Trump's Inauguration: Patriotism without Prejudice?

I hope you enjoy this guest article by our dear friend, Robin Keorner. ~ KrisAnne

Robin Koerner was a British citizen but is now a proud legal citizen of Washington, Unites States of America. He was educated at Cambridge University, from which he holds three degrees. Having taken graduate degrees in physics and philosophy, he never expected to find himself at the cutting edge of American politics.  Learn more about Robin and his mission at http://robinkoerner.com/

 

A New Citizen and a New President

For me, the inauguration of President Trump is particularly poignant, as the outgoing President was the one under whom I became a citizen,
while the new President was elected in the first election in which I was also able to participate as a new American.

Born British, I moved to the USA when I was 29. In 2009, I became a permanent resident, and last year, after a 12 year odyssey through a Kafkaesque immigration system, I became a citizen.

In my heart and soul, however, I was American a long time ago – a fact of which I became conscious in two experiential flashes. The first made me realize that I was no longer “just” a Brit. After the second, I knew I was American, even though I didn’t yet have the passport to prove it.

Becoming American

The first occurred in Phoenix. I was in the city with a friend when we heard of a liberty-oriented political conference that was being held in the Sheraton hotel there. Being political types, we quietly went down there, and let ourselves into the back of the hall. Scanning what at that time was for me a rather unusual environment, I noticed a participant who was prominently sporting a side-arm.

I was only five years out of Britain at that time, and the instinctive reaction of most Brits, in whose country even the police don’t carry guns, to such a thing would typically be some combination of horror, perplexity and even derision. At the very least, the sense of cultural dissonance would be instinctive. But for me, somewhat surprisingly, that was not the case. Even though I had never shot a handgun, nor had had any interest in firearms, not only did I feel at ease with that man’s carrying his weapon in an indoor environment in which he was not threatened, but – much more than that – I understood why he was doing it, and that the reasons were, of course, decidedly American. The idea that rights un-asserted are lost over time and that a lethal means of self-defense is a right are alien to British culture, so the fact that I didn’t feel in that moment that the carrier of that gun was of a different species — let alone a different culture — was enough for me to register that I my national identity was already becoming more complex, more layered.

However, the moment I knew that I was American was altogether stranger. I was at the top of a mountain in Kyrgyzstan, sitting in a room in a run-down building that had been converted to a classroom for a week. I was there with others to share some of the principles of political and economic liberty with a group young adults whose formative years had come of age in a former Soviet republic. At the time, one of my colleagues, an opera singer, was giving a class. After loosening up the extremely bright but highly skeptical students by getting them to discuss and then sing the Kyrgyz national anthem, he proceeded to sing the American anthem.

The tears started rolling down my face, and they would not stop.

Not only have I never cried for the British anthem: I cannot even imagine any Englishman doing so. Yet, there I was, with nowhere to hide in the front of this rectangular room, crying for the anthem of a country to which technically I did not yet fully belong — but with which spiritually I resonated at the deepest level.

I was taken aback by my deeply emotional response but perhaps should not have been. After all, there were many occasions in the preceding five years of a brutal legal immigration process when it would have been emotionally, financially and practically much easier just to have just given up, but on those occasions I always returned to the simple fact that I already felt at home, and after all, one’s feelings are the language of one’s soul.
In any case, on that day, on a mountaintop in Kyrgyzstan, I knew that, while I was British, I was also an American.

A few months later, I was back in Phoenix, and went to support an Italian friend as he became an American citizen. I imagined myself going through the same ceremony four years later with my own kith and kin in the audience.

I smiled through the whole thing, sharing fellow-feeling with all of the new citizens — not just as Americans, but as people who had overcome similar stresses and uncertainties to achieve their goal of becoming once and for all American.

Yet, one part of the ceremony gave me serious pause. The oath taken by new citizens includes the words,

I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.

Imagining my mother in the audience, my stomach knotted at how upset she’d be if I renounced where I had come from and the land with which she shall always identify.

I was sufficiently perturbed by the implications of that renunciation that I started googling when I returned home to see what it really meant.

Becoming A Bipatriot

I have no reservation in my commitment to the USA. In fact, I have already done more to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America” than many born-and-bred Americans, and I love doing it, because I believe deeply in the founding principles of the United States and the American project. I would take up arms for the USA and I would fight as hard to defend my fellow Americans as I would for my fellow Brits.

Indeed, to me, my British-to-American narrative is a rather special one in that it follows America’s historical narrative, and to me, much of what is best about the American character and foundation is an evolution, perhaps even a higher expression, of British values and political traditions. (In his poem, “England and America in 1782“, Tennyson explains it better than I can.)

Indeed, my pride in those British gifts underpins my pride in the Americans who fought the revolution and wrote the Constitution to save and improve on those same gifts as they were being trampled in “the motherland”.

Britain formed me. America is what I have chosen to do with how I am formed. Renouncing one for the other would be like renouncing being a son to become a husband — or like renouncing my first child when my second is born. Doing either would be absurd and false. As with two sons, so with two countries: I love both, delight in the success of both, am pained by the falling short of both, and get to celebrate the fact that love is not diluted when it is doubled.

For those reasons and others, I was glad to learn that my renunciation of Britain in the USA carries no weight in Britain, and that even in American law, I can be both American and British.

Thank God for that. I am impatient to embrace America fully, and commit to my new countrymen, but if I really had to choose between an American identity and a British one, I’d be overwhelmed by the unreality of that choice.

So I am a bipatriot, if I might coin a term, and it is a wonderful thing to be.

Just as people who can think in different languages benefit from a certain intellectual and emotional abundance, so do we bipatriots. We have an enriched identity, a more colorful sense of self. We get to see issues — especially political, philosophical and cultural — in very different ways, but in each way clearly. Not only is that exciting; it hopefully gives us something different to contribute to our adoptive country.

Happily, another British-born Americaphile inadvertently helped me understand why bipatriotism makes sense: Daniel Hannan, a British Member of the European Parliament has said,

Patriotism is what makes people behave unselfishly. It’s the basis of our sense of obligation to those around us. A patriot doesn’t belittle other countries: he cheers their sense of national pride, and values their freedom.

Indeed. And I am blessed, like the parent of two children, to have twice the pride

But the skeptical reader might still ask whom would I support in a world-cup soccer final between the US and the UK (choosing soccer only because it’s one of the few team sports that are seriously played by both nations), as the answer to that question would no doubt cut to my deepest allegiance. Upon introspection, I am delighted to find that in that game, my team never loses.

Prejudice Against Patriotism Is as Damaging as Patriotism with Prejudice

I didn’t vote for the President who was sworn in today, and I was not expecting to be much taken by his speech – but I was struck by one line in particular:

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

That made me recall Hannan, above, and it is the kind of patriotism of which my bipatriotism is made. It is also the patriotism of individual liberty on which our nation – my new home – was founded.

I hope it truly is the patriotism of our new President, and of those who have supported him. Our future depends heavily on it.

But just as importantly, I hope that those who have justified their opposition to our new President as a way of expressing, so they say, their lack of prejudice, will extend that lack of prejudice to those who are inspired by country, its history, and its founding ideals, and so call themselves patriots. Our future depends heavily on that too.

 

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

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: http://bit.ly/DirectTaxPt2

Congress Seeks To Establish Ministry of Truth!

orwell-reduced

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.

Flag Burning and Free Speech

us-flagThe flag represents “the Republic for which it stands.”  That Republic is the foundation for maintaining our Union of States.  The purpose for creating and maintaining the Union of States is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity.”  The first principles of that Liberty are codified in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  How is it that so many people are more attached to the flag than those inalienable, God given Rights that we are supposed to be defending?  How can we make it illegal to burn a flag, and sit back, day after day, as our own representatives tear through our Liberty like a whale through a net?  I know from public polls and personal experience that less than 2% of Americans can name all five Liberties in the First Amendment, from memory, without looking for the answer.  How can some Americans become more attached to a flag than the Liberty that America was created to protect?  Perhaps it is because Americans, as a whole, have become so ignorant of their Rights that many will desperately cling to symbols instead of standing for our Liberty.

us-militaryIt is not a flag we fight for. It is not a flag that makes America great. It is the protection of Liberty that recognizes our Right to burn that flag that makes us different from everyone else. See what happens if you burn a flag in China, Iraq, or North Korea. Is that really the model we are striving toward?

Sure it’s offensive. Sure it’s disrespectful. But you have no right to not be offended and you have no right to be respected. I have a Right to offend and disrespect. Without that Right, you are a slave.

Not too long ago many were shouting that mantra at the liberals and the LGBT, declaring it “unAmerican” to censor people they deemed “offensive.” How quickly the terms of Liberty are forgotten and how fickle people become when they are now offended.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.

“This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.” Silence Dogood #8

burning-us-flagThere is another issue of property.  If you own the flag it is your property to burn.  The federal government made the burning of money illegal, because they say that the paper money is federal property.  Are we saying that every flag we buy is still owned by the government so they can prosecute us for burning their property?  What if I take a bed sheet and draw a US Flag on it and burn it, will I go to jail or have my citizenship revoked for that, too?  Who defines this offense?  Who punishes this offense?  It will be those in government who have proven themselves ignorant and irresponsible to Liberty; those in government who wrap themselves in that flag and then torch our Bill of Rights.  That is a power we ought not allow government to exercise, it is one they have proven they do not deserve to wield.

Those in government who are ignorant of Liberty and those in government disposed to usurp are not going to overturn the Right to Free Speech by amending the Constitution, but what they will do is create laws attacking specific aspects of Free Speech or engage in efforts of societal censorship (political correctness) and make us censor ourselves. Self censorship is the greatest form of servitude because the slaves never see the chains that bind them.

We must KNOW that speech cannot be censored by government, and the people should not be afraid to speak!

“For no People will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when Knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own Weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” Samuel Adams 1775

burning-effigyThe founders of our Constitutional Republic burned their flag, they burned effigies of their politicians and tax collectors, too.   They burned their flag as an expression of sadness over their Liberty lost through government usurpation.   They burned their flag as an expression of disgust over the despotic attack by their government upon their Liberties.  Their flag meant no less to them than our flag means to many Americans.  They loved their country of Great Britain.  They continually prayed for reconciliation with their country, up to and even beyond the Declaration of Independence.  To them, burning their flag, was the most powerful way to express the utter despair they felt over their government’s refusal to recognize the Rights of all Englishman as guaranteed by their Constitution and by God.  To them, burning effigies of their tax collectors and politicians, was the most peaceful way to show their complete disgust for the negligence and criminality of those they had entrusted as guardians of their Rights.

colonial-flagAs a matter of fact, the colonists did something “worse” than burning the Union Jack, they created a whole new flag as a statement of their defiance and independence!  Therefore, it is not even historically accurate to claim that our founders would not advocate burning the flag in protest.  They personally knew that power of that free expression.

We must get our priorities in line.  We must develop a fonder attachment to Liberty than to paper and cloth.  Without that Liberty, the only paper and cloth you will possess are the ones that our government gives you permission to possess and you will only possess it under their terms and conditions.  Let us Love Liberty over Security and Comfort, Principles over Parties, and Truth over Personality.

I doesn’t matter how you feel about the President. It doesn’t matter how you feel about burning a flag. My Rights are not based upon your feelings. They are inalienable gifts from God.

“Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.” Samuel Adams 1771

bill-of-rightsThe quickest way to identify a tyrant is find the one who wants to diminish your Rights so people can be happy. The quickest way to find a slave is to locate those agreeing with the tyrant.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  William Pitt, the Younger

Perhaps if we had spent more time in school memorizing the Bill of Rights than the Pledge of Allegiance, we would be having a different conversation.

 

To Whom Do They Speak?

I hope you enjoy this guest article by our frequent contributor, Robert Townsend!  In Liberty, KrisAnne

 

To Whom Do They Speak?

by Robert Townsend

sorosWe all take for granted that we now know that the American media is a corrupted and worthless entity.  But it wasn’t always so.  Before, there were many among us who were comfortably ignorant of the lie that the media impartially reported the truth of the world and kept us “informed.”  Sure, sure, there were those who danced inside and outside the line of impartiality from time to time, but by and large, we were inured into the sweet dream that we knew and understood the world around us, all thanks to those brave “journalists” who brought the truth of the world to our television sets every night at 8 pm.

It should not need stating but I will state it nonetheless: we haven’t been just wrong about this, we have been staggeringly wrong.  As the forces of the status quo screech more loudly and more panicked about any change to their life’s blood, we see just how desperate they are to maintain us in our ignorant slumber.

One thing that we should now realize with all the intellectual power that we can muster is that elections are not for your benefit, it is for System’s benefit, and it has corrupted it wholly.

Let us recall Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.  (h/t Wikipedia),

mole-hole“Socrates [describes] a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall.  The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality.

He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.”

What I wish to impress upon you now is that we, the world government’s humble serfs, are the prisoners in the cave.  But just as with those prisoners from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, we too are learning that the shadows on the wall, the electoral process and verily the entire governmental power structure (laughably currently referred to as a democracy of “checks and balances”) is not the sweet dream that we had been led to believe our entire lives.

megyn-kellyThe American citizen has been living in our own cave for so long, enamored and fascinated with nothing but the deformed shadows of reality to inform him of the world outside the cave, that he has lost sight of the beautiful landscapes of personal and national liberty.  Thankfully, this blindness is proving to be only temporary, much to Leviathan’s surprise.

In a previous essay I showed and explained that HRC never cared about your vote.  This was why she called Trump supporters “Deplorables.”  If she really cared about swaying a Trump voter to her side, would she have insulted them?  Of course not.

hillaryIt is here that HRC gives away the game.  As I said before, she doesn’t care about you or your vote.  Incredibly, our Bella Femina (latin meaning) showed this yet again. On November 1, HRC said,

“I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people who support Donald Trump.”

Do you now see?  She is not trying to convince you that she is the better candidate and earn your vote.  She doesn’t need you (as vote-changing voting machines most recently attested).  But if this is the case then, if she isn’t stumping for the voters in the hopes of convincing an “undecided” electorate, just who is she actually talking to then if not the voters with her promises of filthy lucre?  Is she speaking to Leviathan indirectly?  And if this is the case, then what is the scale of the corruption that Leviathan represents?

Here, too, we have evidence and information galore to estimate its size.  All we must do is simply observe the forces arrayed against Free Men and the naked rhetorical aggression no longer couched in the feigned objectivity of “journalism.”

googeThe mainstream media, social media, alternative media, corrupted vote machines, foreign governments, Soros and his ilk, all of it, were arrayed to ensure HRC was given the power to rule over a dairy farm where its citizens are but cows to be milked.

Considering the vast armies that are/were set in motion to ensure HRC’s position, this obviously implies then that a great many people have something to lose if the current System changes.  From the constant attacks on the Republican president-elect and his supporters, it would appear that a great many around the world have a great amount to lose should the status quo change.  Staggering.

sheikThis also should serve as a lesson against foreign entanglements in general: just as with foreign adventures patriotically meant to install “democracy” where it is unwanted, or further the American version of empire, a great many organizations, nations and powerful individuals benefit from American adventurism.  Do any of these entities have the citizen’s best interests at heart when they request a bombing of their enemies or an economic-aid package for themselves?  Have you ever seen a farmer ask the cow’s permission to milk her?

How then might a citizen better understand the true purpose or intent of a ‘leader’s’ speech to the theaterpublic if the apparent purpose is a lie (a shadow on the wall, so to speak)?

Imagine that you are sitting in a theatre watching a live performance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.  You are sitting in the middle of a full theatre with other audience members enjoying the play right there along with you.

As you sit in your seat next to your fellow audience-member, you hear the actors easily because the actors are trained and know to raise their voice loud enough so that their voices reach the back of the theatre.  The theatre is dark and its recesses behind you are hidden and also dark.  You are not looking behind you, you are watching the play occurring on the stage in front of you.

And this is my point.  The actors are not speaking so that you may hear them.  They are speaking to the box seats hidden in the darkness behind you.

The same can be said for the elections of recent decades.  These elections are not so that the citizenry may choose their next leader; rather it is a masked dialogue with the true powers of the world whose words and promises fly past the electorate’s heads to land upon the ears of the true recipients that are hidden in the darkness behind us. And judging by the many, many forces arrayed against the American citizen’s own right to breathe free, the number of those sitting behind us in the balconies are staggeringly large.

When next you see HRC or Trump or Bush or Gore or Blaire or Merkel speaking in public, reflect for a moment that it is very likely that they are not speaking to the citizenry at all.

Does the farmer speak to his cows or to the purchasers of his milk?

rob townsend

2016 Florida Constitutional Amendment Voter Guide

 

liberty-frist-logo-button2016 Florida Constitutional Amendment Voter Guide

florida-flag

By KrisAnne Hall, Constitutional Education & Consulting, Inc.

Introduction:

The voter is always ultimately responsible for their vote.  I do not take responsibility for anyone’s vote; we will all answer individually one day for our choices.  With that in mind, be sure that you VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!

As a general rule, I am opposed to Constitutional Amendments, unless it is a truly Constitutional issue.  Our Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the State, establishing guidelines for government, fundamental rights belonging to Floridians, and principles by which we are to govern.  Statutes, on the other hand, are supposed to be the instrument we use to enact laws through legislation in our Republican form of government.  Florida has gotten very lazy about these distinctions.

I had hoped we had learned about cluttering up our Constitution when we passed the “pregnant pig” and the “super train” amendments.  With those two examples in mind, I would like those who view this guide to keep in mind a few things:

When you vote YES and pass a Constitutional Amendment you are creating a constitutionally protected RIGHT to something which includes the appropriate protections and assignments.

Constitutionally protected rights must be provided under equal access of the law to all citizens of the state, without discrimination, and denies any excuse for deprivation.

If you vote YES and later realize that there are unforeseen negative consequences, the only way to fix that amendment is through another Constitutional Amendment.

The amendment process represents a great expense to the tax payers.   Laws should be passed by LEGISLATORS and put into statutes.  That is how Republican Governments work.  Repealing or amending statutory laws are part of the everyday legislative process.  If legislators forget to put something in a law or the law turns out to be a bad idea, the legislators simply amend or repeal the law through proper legislative measures.  The Constitution provides the basis for the Legislature to create these laws consistent with the Constitution with language such as “The Legislature may, by general law, enact…”  NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THIS BALLOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESERVED TO STATUTORY LAW AND NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Why would our legislators want to use the amendment process rather than the proper legislative process? In some of these instances, they tried, but the legislation failed.  They are cluttering up our Constitution to compensate for failed legislation. Perhaps in other instances, by enacting a law through the constitutional amendment process, they can mitigate their responsibility for the law; after all, it was the “will of the people.”  We are a Republic, not a democracy.

If the Legislators insist on using the amendment process instead of the proper legislative process, I frankly see very little need to continue having legislators.  We could simply move to a pure democracy, fire all those who feel too burdened to do their job and save some money.

Amendment 1 Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice:  (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution – Article X section 29)

Author’s Note: This should NOT be a constitutional amendment.  This should be legislation.

A YES VOTE FOR AMENDMENT 1 Would create a Constitutional Right:

  • for Floridians to “own or lease solar equipment.”

“ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Electricity consumers have the right to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.”

This potentially establishes that every single citizen of Florida can go to a solar provider and demand solar equipment based upon their Constitutional Right.   Creating a Constitutional Right to solar equipment would potentially open the door for government subsidies and price controls upon solar equipment to ensure that all Florida residents have access to this Constitutional Right.  This seems to set up a contradiction within the Amendment itself, as it claims to end consumer subsidizing of solar energy but then creates the potential necessity to subsidize to ensure protection of a Constitutional Right

  • for non-solar customers from an alleged “solar customer subsidy.”

The argument in favor of Amendment 1 asserts that solar power users are not supporting a system they are using and this constitutional amendment is necessary “to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.”

In Florida, Residents who have solar energy and tie into the grid are paid for the “extra energy” they produce that is put into the system.  In other words, if a resident with solar energy produces more solar power than they can consume, and they are tied into the main electrical grid, that energy can be used by others in the electrical grid.  The electric companies are required to purchase excess energy from the solar providers because the electric company is using that energy to supply its customers.

Solar energy owners are providing additional energy and are in fact subsidizing the grid.  The electric companies pay the solar energy owners for the additional energy created.  Sometimes the extra energy created is greater than or equal to the cost of energy used by the solar energy owner.  This does not mean they are not paying for the energy they use, they are simply being paid for the energy they are creating. There is in fact is no such subsidy literally being paid by non-solar customers, so one can only assume that this “protection” will take the form of a “fee” paid by solar users for “maintenance and upkeep of the power grid” or a cessation of payment for the extra energy provided to the grid by solar customers.

  • If this amendment is passed, the electric companies will be able take the excess energy from the solar customers and not pay them for it, even though they are using it.
  • If this amendment is passed, the use or lease of solar equipment will become a Constitutional Right to which no Floridian could be deprived of for any reason.
  • If this Amendment is passed and the people wish to provide just compensation to solar energy owners just compensation in the future, another amendment to do so would have to be passed at the constitutional level.

If this amendment is passed, the solar power owners should detach from the electrical grid and not allow the electric companies to benefit from the energy they produce.

Full Text of the Amendment:    http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/64817-1.pdf

 

Amendment 2. Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions:  (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution – Article X section 29)

Author’s Note: This should NOT be a constitutional amendment.  This should be legislation.  Also, although Florida currently has legislation regarding Medical Marijuana, many see this legislation as impotent.  The current legislation only allows for very weak doses of cannibus oil and only for end of life purposes.  This Amendment is to specifically allow for treatment of specifically listed diseases.

A YES VOTE FOR AMENDMENT 2 Would create a Constitutional Right:

For Medical Marijuana to be provided as a treatment for patients with the following specific diseases:

cancer

epilepsy

glaucoma

HIV

AIDS

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)

Crohn’s disease

Parkinson’s disease

multiple sclerosis

Amendment 2 would also allow licensed physicians to certify patients for medical marijuana use after diagnosing them with some “other debilitating medical conditions of the same kind or class as or comparable to those enumerated.”

Ending the Confusion about this Amendment:  

  • This Amendment, if passed will NOT allow “anyone who wants Marijuana to get Marijuana.” Only patients with the qualifying diseases can obtain prescriptions.
  • This Amendment, if passed will NOT legalize recreational Marijuana. Doctors have been writing prescriptions for barbiturates and opiates for decades and we still do not see those drugs legalized for recreational use.

Author’s Note:  The medical benefits of Medical Marijuana are widely documented.  Most drugs have side effects, some very serious, yet we still allow their use as prescribed by a physician. It is difficult to understand why we wouldn’t want to allow patients to be able to choose from all sources of treatment proven to be effective. The arguments made against appear to not be made against more serious drugs commonly in use such as opioids, barbiturates, narcotics, nor alcohol, all of which are used as legal treatments.

Full Text of the Amendment:    http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/50438-3.pdf

 

Amendment 3 Tax Exemption for Totally and Permanently Disabled First Responders  (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution – Article VII, sec 6 & Article XII)

Amendment 3 exemplifies the very argument against legislation through constitutional amendments.

On November 7, 2006, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment known as Amendment 7.  This amendment provided a property tax discount on homestead property owned by eligible veterans.  To be eligible, a veteran must have an honorable discharge from military service, be at least 65 years old, be partially disabled with a permanent service connected disability all or a portion of which must be combat-related, and must have been a Florida resident at the time of entering military service. Apparently when this amendment was designed, several provisions were left out, for whatever reason.  When these omissions came to light and the only way to fix them was through the amendment process.  If the original provisions had been passed through the appropriate channels of legislation, a simple amendment to the statute could have been easily passed while the legislature was in session.   Floridians incurred not only the cost of employing our legislators to do their job, but the cost of amending the constitution when the legislators didn’t want to, or were unable to do their job.

The same thing could potentially happen if Amendment 3 is passed.  This should NOT be a constitutional amendment.  It should ONLY be a matter of legislation.

A vote YES on Amendment 3 Would Create a Constitutional Right:

  • to a property tax exemption for law enforcement officer, a correctional officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic who is classified as “totally and permanently disabled” as a result of an injury in the line of duty. The terms “totally and permanently disabled” are NOT defined in the amendment and will need further definition by legislation.
  • to a property tax exemption based solely upon occupation. This would create a constitutional right that is not applied to all citizens equally.

Full Text of the Amendment:      http://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-92.pdf

 

Amendment 5 Homestead Tax Exemption for Certain Seniors, Low-Income, Long-Term Residents; Determination of Just Value  (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution – Article VII, sec 6 & Article XII)

Same issues as amendment 3.

This should NOT be a constitutional amendment.  It should ONLY be a matter of legislation.

A vote YES on Amendment 5 Would Create a Constitutional Right:

  • to a property tax reduction for “certain” seniors, low-income, long-term residents.
  • that is not applied to all citizens equally, but only available to certain classes of citizens.

Full Text of the Amendmenthttp://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-94.pdf

Click Here to Download this voter guide in PDF

Historical Proof: Why Britain Must Brexit!

brexit 2 British history is rich with sacrifice for the principles of Liberty; understanding that Liberty is a gift from God and not a privilege granted by government. It was passionate battles for Liberty that drove the wisdom of limited government that is seen in America and around the globe. In those battles for Liberty we find several repeating mechanisms of despotism; foreign influence, corrupt courts, diminishing property rights and government intrusion in church matters, just to name a few. Our forefathers paid a dear a price to secure our Liberty.
Many have repeated the phrase, “Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.” King Solomon said, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Human nature never changes, and those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. We are walking a path of destruction we need not trod. Our forefathers forged a way for us to avoid tyranny in government, but we have put down their lamp and now wander in the dark. We cannot restore Liberty, we cannot recapture our future, without the hard earned wisdom of the past.
aelthered 2Beginning with the Anglo-Saxon resistance to Danish rule in the early eleventh century, the British people paid a dear price for the wisdom necessary to forge the way for just government. Yet it appears this crucible of Liberty is not immune from tripping over the same obstacles of their past. The Anglo-Saxon communities of the eleventh century, seemed to have an inherent understanding of the evils of foreign rule. Having had Anglo-Saxon kings in the past and upon the death of Danish King Sven Forkbeard, the Anglo-Saxons re-established their former Anglo-Saxon King, Æthelred. Æthelred was allowed to be King, but under new terms; a limited government where the King was to be in submission to the will of the people. The Witenagemot, who was particularly strong during Æthelred’s reign, would ensure this limitation of power. The agreement with Æthelred would begin the future of Liberty Charters, creating the limited monarchy that would make the Kingdom of England unique and pave the way for limited government and secured Liberty to the people in the west.
When Edward the Confessor failed to produce an heir, the people found themselves in threat of foreign rule, once again. The heir to the throne would be the Norman, William I. In an effort to keep Norman rule out of England, the people would attempt to establish Harold Godwinson, an Anglo-Saxon, to be their king. The appointment of Harold by the people was a direct affront to the man who had earned the nick-name “William The Conqueror.” William raised his Norman army and defeated Harold and the people in the Battle of Hastings, reaffirming his Right to be king.
William IWilliam I was Norman and that was the style of rule he intended to establish in England. However, the Anglo-Saxon style of rule, where the king bore a certain level of submission to the people, had become too deep rooted for William to overtly overturn. William, determined to rule in the unlimited nature of a Norman king, decided to establish his style of rule in a more surreptitious way. Instead of declaring his Divine Right to Norman rule, William began by replacing the jurists in the English courts with men who were not loyal to English law, but loyal to the ideologies of the King. With these men on the bench, William could enforce his foreign, Norman law on the English people even when it was contrary to English law. Apparently William knew what history and human nature dictates, that people are less suspect of the courts to change the politics of the land.

William knew that if he was going to transform England into Norman rule and avoid armed rebellion, he would have to change the ideology of those in the kingdom. William used the foreign, Norman law, the force of the courts, and even the physical force of his reign to chase the land owners who opposed his rule completely out of the kingdom. By foreign, Norman law, when land became abandoned the ownership of that land reverts to the King. William used this law to assume possession of the land he cleared and invited his Norman allies to live on these lands and support his reign. By force and manipulating the courts, William hoped to change the ideology of the land; by filling the kingdom with those who supported his Norman style of rule and by putting fear in the hearts of those landowners that remained.

death william IIThe Norman foreign law transformation would take place over the reign of William I and his son William II. This oppression of the Anglo-Saxon style of government – kings in submission to people – would end with the “accidental” death of William II in 1100 when an arrow from William’s brother, Henry I’s hunting party “accidentally” hits William II in the eye. Henry I became be king, but not without controversy. In his efforts to please the people, Henry agreed to sign the 1100 Charter of Liberties; a promise from Henry that the evil and oppressive reign of his father and brother would end: “And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed; which bad customs I here set down in part:…”
Henry restored England to “the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Edward” removing the foreign Norman rule over the people. This promise of Liberty would fade quickly in the minds of kings; nearly 100 years later, King John would engage in the very activity the Charter promised to eliminate.
john magna cartaKing John was another Norman King, and is perhaps the most evil king England would ever know. The people described John as a “wicked, evil king,” that “even hell was fouled by the presence of John.” John was a massive taxation king. Those who could not pay their taxes found themselves in jeopardy of prison, mutilation, and even execution. John would transgress the boundaries and promises of Henry I’s 1100 Charter of Liberties. When the people chose Steven Langton to be their Archbishop, John denied the people their choice and inserted himself into the business of the church. This would be the last violation of the 1100 Charter of Liberties the people would tolerate: a rebellion formed against John. Through this rebellion, John was forced, by sword, to sign a new promise; The Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta reasserted the promises of the 1100 Charter of Liberties, but also established new limits upon the King.
This new limit on government, took a bold stand against the foreign influence that plagued the kingdom and required, “all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers” that aided John’s foreign Norman rule were summarily expelled from the kingdom. John would sign the Magna Carta with a sword at his throat and was removed from the throne less than a year later. The Magna Carta is often undersold in its importance. Prior to the Magna Carta, promises came by willing consent of the king. The Magna Carta established, in writing, the demands of the people upon their king and bound the limited monarchy to the control of a representative government.
The British people would have to battle with kings and queens for the next 4 centuries to maintain limited and local government and shun foreign influence to preserve the Liberties of the people codified in the 1100 Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta of 1215. The next true advancements in codified Liberty would come during the reign of Charles I.
Charles’ father, James I, would saturate the British government once again with foreign influence and power. This foreign ideology, along with its power and control, remained even as Charles assumed the throne. Charles’ refusal to be bound by Parliament and the death charles Ipeople; his denial of the people’s rights in Liberty, led to next evolution of Liberty Charters; the Petition of Right of 1628.
The Petition of Right, an exercise of clause 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215, declared the grievances of the people against the King. This Charter listed eleven points of violation of the Liberties of the people and restated the violated provisions of the Magna Carta and Charter of Liberties.
Charles signed the Petition by the force of a sword to keep his throne. However, the promises he made to the people were clearly just to make peace; his blatant disregard for Liberty would continue. It is in the time of Charles’ reign that the people rebelled in the Bishop Wars against the king’s intrusion in their churches; a violation of both the Liberty Charter and Magna Carta. Charles was finally brought up on charges of treason in 1641, through the Grand Remonstrance.
The Grand Remonstrance, another Charter of Liberty, is a list of grievances against Charles’ violations of the three previous Charters. In this list we see, once again, the trials of the past that are direct warnings for our present and our future.
“The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established.”
This document is an invaluable lesson in human nature and government overreach. It is a survey of 600 years of kings and government, declaring a design in their actions whose only purpose is to overturn and undermine Liberty. Once again this document identifies the “malignant and pernicious design” as infiltration of foreign law and foreign influence upon government;

“Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home…to maintain continual differences and discontents between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative and liberty…to conjoin those parties of the kingdom which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide those who were most opposite…”

What were those foreign influences that were so destructive to liberty? A few examples found are the use of foreign law to deny people their guaranteed Rights through a corruption of the courts;

  • “And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them with informations in inferior courts…”

  • “The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound, still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve them…”

  • and the diminishing the property rights of the people in the manner of William I and William II to consolidate power with the King; “The taking away of men’s right, under the colour of the King’s title to land, between high and low water marks…”

  • “The enlargements of forests, contrary to Carta de Foresta, and the composition thereupon…”

  • “Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture, under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out of the subjects’ purses, without any considerable profit to His Majesty…”

  • “Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without their consent, and against it…”

Charles was sentenced to death for his violations of Liberty and the people establish a higher standard of limited government than ever before. This influence of the people over government would have to be renewed in less than 40 years, during the reign of James II and through the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
james IIJames II boldly engaged in the same tactics of previous kings. Among his violations of the four previous Liberty Charters, James would completely ignore the separation of powers established between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches;
“By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;”
James, violating separation of powers, engaged in the writing of laws that were reserved to Parliament alone, so he could maintain foreign influence without Parliament’s obstruction. James also corrupted the judiciary by creating the Courts of Ecclesiastical Causes to circumvent the courts of common law, increasing the power of foreign law and influence, thereby wielding the law and judiciary by his will and that of his foreign advisers, contrary to the Liberty Charters and the will of the people;
“By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;”
James actions were as if he used the Grand Remonstrance as a guide book on what to do instead of a document limiting and denying the king’s authority. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the people’s response to James’ audacious disregard for the Liberties of the people. This revolution birthed the final installation of the Liberty Charters of Great Britain; the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It was in this document that the people would not only declare the evils of foreign influence but also establish an oath of office for the government; all must pledge to eschew all foreign influence from this day forward.

cameron oath
“I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

History proves that foreign influence is the enemy to Liberty. When government becomes yoked with foreign power it no longer needs the consent of the people; it no longer feels the control of the people; it no longer fears the condemnation of the people. A government with the aid of foreign influence has no respect for the Liberty of the people; it doesn’t have to. When the people cannot control their government, there is no limit to government power. A government with foreign backing will never allow limits by the people. Refusing foreign influence is the only way to maintain a limited government that respects the Rights of the people.
Foreign influence will also breed discord between the people and their government and the people with each other. When government refuses the limits of the people and enforces laws that are contrary to their Rights, both history and human nature dictate that hostility between the people and government will arise. Disharmony will arise between the people, pitting those who want to exercise their Rights and those who support the government and foreign rule. The irony of this inevitable consequence of foreign influence is that this conflict actually weakens the government and leaves it ripe for takeover by the very foreign power creating the struggle. Refusing foreign influence is actually essential in maintaining the security of the people and their government.
lionYou cannot tame the fire of foreign influence. It does not want to help or guide; it wants to control and consume. But foreign influence cannot be controlled, molded, or even limited. Once allowed within your government, foreign influence is an all-consuming fire that will bring the destruction of a raging inferno. There has never been any other conclusion and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.
How many of these same violations upon our Liberties do we find in government today? How often will we continue to blindly put ourselves at risk by yoking with foreign influence? In a day when we are believed to be more civilized and better educated than our centuries past, how can we be living with government engaging in the same “malignant and pernicious design” as these days of old?
Since we know that experience is an oracle of truth, where that experience shows the same results over and over again, wisdom says we must then hold those anticipated consequences to be an inevitability. History gives us those certainties about Britain remaining in the European Union.
brexit nowThis is not a conclusion based upon racism; that is an ignorant and ridiculous assumption.  This is a decision based upon history, truth, and inevitable consequences.  If Britain stays in the EU it will be the destruction of British Liberty and British government as you know it.
There are eternal consequences for our acquiescence to foreign power. History has given us all the direction we need to make a well-educated decision. We cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. If we neglect what we owe to God, our future, and the sacrifices of our past, our consciences will reproach us for our folly and our Posterity will curse us for our selfish considerations.

Adventures of A Liberty First Intern

This article was written by Rosalie Beeli, an intern who participated in the Liberty First experience.  I am touched, encouraged, and inspired by Rosalie’s words.  I am sure you will be too.  KAH

My Adventure With KrisAnne Hall ~ by Rosalie Beeli

photo 1A 5 hour drive to Idaho, by myself. Was it worth it? Yes!

2/9/2016 As the 300 conservatives gathered in the high school auditorium I seated myself in between a couple who was just realizing their liberties were being taken, and an army vet who has been fighting for liberty since he decided to homeschool his children nearly 20 years ago. This is one of the wonderful things about KrisAnne Hall meetings: diverse backgrounds unified by a common cause.

The first time I actually met Mrs. Hall was when she called me on stage from the audience to introduce me and another young lady Elizabeth, as her interns to the audience in Payette, ID. After Mrs. Hall finished her presentation Elizabeth and I were thrown into a frenzy of selling Mrs. Hall’s education material. The night ended with the selling out of ALL the materials that Mrs. Hall had brought save 8 T-shirts. When the event finally concluded it was 10 pm and since the hotel was an hour away we didn’t arrive till 11:15 (with a short stop at McDonald’s for dinner).  But before we could crash after a long night Mrs. Hall dutifully set up her equipment for her radio podcast that she would record in the morning. I, on the other hand, was asleep in a matter of minutes!

me rosaleeLet me tell you about myself. My name is Rosalie Beeli, I am a senior in High School and have lived in Utah for the last 4 years but grew up in southern California, yes there can be conservatives in SoCal. I am the middle child of five kids and have been homeschooled my entire life.  As a homeschooled student I have been given the opportunity to pursue subjects that I am passionate about. At the for most of my list is government. My mom was the first one to hear about KrisAnne in Feb of 2015 and it quickly became our morning routine to listen to the KrisAnne Show while we made breakfast. When Mrs. Hall announced she had an intern program we go very excited and I decided to apply. To be completely honest it took months for us to finally get in contact and work out a date when I could intern but it was worth the wait. We finally realized that KrisAnne would be in Idaho for three days. Thus began my 5 hour drive!

2/10/2016  “Rise and shine Liberty loving Patriots!” Was that KrisAnne talking to me? For a moment I thought I was back at home with my mom starting the daily podcast, but as I opened my eyes I was reminded that I was not at home but listening to KrisAnne live, recording her podcast in the hotel room for all of you. This was an especially surreal moment for me as my mom listens to these podcast on a regular basis every morning as she prepares our breakfast. But today I got to relax in bed while listening to one of these podcasts live!

intern pic idahoElizabeth and her brother Bennet were interning with KrisAnne last night and today. We all gathered for breakfast and good chat. Although Elizabeth and KrisAnne knew each other from her previous internship; I hadn’t officially met Elizabeth or Mrs. Hall for that matter! We spent breakfast getting to know each other and the time slowly turned into one of thanksgiving for the blessings we have received from our Savior. And so we had a morning devotional! In retrospect this was a key moment in my friendship with Mrs. Hall as we united under the banner of the Lord and placed Him at the forefront of our journey.

We started getting ready around 10:30, Mrs. KrisAnne took a shower while I ironed her shirt and listened to music. This was actually the moment where something clicked and I began to feel more comfortable and at-ease around Mrs. Hall. I felt useful and she seemed more human. We both listened to music as we got ready; this served as the real “ice breaker”.

idaho protestWe arrived at the Idaho State Capitol and on our way in, we passed 2 people who were protesting the closed-meeting that Mrs. Hall was speaking at. This was the first time she had seen protesters against her teaching so she naturally was a bit excited!

While KrisAnne and Elizabeth went to find the room where she was to speak, Bennet and I stayed back and I approached the protesters to ask a few questions and take their picture with the signs. Apparently these protesters were adamantly opposed to KrisAnne’s teachings, claiming she wanted to take power away from the States and make the Sheriff the highest position of power in America! They claimed they had listened to her podcasts but also stated that she was receiving a huge amount of funding from the ‘Koch Brothers’! It was quite obvious that these people were not educated on matters of ‘KrisAnne’ but it was a cool experience to see that KrisAnne was gaining enough momentum that people would take the time to protest her!

idaho capitolWe had our meeting in the Majority Caucus Room and had Senators as well as Representatives attend, many of them even took notes and made comments during the presentation! This was very encouraging for all of us to see elected officials taking charge of their enumerated powers and not just functioning based on some hidden agenda.

After the meeting with Republican legislatures we headed to lunch at a nearby Chinese restaurant and had lunch together. It was a great opportunity to relax, talk and share some laughs together. We also walked over to a shop called the “chocolate bar,” and if that doesn’t excite you….well then you have a lot more problems than just a tyrannical government. 😀 Apparently Mrs. Hall’s one weakness is dark chocolate, so we each got a piece of chocolate and then said our goodbyes as Elizabeth and Bennett headed back home.

KrisAnne and I headed back to the hotel where she had a radio interview and I crashed for a 30 minute nap. Mrs. Hall has got some amazing stamina to be on the go all the time. We got ready for our next speaking engagement and took off about 5, we stopped at a coffee shop for our energy boost and arrived at the local aviation center where the event was being held.

religious libertyThe topic for that night’s engagement was Religious Liberty. I had never hear KrisAnne Hall speak on this subject, but as she did I was adamantly convinced that God has sent her to embody the George Washington, Patrick Henry and Paul the Apostle of this generation. ALL INSIDE THIS ADORABLE 5’ WOMAN!!! I had chills during her entire speech, and what was 1 ½ hours genuinely felt like 20 minutes. (please note, this is coming for a 17 year old girl, to whom time does not fly easily) We had about 100 at that event, about 30 of which had attended the event the night before. We spent some time interacting with people but we were out of material to sell so it we accepted donations and talked.

We left the venue around 9:30 and on the way to dinner KrisAnne was being bombarded by texts concerning the situation in Oregon, apparently she is a member of the Coalition of Western States and is updated on the legal status between those States and the federal government. Anyway, things were blowing up in Oregon and I could tell it was weighing heavily on her mind. KrisAnne allowed me to treat her to dinner at Panda Express and we prayed for the government employees as well as citizens in Oregon. When we got back to the hotel we were both very tired and went to bed.

krisanne-hall-radio-show-video-splash2/11/2016 Thursday morning was much like Wednesday; recording a podcast , going to the gym and breakfast. But we weren’t as rushed today and KrisAnne spent the entire morning on the computer or her phone, concentrating on what she was reading or listening to. Finally during breakfast she went back up to her room to deal with a phone call. I was planning to head out around noon after Mrs. Hall had another radio interview at 11am. However when I went back to our room I found Mrs. Hall on the phone at her desk in a heated conversation.

I sat on my bed and listened as the conversation changed and Mrs. Hall as well as a few other people on the phone seemed to unify in talking to a young man on the other line. I later found out that this young man was David and the call they were on would be known as the Oregon Live Stream. Long story short I was able to experience first-hand the emotional struggle that went down between David and the FBI in Oregon.

Mrs. KrisAnne Hall and I shared a very emotional moment afterward, hugging and rejoicing in the power of God to work powerfully through us as individuals. KrisAnne Hall has allowed herself to be used by the Lord for an incredible cause and her voice has inspired thousands. This is what inspired me as I drove home and what continues to inspire me today as I see deceit and corruption in every aspect of our country. I truly believe that God has gifted KrisAnne Hall for a very specific purpose and I am awed by her passion for liberty and the impact she has had.

Tenth AmendmentThis adventure with Mrs. Hall took place in the middle of the Utah Legislative Session. During this session I reached out to different Senators and Representatives in Utah to shadow them for a day. So from Jan 27th-March 10th you would find me up on Capitol Hill at least 3 times a week, getting to know the Legislators and their staff. Through this experience I was able to develop a personal relationship with the lawmakers in my State. And from my experience with KrisAnne Hall I was able to confidently speak about the nature of our constitution, the sovereignty of the States and the powers specifically given to the federal government. I also got to personally hand out flyers about KrisAnne Hall to more than half of the Representatives in Utah! What was even more amazing is that I knew almost all of them by name.

I have become so inspired by Mrs. KrisAnne Hall and even during this State of unrest and corruption in our country I have found peace in knowing that our Lord orchestrates everything and that as long as we are willing servants He will work through us for His greater purpose.

America: Still Worth Fighting For

big brotherOur contemporary American experience seems often Orwellian.  We have a Congress that denies our Rights in the name of security.  We have a president who not only writes laws with his pen, but is also in the habit of rewriting history to serve his political purposes.  Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy this year in the fight to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. We are all well aware that there are still many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered.  But let us be reminded of a hope that is rooted firmly in the original American experience that makes our land so exceptional.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could live in the greatest place the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with the courage and hope that would build this exceptional land.

Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn patrick henryout. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

We have so much to be thankful for.  Let us not forget that Liberty is a gift that was purchased for us with great sacrifice. Among the many things we have to be thankful for, we must be eternally grateful for the wisdom of men and women that understood that Liberty was a gift from God and that all God’s gifts are worth our every sacrifice.  John Adams, in a letter to Abigail in 1777 expressed this sacrifice.

“Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”

crispus attuck battleWe must honor this sacrifice by honoring their memory and continuing their efforts.  Too often I see the revisionism of our history in an effort to demean these men and women with the purpose of destroying our Constitution.  We do not properly respect their efforts by allowing these lies to be taught to our sons and daughters.  We must teach the truth.  We owe it to them.  We owe it to our children.  It is our hope.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have. We must understand that our Liberty was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me. However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring union must be Liberty moored in morality. Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

“Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty.” The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States1.jpgOur founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW. Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom. Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder. Pure freedom is anarchy. At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone. Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy. Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion. Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents. If we abandon our history, we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, then liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that is justice cannot sleep forever.”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of American_Revolutionary_Militiamen And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Did these brave men and women live without fear? Hardly so! Mercy Otis Warren articulated this dilemma so well.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

They knew that bravery was not the absence of fear, but doing what you must in the face of fear. They knew that the battle for Liberty, as Mercy called it, was a righteous cause. Knowing the source of her courage is the key to understanding her resolve. Mercy wrote a letter to her friend Mrs. Macauley in 1774, from this letter we can know the source of her strength. She said they were “ready to sacrifice their devoted Mercy_Otis_Warrenlives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature.”

The key to victory, the key to the courage that brings victory is not simply fighting the fight, but KNOWING we fight a righteous battle for the One who gave us that Liberty. Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty. Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls.” But Paine’s full statement gives a richness that is lost with the initial quote alone. Payne continues to tell us who will last in this battle and WHY they will last.

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the revolutionary sniperharder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing (sic) its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

If we want to have the resolve that Mercy Otis-Warren spoke of, the confidence that Patrick Henry displayed, we must KNOW what Thomas Jefferson knew so we will not become the sunshine patriots Thomas Paine condemns. We must know Liberty is a gift from God.  We must know this Gift, although comes at a high price, is worth fighting for because God is with us. If God be with us, who can be against us?

As an exceptional union built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God. Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that America was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity. We are a people that open their arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No other people can claim this legacy; no other people have this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

libertyThe focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us our Constitution, but on the exceptional principles that they gave us. We have an exceptional union where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” A land birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people. A country that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”  We have prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status. A land that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

colton libertyLet us maintain a true focus on what is important. In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw. Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism? Why not embrace what makes us different from every other place on the globe? America is exceptional because we are built on exceptional principles. Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.  And these principles are STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!