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
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.
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.
Safeguard for the Supreme Court
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
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.
Again, the racist court (not the Constitution) falsely claims; “A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” This lie is then expanded by Justice Daniel in his concurrence when he says, “Now the following are truths which a knowledge of the history of the world, and particularly of that of our own country, compels us to know — that the African negro race never have been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations;”
This of course runs contrary to the fact that Great Britain treated freed black men as citizens. In 1653, one of the first legal cases brought before the British courts regarding the permanent institution of slavery, was brought by a black man named Anthony Johnson, who was a citizen, property-owner and slave-owner claiming his slaves were not indentured but permanent property. Prior to this case most slaves were indentured and could complete their term of service or purchase their own freedom, making them freemen and citizens. The scourge of chattel slavery spread rapidly after this decision and Afrocentric slavery grew to be the central character of this diabolical trade.
Yet there were many freed slaves who were treated as citizens in the American States during and after our war for independence. These men and women fought for our independence, they owned property, they created businesses and charitable organizations, they were considered valuable members of society. Look to the history of Crispus Attucks, George Middleton, Lemuel Hayes, or James Forten to name just a few. You have to wonder why those who want to celebrate Black Heritage refuse to acknowledge those freed black men and women who helped fight for and found this nation.
In the modern wave of racial division under the guise of defending equality, it is conveniently ignored that most of the State representatives in Convention opposed the continuance of the slavery. A small number of slave states, capitalizing on the founders’ fears of not building a strong Union to withstand future assaults by Great Britain, bullied the convention. They forced the Convention into compromising on the slavery issue – deciding to sunset slavery instead of end it immediately. Far from celebrating this compromise, many founders like James Madison regretted that they did not face the situation and end it then and there.
In 1787 George Mason, aka the Father of the Bill of Rights suggested that
“This infernal traffic originated in the avarice (greed) of British Merchants. The British Government constantly checked attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it.”
This notion was not an isolated view as evidenced by the Massachusetts judge in the Quock Walker Case of 1773 referring to the alleged slave laws,
“that they had been considered by some of the Provinces [to be] laws as actually existing among us, but nowhere do we find it expressly established. It was a usage¾a usage which took its origins from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations for the benefit of trade of the British government respecting its then colonies. But whatever usages formerly prevailed or slid in upon us by the example of others on the subject, they can no longer exist.”
The racist court in Dred Scott could have easily referred to the Quock Walker judge’s more accurate assessment:
“And these sentiments led the framers of our constitution of government13 ¾ by which the people of this commonwealth [Mass.] have solemnly bound themselves to each other ¾ to declare ¾ that all men are born free and equal, and that every subject [person] is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws as well as his life and property. In short, without resorting to implication in constructing [analyzing] the constitution, slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence. The court are therefore fully of the opinion that perpetual servitude can no longer be tolerated in our government, and that liberty can only be forfeited by some criminal conduct or relinquished by personal consent or contract.
Even Thomas Jefferson suggests that it was not the initial choice of the colonies to participate in slavery but a mandate by their then government of Great Britain:
“The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state…Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty…” T. Jefferson, July 1774
Once our independence was in motion, the mechanisms to end slavery were in motion. Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut remarked in the federal convention on 22 August 1787, “that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat (sic) it.” Oliver Elsworth, also a representative to Connecticut very confidently stated in 1787, “Slavery in time will not be a speck on our country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts.”
The notes taken during the ratification of the Constitution prove that the majority of the drafters of the Constitution were vehemently opposed to slavery and sought a way to end the practice immediately. Justice James Iredell stated in the debates held in North Carolina, “It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end [to slavery] immediately…”
The unfortunate truth was that slavery, having been forced on the colonies from infancy had created a cultural apathy in some sectors and economic dependency in others. The drafters concluded (rightly or wrongly?) that in order to create a Union which could end the institution of slavery, there had to be an agreement to gradually wean society from this despicable addiction. In 1788, James Madison explains this serious dilemma:
“Great as the evil [slavery] is, a dismemberment of the Union would be worse. If those States should be disunited from the other States for not indulging them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.”
Madison continued to make the point that if these States were to gain this foreign aid, the institution of slavery may never be abandoned by those States and there would be nothing to stop those States from bringing discord or even war to their neighboring States over the dissolution of slavery. In hindsight some would say that such an outcome was inevitable in either case.
The documented Original Intent of the drafters is a complete contradiction to the opinions and precedents of the Dred Scott Court. This supreme Court claimed the Constitution declared black men property. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, states the exact opposite:
“[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
This Dred Scott Court claims that black men were never to be considered free citizens by the drafters of the Constitution. Future supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers, founder of the African Free School contradicts the court’s assertion:
“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”
In 1810, James Madison even made this demand of our Congress in the future, based upon the Original Intent of the drafters of the Constitution:
“American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in defiance of those of their own country. The same just and benevolent motives which produced interdiction in force against this criminal conduct will doubtless be felt by Congress in devising further means of suppressing the evil.”
When Congress passed the legislation to end the traffic of slavery Thomas Jefferson made this statement:
“I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violation of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe.”
Remaining bound to errant precedent established by supreme Court justices simply because legal tradition says so, truly enslaves all Americans to the whims and motives of nine individuals in a quasi-oligarchical rule.
A return to Original Intent is a return to the principles that make America the desire of so many of those in foreign countries for hundreds of years. A return to Original Intent declares that Liberty is the right of all human beings and their government is established to protect those rights, not regulate them. A return to Original Intent is an undeniable application of Liberty and Justice for all. A return to Original Intent says that we are able to be free individuals by choice, not permanent slaves by authoritarian stranglehold of government.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are Created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
When they penned and signed their pledge to these words, they meant it just as it was written. In fact, Jefferson’s original draft was even more pointed in its anti-slave stance. They could have very well written “all free-men or white men are Created equal” but they did not. They were declaring that this Creator they reference made ALL MEN (gender neutral application) in His image and that through this creation all are inherently free. Even as some of these men struggled to extricate themselves from the dominant feature of their time (Jefferson most notably), they knew that the seed of liberty the sowed in their day would grow and that future generations would be able to fully realize the drafters’ dream of Liberty and Justice FOR ALL. This is what Original Intent means. This is why Original Intent should be viewed as a safeguard for all people.
On June 7, 1776 a delegate from Virginia by the name of Richard Henry Lee proposed the “Lee Resolution.” The Lee Resolution was the 3 step process of declaring independence from our then government of Great Britain. The first clause of the Lee Resolution proposed:“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE…”
“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.
—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival.
It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”
Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
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.
Former State Department Official: The Federal Government Using Propaganda on Americans – And This is Why
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Richard Stengel, a former high-level U.S. government official, head of the office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department from 2013 to 2016, former editor of Time Magazine, and a regular pundit on MSNBC, said in April of 2018, at a Council on Foreign Relations forum about “fake news,” that he supports the use of propaganda on American citizens. He then continued and said;
“Basically, every country creates their own narrative story and, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the ‘chief propagandist’ job.”
Keep in mind, that in 2013 Congress passed legislation allowing the federal government to fund and create propaganda they knew could be used to manipulate Americans on American soil. This legislation was called The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, sponsored by Mac Thornberry (R-TX), that failed in 2011 when it was submitted on its own. But in 2013 Thornberry and his co-sponsors buried this legislation in the NDAA of 2014, where it was surreptitiously passed.
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act overturned a prohibition against domestic propaganda that had been in place since 1948. This act was passed as a result of a series of events in American history that drew the concern of those who wanted to secure a free press and the freedom of speech of the American people. The concern began when 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., decided 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 changed 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. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, eliminated that protection. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act not only legitimized the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but allowed Congress to fund it with tax-payer dollars
In 2011, I wrote a detailed analysis of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act and its potentional dangers. In spite of our concerns, many congressmen were adamant that this legislation would not be used to spend tax dollars to create propaganda to be used domestically. They told us it would just be used to create propaganda on foreign soil, nothing to worry about.
Six years later, did a former State Department Official just admitted he created and used domestic propaganda, and believes it’s the right thing to do? We don’t need to be concerned, right? They are just trying to keep us safe.
www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com
Supreme Court And Baking Cakes: Not About Religious Liberty
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
The supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion on a highly anticipated case regarding the right of a baker to refuse to design and create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony based upon his religious convictions. However, for the SCOTUS, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom, but one of unjust government discrimination.
The History
Jack Phillips, a practicing Christian, often refused to design and create baked goods based upon his religious beliefs. His store was closed on Sundays and other Christian holidays, he refused to create or design desserts for Halloween, and he refused to make desserts that contained alcohol. Mr. Phillips did not refuse to serve the same-sex couple who later filed a complaint. He only refused to design and create a cake for their wedding. He remarked that he would be happy to design and create cookies, birthday cakes, shower cakes, or brownies, just not a wedding cake due to religious objections. The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the
commission, after several hearings, decided that Mr. Phillips violated Colorado’s public accommodation laws by refusing to create and design this wedding cake for the same-sex couple. The Colorado commission did not accept Mr. Phillip’s defense of religious conviction. Members of the commission, on record and as justification for their decision, mocked Mr. Phillip’s beliefs and compared his religious convictions to slavery and to the Holocaust. The supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Phillips in a 7-2 opinion, based particularly on the statements of the Colorado commissioners.
There are some very significant points that must be made to clarify this carefully written opinion. Because of the great public anticipation over this case, there will be a tendency to make more of what was said than was actually said and mischaracterize the magnitude of this decision.
The court did not render its opinion on the basis of religious freedom. They did not declare that private business owners are free to discriminate based upon religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, they said the opposite.
“It is the general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny
protected persons equal access to goods and public services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” (Page 9)
“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” (Page 10)
Mr. Phillips made multiple statements asserting his refusal to make the cake was based upon religious conviction. However, it seems the Court only references these objections for the purpose of condemning the Colorado commissioners’ apparent discriminatory statements voiced against Mr. Phillips. This Court never asserted that Mr. Phillips was justified in his refusal based upon his right to religious freedom. It is not clear that this is an overall victory for private business owners or Christians to publicly maintain their convictions.
The court took time to clarify that it should be “assumed” that “when it comes to weddings”, “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral
and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform that ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.” (Page 10) It seems interesting that the Court feels that it should be obvious and therefore not questioned that a professional clergy maintains full right to expression of their freedom of religion but a baker does not. It would seem that the court sees the possession and expression of fundamental rights like freedom of religion as inherent in a profession rather inherent to all persons.
This Court did not declare that Mr. Phillips’ personal religious objections justified his refusal to bake this cake. Instead they took a safer and more politically correct approach by finding that the Colorado commissioners’ statements applied the Colorado public accommodation law in a discriminating and biased manner. The Court says “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” (Page 3) However, the government cannot use Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs as the basis for the application of their laws. Justice Kennedy points out that when commissioners on the Colorado board made statements describing Mr. Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use,” and equating his refusal to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage to the acts of slavery and the holocaust they began down the path of discriminating against him. In addition to these condemning statements, the Colorado commission had, at the same time, determined that three other bakers could refuse to bake cakes critical of gay marriage, contrary to their secular convictions, making clear their bias and discriminatory application of this otherwise “neutral” law. The majority opinion determined that it was this discriminatory act by the Colorado commission that required the court to overturn this case. Again, for the majority opinion, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom of expression, but one of unjust government discrimination.
The Court, almost in passing, also mentioned that Mr. Phillips’ may have been justified in his refusal to design and create this wedding cake, because Colorado had not legalized gay marriage yet. His refusal, at that time, was not only in compliance with State law, but also a refusal to participate in an illegal activity. Perhaps Kennedy added this point of fact as a way of publicly saying to business owners in States who have legalized gay marriage, you have no argument to withhold your services if State law compels service.
There is one aspect of personal rights the majority opinion mentions but strangely never fleshes out; the matter of freedom of speech. The majority court introduces the question; Is the government’s law forcing Mr. Phillips to design and create a cake contrary to his personal message, a violation of freedom of speech? But then, in what seems to be a lapse of concentration, the majority opinion never answers this question definitively. It isn’t until we get to Justice Thomas’ concurrence that we find a truly worthy discussion of this important element. Thomas’ opinion on the matter of freedom of speech is so thorough and so supported by precedent it makes one wonder why the majority court refused to give this topic its due consideration. Justice
Thomas points out that it is well within the history of the supreme Court to support the expression of offensive beliefs in the name of freedom of speech. After all, he reminds us, if the burning of a flag or a 25 foot cross (Virginia v. Black), or designing and creating “a film featuring Klan members brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the niggers,’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio) are all protected speech, then surely designing and creating a cake ought to fit these categories as well.
By the terms laid out by Justice Thomas, this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of Mr. Phillips on the merits of freedom of speech. Why the majority court would introduce this element, and then not complete its thought on the matter is puzzling. Why the majority court would choose a single justification for their opinion when they could have had two compelling arguments is equally puzzling.
One final matter worth discussing is the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, Ginsburg feels that this case should have been decided in favor of the same-sex couple. However, her argument against the majority opinion is so weak it makes clear her bias. She does not address the fact that gay marriage was illegal at the time Mr. Phillips refused to design and created the cake. She does not even broach the freedom of speech aspect. Instead she asserts that the biased statements of a few commissioners against Mr. Phillips, during a government hearing in judgment of Mr. Phillips, do not rise to the level of “hostility” toward Mr. Phillips and therefore cannot be the justification for overturning this case. Apparently, Ginsburg believes in a lower standard of discrimination for government than private citizens by claiming that these clear and impermissible words of hostility placed on the record by members of the commission and used as justification for their decision were not an exercise of content discrimination, yet the baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, that was currently against the law, and violated his religious beliefs was discrimination.
www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com
TSA Secrets Violating Rights
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
According to a memo received by the New York Times (https://nyti.ms/2J6P038), in February of this year the TSA has developed a brand new “secret watch list.” This list is for special people who don’t necessarily qualify for the big “No Fly” list, but for people individual agents of the TSA feel have been “offensive” or have created “challenges to the safe and effective completion of screening.” So if you don’t like where the agent’s hands are roaming, or you question a TSA agent’s authority, motives, or honesty, you get to be on this new list.
According to the memo and anonymous TSA agents interviewed by the New York Times, being on this list allows other TSA agents to identify you as a “problem.” The TSA claims the list cannot impel “extra screening” at checkpoints, but those of us who fly often know how ridiculous it can become when you are “randomly chosen” to for extra screening.
The feds already have multiple “watch lists” and being on this new list won’t put you on the “no fly” list, so why does the TSA need a new super-secret one? Kelly Wheaton, a T.S.A. deputy chief counsel says the TSA needs a list for passengers who have been demonstrably unruly at, or near, checkpoints. Matthew F. Leas, a T.S.A. spokesman, said in an email to the NY Times, that the agency “wants to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and others from any individual who has exhibited disruptive or assaultive behavior at a screening checkpoint and is scheduled to fly.”
According to the NY Times, Federal security directors, top T.S.A. security officials at airports and top Air Marshals supervisors can nominate individuals to be put on the watch list. Only the T.S.A. administrator, his deputy and the top two officials at the agency’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis may add or remove people from the database. The interesting thing, from a Constitutional standpoint, is that there is no notice given that you are being put on a list, and no apparent way for you request to be removed from this list. If the government can secretly put an American on a list that could lead agents to identify that American and impose regulations or even lead to some kind of discriminatory activity, this is a violation of every American’s Right to Due Process; Rights that are expressly enumerated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.
Another serious Constitutional problem is that there is absolutely no oversite. Congress is not privy to this list. Congress is not establishing the policies that get someone on the list, nor have they established that people are noticed and a procedure to petition to be removed. This is truly pure arbitrary power resting in the hands of individual agents. This not a new dynamic, however, for the TSA and Congress, it is actually a designed one.
Most Americans do not know that the very congressional act that created the TSA, also established that airports could replace federal TSA agents with private security two years after the law was enacted. However, in January 2011 when over 16 airports had “tried” to opt out, TSA refused to leave these airports and the director of the TSA put a “freeze” on the airports’ “ability” to opt out, Violating the very Act that created the TSA. When the TSA violated this Act with their policies and actions, Congress didn’t step up and remind them of the existing law. Instead, Congress passed a new law, HR 658, reasserting the “right” of the airports to opt out of TSA screeners and required the TSA to notify all airports of this “right.” Yet, in a questionable move by Congress, within HR658, Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security, the directing agency over the TSA, the authority to approve or deny an airport’s “request” to transfer to private security screening. In summary, Congress told the airports they had a “right” to opt out of federal screening and then put the TSA in charge of approving or denying this “right.” If the TSA has the authority to approve or deny their own employment, then the airports do not possess a RIGHT to transfer to private screening, they merely possess a privilege granted by those they wish to remove. Would that not mean that by all form and function, our airports are now occupied through force by the federal government? That, by definition, is despotism.
Unfortunately, this point is proven by the fact that in 2011 Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a law outlawing TSA pat downs. The FAA responded immediately by threatening to turn Texas into a de facto “No Fly Zone” if the law was signed. Of course, Texas backed down. If the federal government can deny a State’s right to internally govern itself, this is a violation of the delegation of powers expressly enumerated and a violation of the reserved powers of the States expressly identified in the 10th Amendment.
Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, Democrat of New Jersey, said during a House homeland security subcommittee hearing. “What I don’t want — what I think no American would want — is an excuse for unfair, secret profiling that doesn’t even offer a chance for people to contest their name appearing on such a list…I am concerned about the civil-liberty implications of such a list.” Hugh Handeyside, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Washington Post, the policy gives the agency wide latitude to “blacklist people arbitrarily and essentially punish them for asserting their rights.” WE ALL should be concerned about the implications of a single agent, within a federal agency, possessing unlimited and unchecked power! Those who fought for the foundations of America lived through a nearly identical exercise of federal power. For those living under British Rule in 1761, they called these laws, “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.” If you would like a history refresher, so you can see the alarming parallels with today’s TSA, you can read this article on the history of our 4th Amendment. http://bit.ly/Feds4thA
There is no constitutional authority for the TSA to exist, much less wield unchecked power within the states. This unconstitutional agency was created by Congress through the pretense of “national security” and it is failing miserably. According to the LA Times, (https://lat.ms/2JkyuMv) and watch-dog James Bovard of USA Today, “the Department of Homeland Security concluded last year that TSA officers and equipment had failed to detect mock threats roughly 80% of the time. In Minneapolis, an undercover team succeeded in smuggling weapons and mock bombs past airport screeners 95% of the time. An earlier DHS investigation found the TSA utterly unable to detect weapons, fake explosives and other contraband, regardless of how extensive its pat-downs were.” Americans have been deceived into trading their essential liberties for a completely non-existent security. We have a private or state option that would likely be more effective and one that could more closely overseen through the states.
Congress has created this monster. They have made TSA above check and balance, above the law and Congress, and above the Constitution itself: not only the 4th Amendment, but also the 1st Amendment, 6th Amendment, 7th Amendment, 8th Amendment, & 10th Amendment. It is time for the American people to stand up to Congress, the DHS, and the TSA and assert our Right to keep ourselves “secure.” It is time Americans replace this ineffective, intrusive, and secretive unchecked system with one that follows the law and the Constitution and where the States protect the internal security of the people and the feds are limited to the specifically enumerated powers.
Get the book “Sovereign Duty” to learn what the designers of our Constitution wanted Americans to do when their federal government became bloated and out of control. Find this book on Amazon, Books-A-Million, Barns & Noble, Wal-Mart, and many other merchants.
www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com
