Our government is traveling down a very dangerous road.  We have neglected our duties as responsible employers and we are about to pay a dear price.  We must arm ourselves with the truth to educate our employees and assist them in doing the right thing.  The following is an open letter to our Senators and Representatives to educate them in this "gun debate" and allow them to make the right decisions.  By giving this information, we not only educate them, but we identify which employees are willing to do the right and which are not.  If we do not educate, they can claim ignorance.  If we provide them with the proper tools and they refuse to use them and continue to destroy our Constitution, we must mark them as enemies and eliminate their ability to do further destruction.

Please assist me in educating our Senators.  Please share this letter.  Send it to them multiple times, so to be sure they KNOW we are serious. 

Thank you,

In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

Dear Senator,

Today, as you begin to debate so-called “gun legislation” please consider the following four points:

1.      The nature of this legislation.  This is NOT “gun legislation” this is 2^nd Amendment legislation.  Our right to bear arms is a RIGHT given to us by God, not a privilege granted through legislation.  It is not something that is up for legislative control.  Would we so easily accept “religion legislation”?

2.       The sanctity of the 2^nd Amendment. 

What does the phrase “shall not be infringed mean?”   The words are not complicated, they are not elusive.  In the legal world, when a judge sees the words “shall not” there is no discussion to be had.  It means, literally ‘SHALL NOT,’ completely disallowed, impermissible.  It should mean the same to Congress.   Noah Webster defined the word “infringed” as “to break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey.” The right to bears arms shall not be broken, shall not be violated, shall not be transgressed.  The 2^nd amendment shall be fulfilled, shall be obeyed.  That is a very clear boundary, not mutable in any way.  You don’t need to fully eradicate something for it to be violated or transgressed.  Simply placing a hand on something can violate the sanctity of that object.    Therefore, the only correct answer to the question, “what does ‘shall not be infringed’ mean?” is as follows:     The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be touched!

3.       The purpose of the 2^nd amendment. 

by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com

Congress has possibly the lowest approval rating in history, even lower than possibly the worst President in history.  Perhaps it is because of the apparent disconnect from reality that becomes obvious when listening to some of them.  In a recent email to one of my radio show listeners, Marco Rubio, a Senator who is alleged to really “get it” and is a "rising star" in the GOP, made the following statement:

“I take my role as a U.S. Senator very seriously and I will continue to provide important oversight of these government agencies. Should anyone attempt to restrict our freedom or liberty, I will hold them accountable. Furthermore, I will continue to support and defend the principles and liberties in the U.S. Constitution.”

by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com

Thomas Paine wrote on December 23, 1776, “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.”  Our founders stood against taxes and government mandated purchases.  The colonists demanded that the British Government recognize that their Constitutions did not authorize this type of government control.  As a result, the British Government repealed several laws, to include the Stamp Act. This might be a happy ending except the government was not willing to let go of this power; they were simply appeasing the people.  The government did recognize the Constitution did not authorize their exercise of power, so they remedied that “oversight” by passing a law called the Declaratory Act. 

The Declaratory Act was a legislative act that declared the government “has, 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.”  In addition to expanding the powers of the government, this act stated that all “resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations” that even questioned the government’s authority are “declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.”  The government now only needed to prove that the each law was “fit for the good of the empire” to justify its mandates.   Thomas Paine and his fellow countrymen recognized that when the government declares for itself unlimited power, there is no limit on the intrusion into and control over the lives of the citizenry. 

by KrisAnne Hall-  www.KrisAnneHall.com

Immigration reform seems to be one of the go-to plays for politicians seeking votes these days. Everyone trots out some plan to integrate illegal immigrants into the tax system in a program that would eventually lead to the possibility of citizenship.  It is hard to see how this is any kind of solution to real problems. Think about this logically…currently illegal immigrants are working in the United States…they are getting paid in cash…they are getting free schooling, sometimes even to the college level…they are getting free medical care…they are getting food stamps, all WITHOUT paying any taxes.  WHY would they volunteer for a program that will force them to pay taxes for a benefit that they already receive?  WHAT is the actual incentive of citizenship?  I know the government has a warped sense of reality, but they can’t actually believe being forced to pay taxes is a BENEFIT!  The catchphrase today is “get them to come out of the shadows.”  What shadows?  They are breaking numerous laws IN BROAD DAYLIGHT! Not only that, sweeping immigration reform is not simply about the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce…it is about ALL illegal immigrants, from all over the globe, to include potential terrorists!

The fact is, we don’t simply need immigration REFORM; we need immigration ENFORCEMENT!    I thought the President wanted us to be more “like Spain, Italy, and Greece”?  What other nation gives a free pass to illegal immigration?  Try to sneak into any other country in the world and live there while breaking the law and see what they do to you…deportation will be a blessing.  Why is it only in America that we solve a criminal problem by making the laws conform to the criminals?  If this is the solution to criminal activity, since we can’t possibly stop people from stealing, why don’t we eliminate the laws that criminalize theft?  The government’s solution to gun crimes was MORE LAWS, why is the solution to illegal immigration ignoring the law?  Oh, that’s right, the Supreme Court declared that there is nothing illegal about being in this country illegally.  Of course, you have to go to law school to get that stupid!

Dear Sen. David C. Long,

My name is KrisAnne Hall.  I am a Constitutional attorney, author, and educator. I am writing to you at the request of your constituents.

I have reviewed your letter January 31, 2013 in opposition to SB 230 and its efforts to nullify Obamacare.  I understand your position regarding Article 5 conventions.  However, nullification is not unconstitutional and nullification and Article 5 conventions are not mutually exclusive.

The drafters of our Constitution felt the most powerful check on the usurpation of power by the federal government rested with the States.  James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, called it “interposition” and declared that “…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…” (Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison).   For the central government to claim a right to determine the Constitutionality of its own actions and to assert powers not delegated denies the very nature of our Republic and makes the Constitutional restraints enacted by our founders null and void. 

You shouldn’t take my word for it, please read and hear the words of the men who wrote the Constitution…

by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com

In a recent State of the Union Address Obama invoked the name of JFK, in an apparent attempt to link himself to the Democrat President.  I assume by making a reference to a President respected by many, particularly by Democrats, Obama hopes to place himself on that same plane of adoration.  But how similar are these two Presidents?  There may be some similarities, but there are also very distinct differences.

Obama began his recent address with the following statement:

Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this Chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress…It is my task” he said, “to report the State of the Union--- to improve it is the task of us all.”

Obama’s use of this statement is interesting in what it omits.  Here is Kennedy’s original statement:

“Members of the Congress, the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress. We are all the trustees for the American people, custodians of the American heritage.  It is my task to report the State of the Union---to improve it is the task of us all.” JFK Jan 11, 1962

The word “trustees” describes a government hired by the people as agents of the people, subservient to the people.  Obama strides as a colossus above the people and where he cannot find willing submission to his desires, he unilaterally enforces his will over the people. “Custodians” would suggest a duty to preserve our Constitutional heritage, not fundamentally transform the foundations of the Republic. Obama thinks, as Chris Rock proclaimed that he is the “boss” of the people, our “dad of the country” and if Obama decides that we no longer need portions of our Constitution, we should bow to his will. Obama despises the Constitution and the limitations it places upon his monarchy and his statements are full of contradictions and deception.  This statement, taken from his State of the Union, is a perfect example.

 The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem.

That may be true of the American people, but Obama doesn’t really believe that, and his own words give him away.  In this same speech, Obama directly contradicts himself so many times it makes me wonder how he ever choked out the original assertion.  Everything in the speech was about what the government will and must do to solve all of our problems, including the assertion that private industry is so incapable of doing anything that it must have government as its partner.  Sadly, we know that many in private business are only happy to take tax-payer dollars while they line their own pockets.  Government subsidizing private enterprise only engenders waste and corruption, and the end goal is power, not progress.