Direct Taxation, Part 2

Article 1 section 2 clause 3 establishes that all taxation must be collected by direct apportionment to the States through a census of the population.

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers… The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

This section of the Constitution secured to the people the ultimate power and protection against an unlimited central government by putting the States in control of the federal purse through the consent of the people.  Government is easier controlled at the local level.  James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, reminded the Constitutional delegates in 1788, the power of the purse is historically the “most effectual” and complete power of the people to control government.  Therefore, keeping that essential power at the State level gave the people greater control to prevent misappropriation of funds on the federal level.

“This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure… finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government.” Fed #58

Thanks to a bipartisan move, endorsed and encouraged by two Republican Presidents and Republican Congressmen, this essential check and balance was stripped from the people, creating an uncontrollable central government limited only by its own whims and desires.

The history of our independence from Great Britain proves this essential truth; taxation was to be left to the control of the people.  Our founders saw the power to tax as a direct and unlimited power to oppress.

“But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands?  Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves…are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”  Samuel Adams May 15, 1764

Adams knew an axiomatic truth:  if the central government could assume the power to lay taxes on whatever they choose, they would soon over take the common Rights of the people, thus creating an unlimited government, and subjecting the people to complete despotism.  The designers of our Constitutional Republic wanted to ensure that this history would not repeat in the new, independent America.   They knew that if the central government could take money directly from our pockets, not only would we have no immediate recourse but it would be theft.  Therefore it is ridiculous to even assert that our founders would have endorsed or even tolerated our current form of income tax.

“I think the Parliament of Great Britain hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money…”  George Washington

It is only through this direct theft that our current government has been able to grow exponentially.  If the people were still in control of taxation through the protective mechanism of apportionment to the States there would be no funding for the multitude of federal offices that plague the Liberties of the People.  The States would naturally refuse to supply the federal government with the money demanded for services that are not authorized by the Constitution.  This was to serve as the ultimate check and balance on federal power.

“when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another…If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron…” Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson also knew the power to control the purse of government was an essential Right of the people and continually asserted that a refusal to pay taxes was not treason or sedition but a mechanism of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

“That this privilege of giving or of withholding our monies, is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative, which if left altogether without control, may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shews how efficacious is its intercession from redress of grievances, and re-establishment of rights, and how improvident it would be to part with so powerful a mediator.”  Thomas Jefferson to Lord North 1775

Since we have failed to teach the facts that led to our independence from Great Britain, the American people have been brainwashed into believing that income tax is actually “fair” when the complete opposite is true.  It is because of the established income tax and the inability of the people to remove their consent to spending that we have the overgrowth in government that we have.  James Madison has explained that this power in the hands of the people is to ultimately and “finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government.” Fed #58

Our designers of our Constitutional Republic were no strangers to government overgrowth, the Declaration of Independence lists government overgrowth as a symptom of “complete despotism.”

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

It is absurd to assert that these people would seek to remedy a problem that required the most drastic measure of separation from their government by creating the opportunity for their newly designed government to exercise a power they deemed despotic!

Read Direct Taxation Part 1 Here

The 77 Year Old Navy Veteran a Pond and the EPA

Let’s revisit the story of 77 year old Navy veteran Joseph Robertson and the pond he built and the tyranny he has had to defend himself against.

You can get an update about Joe from Redoubt News at the following link. Wouldn’t it be splendid if everyone reading and/or listening would contact their representative and soon to be President Trump and encourage a full out pardon.

Alternative you can listen to this edition of the “KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

NDAA 2017 – Shame on Congress

A most important broadcast for all liberty loving people concerned about freedom of speech and the 2017 version of the NDAA.

Reference these resources,

Here’s the link to the NDAA from the Armed Services Committee

Alternatively you can listen to “NDAA 2017″ by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

Direct Taxation

Abraham Lincoln Direct TaxationDuring the “Civil War,” politicians figured out a whole new source of revenue…the individual American income.  If they could pull it off, it would invariably be the most consistent revenue stream the American government had ever experienced.  All that was needed was to convince the people that this “inconvenience” was not only necessary, but limited and temporary to meet an immediate need.  Enacted in 1862, this income tax was collected with the consent of the people to fund the War, was limited by income, assessed upon those who made $600 or more a year, and would expire after a set period.

But as we have learned, a power once assumed by government is never temporary and will always increase exponentially.  In 1894 Senator John Sherman, a Republican from Ohio, argued that this “temporary” tax should be made permanent.  He argued that the mechanism of consumption taxes were not “fair” and that the burden of the debt should not rest equally upon the poor, but upon those who can afford the burden.

“A few years of further experience will convince the body of our people that a system of national taxes which rests the whole burden of taxation on consumption, and not one cent on property or income, is intrinsically unjust. . . . [T]he consumption of the rich does not bear the same relation to the consumption of the poor as the income of the one does to the wages of the other.”

The Civil War Tax would expire in 1870 as planned, but subsequent economic challenges would resurrect the drive to create a permanent income tax solution.  The People’s Party would bring the discussion back into the public arena, but it would be the Republican Party, through Presidents Roosevelt and Taft and several key Congressmen who would give this unconstitutional measure its life, with bipartisan support by the Democrat party.

In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt stated that a “graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the supreme court will declare constitutional.”  Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, also appeared to accept the constitutionality and desirability, at least in emergencies, of an income tax. In accepting the Republican nomination in 1908, Taft said, “I believe that an income tax, when the protective system of customs and the internal revenue tax shall not furnish enough for governmental needs, can and should be devised which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, will conform to the Constitution.”

Furthermore, many Republicans had come to Congress willing to join with Democrats and any remaining Populists to push for an income tax.  Even the Republicans were trashing the consumption tax as “unfair” and pushing for a more “balanced” approach to taxation that put the burden of taxation on those who could “afford it.”

Sen. Cummins, a Republican from Iowa said, “[A]n income tax, levied upon those who ought to bear the burdens of government, . . . will meet even that principle more perfectly than to levy duties upon things that the people must use, and impose the weight of government only by the rule of consumption.”

The question remained, would there be a tax by legislation or a tax by Constitutional Amendment?   In a full on bipartisan push for income tax, Senators Joseph W. Bailey of Texas, a Democrat, and Albert B. Cummins of Iowa, a Republican, both introduced legislation to add an income tax provision, modeled on the 1894 statute, to a tariff bill.  The supreme Court would be an insurmountable obstacle to this measure as this court had repeatedly deemed direct income tax by legislation to be unconstitutional.

President Taft weighed in with support for a constitutional amendment, stressing, among other things, the desirability of “stability of judicial construction of the Constitution.  Instrumental in the push for a Constitutional Amendment was Republican Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. Senator Brown would bring in greater support for the Amendment by proposing the following Amendment language: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes and inheritances.”  Although many did not like the proposal it gave a starting point for real discussion.  The final push for support would come on June 16 when President Taft gave support to a constitutional amendment. The next day, June 17, with the president now on the side of a constitutional amendment, Senator Brown tried again, proposing the following language: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.”  The joint resolution containing the Amendment passed unanimously in the Senate (77- 0), and in the House a week later, after about four hours’ debate, by a vote of 318 to 14.

Let us be reminded that the initial arguments of war time necessity and temporary implementation are completely out the door.  These politicians, both Republican and Democrat, had now devised a way to direct tax the people, contrary to Article 1 section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution.  They have nullified the Constitution and ignored the supreme Court opinions declaring such acts as unconstitutional.  With no “emergency” need and no way of ending this intrusion, the only the justification behind the actions of these legislators that remains is the desire to permanently enrich the government in a way that our founders concluded to be complete despotism.

Read Part 2 of Direct Taxation and learn the intent of the founders established within the Constitution:

Liberty Goes Global

Broadcasting from the boat in Haiti, KrisAnne is joined by her son Colton and together talk about the trip to Haiti and of course liberty.

Alternatively you can listen to the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

Congress Seeks To Establish Ministry of Truth!


UPDATE:  Although we were able to defeat this piece of legislation the first time around, Thornberry and his co-sponsors were able to sneak it through in the next session and The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was signed into law.  The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance, the consequence of inattention is tyranny.  ~ KrisAnne


Once again, the National Defense Authorization Act is used as a Trojan horse to unload  a dangerous threat on America.  This time it is offered up in an amendment sponsored by Representative Thornberry from Texas and its called Dissemination of Information Abroad.  This bill has also been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as a separate bill titled HR 5736, The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This bill will overturn a prohibition that has been in place since 1948 and make it possible for the US Government to fund the dissemination of propaganda to influence American citizens.

Immediately, the question comes up, why should we care?  Isn’t domestic propaganda something that this administration has been engaging since 2008? Would any of us disagree that the mainstream media is a tool of this administration?  Read on and see just why there should be national outrage over this bill.

Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information through an executive order with the purpose of influencing American public opinion toward supporting the US involvement in World War I. The man appointed to be the chairman over this committee was George Creel, a well renowned investigative journalist and editor of the Rocky Mountain News.

In 1942, FDR established the United States Office of War Information by executive order to “truthfully inform” the American people about the government’s efforts in World War II.  FDR appointed Elmer Davis, a well-known CBS News analyst, as director of OWI.  Davis’ job was to coordinate information from the military and mobilize public support of the war.  OWI was to create an avenue for the government to develop and disseminate the information that they believed people needed to know about the war.

“Our job at home is to give the American people the fullest possible understanding of what this war is about …not only to tell the American people how the war is going, but where it is going and where it came from.” Elmer Davis. AP/Wide World

In 1946 Rep. Sol Bloom (D-NY) introduced a bill that would grant the Secretary of State the power to give monetary, service, or property grants to nonprofit public and private corporations to prepare and disseminate informational materials.  Although this act was intended to disseminate information abroad, there were no limitations to keep it from being used upon the American people and opposition began to form.  After having lived through two regimes of government propaganda and having seen the effects of such government propaganda machines as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Congress decided this was not something they wanted to engage in.

An AP Press Release stated “government cannot engage in news casting without creating the fear of propaganda which necessarily would reflect the objectivity of the news services from which such news casts are prepared.”

The Bloom Bill passed the house, but failed in the Senate.  In 1948, the Smith-Mundt Act was passed with three key limitations on the government.  The first and most well-known restriction was originally a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department.  This restriction has been supported by the courts even in the face of freedom of information act challenges.  In November 1996 the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the material under the Smith-Mundt Act is not to be available, applying the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 3 to block access.

The Smith-Mundt Act is now found in 22 USC 1461-1a titled, Ban on domestic activities by United States Information Agency. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is set to change all of that.  This act does several very destructive things.  First, it puts the President’s Board of Broadcasting Governors on the same level of authority as the Secretary of State.  The Board of Broadcasting Governors is an independent government agency whose members are appointed by the President and whose sole function is to create American propaganda and disseminate this propaganda abroad.

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 created a limitation for propaganda to be released in the United States. If such propaganda was requested, the information could not be released until 12 years after its publication. This was an additional protection established so that this government created information could not be used to influence current public opinion.  Thornberry’s HR 5736, The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, would preserve that 12 year limitation for all propaganda created prior to the adoption of this act but would remove the limitation for everything created after.  Therefore, you have to wait 12 years to obtain propaganda created in 2010, but propaganda created in 2013 would be immediately available for dissemination domestically.

Finally, although I am sure supporters of this legislation will attempt to tell you that this act has protections built in to prevent the use of propaganda to influence Americans; make no mistake this act fails to ensure that result.  It is true the Act maintains the original prohibition for domestic use.

(a) In General- No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, in accordance with other applicable law.

However, this new Act adds new language that completely nullifies that prohibition through a couple rather clever loopholes. 

The original Act does not include “program material” in the list of items that must be provided. This is how the courts could decide that the propaganda material was covered under the Freedom Information Act’s section 3 limitations.  The addition of “program material” will now require the actual propaganda to be available through a FOIA request.

As if that was not bad enough, the new Act adds a section “b” that will create the most effective loophole to nullify the prohibition in section (a).

(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.

Section (b) tells the Secretary of State and the Board of Broadcasting Governors that they do not have to worry about the limitation of section (a).  They are to go about business as usual in spite of the fact that this information will be immediately available for domestic distribution.  This creates a loophole the size of the Grand Canyon for these agencies to create propaganda that they know will be distributed domestically and will be used to influence Americans.

So, why should we care? We should care, because this crime against the American people is not being perpetrated by a Socialist President through executive order.  It is CONGRESS authorizing this manipulation.  It is coming from alleged CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN. This act will not only legitimize the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but will allow Congress to FUND IT with TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

Are you Tyrannized Enough Already?  CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN NOW.

KrisAnne's Travelogue to Haiti

We are currently in Haiti. We traveled by sail boat with a somewhat unexpected stop in Cuba. Today we want to share some of the trials and tribulations of our sojourn and Haiti Mission.

Alternatively you can listen to the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube

The Biggest Attack on Liberty

Truth over your favorite personality! Our obsession with cult of personality keeps us distracted and prevents us from being rightly focused on the principles of liberty and makes us susceptible to slavery. Time to wake up.

Alternatively you can listen to “The Biggest Attack on Liberty” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

The FBI, Your Children & Propaganda

The FBI has developed an online course for kids to teach them how to identify extremist groups. This website reminds me of a Russian program in the 1930’s lauding a boy named Pavlick Morozov.

Alternatively you can listen to the KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube