Listen as we show you how both Ginsburg and Obama lie about the Constitution. You will also see how democrats actually hate immigrants, so they are lying, too.
Article referenced in the show: http://bit.ly/OligarchyThieves
Alternatively you can listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Daily Journal on YouTube
Liberty First University is a unique education in the history and application of the Constitution of the United States. So often our history classes start teaching the Constitution with the history of 1776 or even later. The foundation of our Constitution goes deeper than that. Without examining the context that gave America its principles and its founding documents, we cannot understand the true nature of Liberty, the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.
For over seven years we have been traveling and teaching across America; averaging 260 classes in over 22 States every year. Everywhere we went, people wanted more. Liberty First University provides more education to more people than we could ever deliver in person. These classes are perfect for individuals, groups, K-12 and college classrooms, churches, and anywhere else people who are hungry for knowledge and for Liberty gather.
You have to go to a high cost college to get this stupid. Those educated idiots are also ignoring the many instances of hypocrisy of left ideology, including the REAL story of Russian Collusion.
“Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world.” Thomas Paine, Crisis #1
Alternatively you can listen to this edition of The KrisAnne Hall Daily Journal on YouTube
This is a guest article by our dear friend Victor Sperandeo. Mr. Sperandeo was a 2008 inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and has been included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters. Mr. Sperandeo was featured in the best-selling, The New Market Wizards: Conversations with America’s Top Traders, by
Is it possible for politicians to get over their Trump Hate and get to the real issues? What should we really be looking for from Helsinki? Local law enforcement and the Constitution… Where are we today? These issues and more with Fact not Fake. Truth not Propaganda. Principle not Party. The way NEWS ought to be!
Read the Article referenced in the show: http://bit.ly/GunsLightning
Alternatively you can listen to the KrisAnne Hall Daily Journal on You Tube
This is a guest article by our dear friend Victor Sperandeo. Mr. Sperandeo was a 2008 inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and has been included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters. Mr. Sperandeo was featured in the best-selling, The New Market Wizards: Conversations with America’s Top Traders, by Jack D. Schwager and Super Traders: Secrets and Successes of Wall Street’s Best and Brightest, by Alan Rubenfeld, has been profiled twice in Barron’s, The Wall Street Journal and Stocks & Commodities, and has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox and other networks.
I hope you enjoy this article as much as I did. ~ KrisAnne Hall
It’s Impossible to Outlaw “Crazy” — the Government Has a Better Chance of Implementing Laws to Reduce Being Struck by Lightning
by Victor Sperandeo
The outcry that takes place whenever a “Mass Shooting” occurs, especially in a “school”, is certainly deserved. However, politicians thinking that “laws” will curb these events is mindless and statistically impossible. Certainly, lessening these occurrences in schools is possible, and should be done. Visit any government building for effective tactics to accomplish this, as they have virtually zero incidence of shootings.
Moreover, some historical facts should be considered. The largest number of deaths both at a school and away from a school, were from a bomb, not a semi-automatic gun. Most of us remember Timothy McVeigh killing 168 (wounding 680) people in Oklahoma in 1995, but almost no one remembers the “Bath Michigan School” bombing of 1927. It killed 44 (38 elementary school children) and injured 58 other people. This was the largest mass murder of school children in US history! The bomber, Andrew Kehoe, did this because he was fired, lost an election, and had his taxes raised. He also killed himself, and his wife. Most (72%) of these mass killings end in suicides. Wouldn’t we all classify him as “crazy”?
The “free press” doesn’t use statistics to tell a historical story, but to promote an agenda such as gun confiscation. Using statistics in a misleading manner is pure propaganda. Manipulating statistics to seize free people’s guns has NOTHING to do with stopping gun violence. See the article by the Daily Caller as an example “EXPOSED: Obama Advisors’ Emails In Immediate Sandy Hook Aftermath Reveal Anti-Gun Agenda: ‘Tap Peoples Emotions’ – “Go for a vote this week asap before it fades. Tap peoples [sic] emotion. Make it simple – assault weapons.”
Furthermore, CNN published a story by Saeed Ahmed and Christina Walker on 5/18/18 called “There has been on average one school shooting every week this year.” To fabricate these “school SHOOTINGS” statistics, the writers counted a BB Gun shooting, and an accidental discharge of a gun during a safety class. These incidents and other far-reaching examples attempt to mislead the reader to think it’s a “mass shooting.”
Let’s review the real stats on “Mass Shootings” over a long period. Mother Jones has an excellent data base of mass shootings from 1982 to date: “US Mass Shootings, 1982-2018: Data from Mother Jones Investigation.” A “mass shooting” is an incident in which a random shooter targets people in general and where three or more people die by firearm related violence. According to this progressive leftwing organization, from 1982 to May 18, 2018 (or 35.75 years), the total of such incidences is 99. This comes to 2.77 mass shootings per year on average.
With this understanding, what are the odds of this event? Today’s population (according to the US Census Bureau) is reported to be 326,766,748. Let’s adjust this number for people between ages 15- 64, who are most likely to be involved in a mass shooting, or 207 million people. The conservative “average population” that might commit a mass shooting from 1982-2018 is approximately 160 million per year in age group 15-64. The occurrences number 0.0000006% or six one-hundred thousands of one-percent, (99 incidences divided by 160 million). The only conclusion is that these 99 people can be deemed as having suffered from a psychosis manifested in a wild or aggressive way. Synonyms for psychosis are: mad, insane, out of one’s mind, deranged, demented, not in one’s right mind, crazed, lunatic, non-compos mentis, unhinged, i.e. crazy. Indeed, it is reported 72% of them committed or wanted/tried to commit suicide. In a population of people this large, certainly some very small fraction of people, suffer from psychosis, or crazy, while some are altruistic geniuses.
This statistic shows that the number is so small, you can’t legislate against it to eliminate crazy people. When you have a large population, the very few who want to do harm, “gun control laws” are impossible, as these people will always find a way to accomplish what is driving them, whether it is with guns, knives, trucks, bombs, etc.
It would be more effective to create a law against lightning deaths, as the odds of getting struck by and dying from lightning are much higher! So, in this case (20 years) 1,020 deaths divided by an average of 250,000,000 people is only seven ten-thousands of one percent. In the last 20 years, the average deaths annually from lightning numbers 51 according to The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). More people of all ages can go outside and can be stuck by lightning, than are likely to be a mass shooter.
Therefore, if those in government made a law that no one can be outside while it was raining, punishable by a fine or jail, far more people would be happy to comply, and the number of lightning deaths would decline. But not for mass shootings. Fines or jail don’t bother people who generally intend to commit murder, and who then are highly likely to kill themselves or die in jail.
With a population of 327 million people, no law can stop 3-11 crazy people from doing evil each year. Also note, as the population grows, mass shootings will slightly increase. This point is known by the Statists, who desire to rule over other people. Historically, as one can see, this is the true point of gun control; to rule by force without the people’s ability to fight back, and ultimately not preventing what is impossible to prevent.
If one wishes to see the proof, read Mao’s, and other dictators’ views on gun confiscation: “Every Communist must grasp the truth – Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (Mao). This is a slogan popular among Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.
Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms.”
Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
Benito Mussolini: “First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.”
Vladimir Lenin: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
Fidel Castro: moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power. He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists – compiled by the preceding Batista regime – to confiscate the people’s firearms. Different tactics, same objective. A defenseless people don’t give the all-wise leader any lip.
Hugo Chavez’ government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians. Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition. 6/1/12 But Karl Marx, who actually wanted a revolution, said, “the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
However, in contrast, George Washington believed: “A free people ought to be armed.” Indeed, the words in the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated “militia”, (which means ALL THE PEOPLE, as permanent standing armies were not allowed See Article1, Section 8, Subclause 12 – 16: To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions) being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the RIGHT (NOT PRIVILEGE) of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Emphasis added).
With the fact that 3 people (or perhaps as a high 11) in a year, who would be certainly deemed crazy, out of 250,000 million adults today, does it seem reasonable to effectively attempt to overturn the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, or a Natural, (most would say God-given) Right? These are events that are unpredictable, but statistically inevitable. As for laws against “crazy” i.e. a psychopath – see the quote of Adolf Eichmann and see if a law would have changed his mind: “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.” This is the mindset the Government is using to take a Free People’s guns to stop a mass murderer!
In light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the left hasn’t changed its playbook. So, it is no surprise to hear claims that appointing an “Original Intent” Justice will bring back Jim Crow and chattel slavery. A reasonable look
at history (which is not to be expected from the left) should give rise to the opposite conclusion. A SCOTUS Justice who follows original intent should be viewed as a safeguard against a racist court. IF you will read to the end you will understand what I mean.
The infamous case of Scott v. US (The Dred Scott Decision) was NOT an example of Original Intent but of judicial activism. In Scott v. US the Supreme court through a series of historical errors, ignorance and racist reasoning wrongly declared that the Constitution never intended to make black men citizens and therefore intended for them to be property. They ignored the history of freed blacks in America, ignored the drafters’ own words, and inserted meaning into the Constitution’s text that could not be found in its plain reading.
The court’s judicial summary of the Dred Scott case is rich with historical revision and falsehoods and demonstrates the court’s venture outside of the text. The court claimed, “The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.” Of course, there are no clauses in the Constitution that identify the “African race,” this was read INTO the text by the racist court. The clauses in question reference persons who are “other than” freeperson and a “Person held to Service or Labour.” This could equally apply to the over 300,000 English, Irish, and Scottish slaves brought to the American colonies between 1618 to 1775. Yet, we do not hear the racist Dred Scott Court or any other person for that matter attempting to argue that an Irishman, Scotsman, or poor white English slave would not be a citizen if freed; that their children if born free would not be citizens.
Looking at the modern trends we can actually see a hope for tomorrow. The distinctions are growing, choices are being made. The wheat will be sifted, but we should know Liberty always prevails.
Article referenced in The KrisAnne Hall Show http://bit.ly/InalienableRight2Life
Alternatively you can listen to this edition of the KrisAnne Hall Daily Journal on YouTube
Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences
In a case titled NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, the supreme Court is asked to opine on whether Beccera’s injunction to stop enforcement of California’s FACT Act should be granted or not. California’s FACT Act requires pro-life clinics to inform their clients on how and where to get abortions. This government forced message, Beccera claims, is unquestionably contrary to their practices and beliefs and is therefore a violation of their freedom of speech. The supreme Court rightly agrees with Beccera and grants the injunction and sends the case to the lower courts to finish its legal process.
This is a victory for freedom of speech and also for the unborn’s right to life. However, it may have some unintended consequences for pro-life supporters. Justice Clarence Thomas writes in the majority opinion:
“Content-based regulations “target speech based on its communicative content.” As a general matter, such laws “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”
Thomas remarks that California’s licensed notice is a content-based regulation of speech. Since this particular notice is forced upon clinics like Beccera’s, who are morally opposed to abortion, this particular notice only serves to “alte[r] the content of [their] speech.”
Justice Breyer, writing for the dissent, claims that the government has traditionally held the power to regulate speech through professional licensing and this case should be no different. However, Justice Thomas reasons that speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals” therefore the California law cannot force pro-life clinics to include government scripted instructions about abortion. Justice Breyer remarks in the dissent that this opinion, depending upon how it is applied, could have widespread ramifications on many laws currently in place requiring certain businesses to supply clients with government scripted notices. This point made by Breyer is where pro-life advocates may find that they have won this case, only to lose another.
Many States have laws on the books that require abortion clinics, both public and private, to provide brochures on alternatives to abortion. Many States have laws forcing these abortion clinics to provide ultra-sound services along with instruction about the developmental stages of the baby in the womb. These are also government scripted notices forced upon these clinics contrary to their practices and beliefs. If these abortion clinics were to challenge these laws forcing the pro-life message, under this precedent the high Court would also have to overturn those pro-life message laws.
This judicial tit for tat is what happens when people use the force of government to promote personal messages. As Thomas so clearly points out in the majority opinion, the pro-abortion proponents could easily inform the women about its services “without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,” most obviously through a public-information campaigns. To be consistent in their opinions, the majority would have to say the same thing about government forced pro-life practices and messages. This means that both parties will have to use non-governmental methods to inform the public about their services rather than relying on the force of government to promote their message.
The irony is that the supreme Court seems unanimous to a certain degree that freedom of speech deserves the highest level of protection, however, the life of an unborn child does not.