Following that speech a committee was formed that issued the Resolutions of the Provincial Congress of Virginia. The Resolution read:
“Resolved, that a well-regulated militia composed of gentlemen and yeomen is the natural strength and only security of a free government, that such a militia in this colony would forever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defence, any standing army of mercenary forces, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support.…
…Resolved therefore, that this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence: and that Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Carter Nicholas, Benjamin Harrison, Lemuel Riddick, George Washington, Adam Stephen, Andrew Lewis, William Christian, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Zane, Esquires, be a committee to prepare a plan for the embodying arming and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose.”
General Gage had another plan, however. In the early morning of April 19, 1775, he would send out regiments of British soldiers to Lexington to capture Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to seize gunpowder. But spies and friends of the colonists leaked word of Gage’s plan and the colonists were waiting. The rest, as we say, is history.
Although the people of Boston would not “win” this battle, the die was cast, the seed of Liberty had been sown and there was no turning back.
February 14, 1776 Thomas Paine would publish “Common Sense”. In this pivotal pamphlet, Paine references that day in April:
“No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.”
Reconciliation with the king was no longer an option. Independence was their only solution. The people KNEW that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of Liberty. They KNEW that if the government could disarm them, they would be like every other nation in Europe, subjects and slaves. They KNEW that independence from this tyranny was the ONLY way to ensure Liberty.
And what sparked this whole course of events?
One Governor took the arms and ammunition from one city in Massachusetts!
By the way, you can also hear and share the podcast where I talk about this subject here:
AND if you want to set your liberal friends straight check out one of these:
2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants
If you want to throw down the gauntlet against tyranny. If you want to help others understand the beauty, power and majesty of liberty then it is incumbent on you to know as much as you can about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now, amazingly when I do my workshops one of the questions I ask people is if they can enumerate the five liberties which are secured by the 1st amendment. Amazingly enough a majority of people struggle with this question. So if you want to further the cause then you must empower yourself and others by knowing your rights. And…………dare I say that the more you know your rights, and the more you know about the Constitution the less likely you’re going to allow those who want to take your liberties from getting away with it.
ALERT: The Disclose Act (s. 3369) has been resurrected and it will further destroy the remnants of our 1st Amendment and diminish the power of our grassroots groups!
It is always shocking to me that those we elect are absolutely clueless to the true government that they were elected to support and defend. Day in and day out we hear our representatives refer to our government as a “democracy.” Our founders did not establish a democracy, they established a republic. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a women referred to as Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia, “Well, Doctor, what have we, a republic or a monarchy?” It is said that Dr. Franklin, without hesitation, said, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.” Here we are 225 years later and our own representatives do not know the correct answer to this question.
And here we are, once again, with the resurrection of the Disclose Act of 2012, and its title tells us all we need to know to want to bury this tyranny in the ground once and for all. In his limited wisdom, Sheldon Whitehouse, along with his 28 co-sponsors believe that this government is a democracy and have short titled the Disclose Act, ‘‘Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012.’’ Yes, Mr. Whitehouse I am sure that Democracy is strengthened, but what about a republic? Since our government is a Constitutional Republic, built upon the inalienable rights of the people protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the answer to that question is a resounding NO!
Here is the nuts and bolts of the unconstitutionality of the disclose act. First, in true tyrannical form, the language in this act is so vague and overbroad that it is difficult to actually determine who is required to comply and who is not. Take, for example, the definition of “political committee” that already exists in 2 USC 441-subchapter I – Disclosure of Federal Campaigns:
(4) The term “political committee” means – (A) any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year; or
Does that include your grassroots group? How about this wonderful definition of a campaign contribution included in this already existing act?
(8)(A) The term “contribution” includes – (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or (emphasis added)
What about this acts definition of “federal election activity?”
(A) In general. – The term “Federal election activity” means – (iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate);
Has YOUR grassroots engaged in activity that is governed by the Federal Election’s Commission? How could you possibly know? So, how could the Disclose Act make this any worse? Well, it does, and here is how.
First, the Disclose Act expands the definition of “Electioneering Communication”. The original act allows the FEC to label a communication “electioneering” only within the window of “60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate.” The Disclose Act would expand that limitation in the case of the non-Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate to beginning on January 1 of the calendar year in which a general or runoff election is held and ending on the date of the general or runoff election. Making any communication made 11 months prior to the general election subject to be defined as “federal election activity.” In the case of the President and Vice-President, this period is extended to “the period beginning 120 days before the first primary election, caucus, or preference election held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party.” That means that all communications by an eligible group that are made over 1 year before the presidential election can be vaguely defined as “federal election activity.” This is an unprecedented expansion of the federal government over free speech!
This however, is not the end of this Act’s assault on liberty. Not only will our groups be required to report activity over a year before a presidential election, but our groups will be required to disclose its membership rolls to the FEC. This new act requires that any group making an aggregate donation within this period must disclose:
(i) the name and address of each person who made such payment during the period covered by the statement; (ii) the date and amount of such payment; and (iii) the aggregate amount of all such payments made by the person during the period beginning on the first day of the election reporting cycle and ending on the disclosure date.
The proponents of this legislation will tell you that it only affects the rich or the major corporations because disclosure must only be made with an aggregate donation of $10,000. But watch out. We must remember the vague language and keep in mind the chilling effect this will have on those willing to participate in our grassroots groups. Remember your group qualifies for FEC supervision according to section (4) if its members give more than $1,000 per YEAR. How will the FEC define that term in section 8(A), anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election? And we cannot forget that the legislators love to insert “boilerplate” provisions to cover any opportunity they have missed, and the Disclose Act is no exception. The FEC will be permitted to request “(G) Such other information as required in rules established by the Commission to promote the purposes of this section.” That means that the FEC can pass a RULE that will expand this law outside the constitutionally established procedures requiring Congressional approval. This is the very epitome of an executive agency being given legislative law making power and robs the people of their elective voice.
I am once again reminded of the warnings of our founders. Alexander Hamilton warned us in Federalist Paper #84, that by enumerating certain rights in the Bill of Rights it would actually INVITE government intrusion upon these rights. Hamilton knew that our federal government was delegated very LIMITED POWERS, and those powers did not include the right to govern our speech. He reasoned that if we tell the federal government what they cannot do, rather than simply telling them what they can do, it would lead to the ultimate usurpation of those rights:
“[Men disposed to usurp] 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.”
We now have a government full of men disposed to usurp the liberties of our people. The Disclose Act is just another manifestation of the doctrine of constructive powers used as a tool to destroy our Constitutionally protected rights. It does not deal with the real issue of corporate corruption. This Act will turn every statement made in the public forum into a potential campaign contribution. So if your group stands against something the incumbent is doing, you have potentially made a campaign contribution to his opponent. And make no mistake, those who have the “government agenda” in mind will continue to get receive the golden “presidential waiver.” I am sure that the “wrong-stream” media, who continue to funnel billions of free add campaigns to their “favorites” will NEVER be held accountable!
The Disclose Act does what it says it will do, promote democracy and defeat the republic our founders established. It will silence the minority in favor of the majority. It will allow the federal government to define political speech and penalize it with massive government regulations.
CONTACT YOUR SENATOR NOW AND DEMAND THE DEFEAT OF THE DISCLOSE ACT.