Contact Information 245 Winter Street SE Salem, Oregon 97301 smiths@willamette.edu

Susan L. Smith is a law professor at Williamette University, who “focuses her scholarly research on the role of law in achieving sustainability and environmental criminal enforcement.”  She is a former senior trial attorney and Assistant of the Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, where she received several awards for distinguished service.  She has taught “Environmental Law and Policy, Sustainable Natural Resources Law, Environmental Criminal Enforcement, Toxic Substances Regulation, Water Law...”  With this background, Smith took it upon herself to publish erroneous information about me, my teaching, and the Constitution to defend her environmental activist ideologies.   Here is my response to her flawed opinions:

Answering an Oregon “Legal Scholar”

After reading Professor Susan Lea Smith’s ‘review” of my ‘legal arguments’ in her opinion piece dated January 22, 2016, it is clear that environmentalist Susan Smith has done very little research on the matters she attempts to address in her opinion piece to the people of Harney County; including, but not limited to, my qualifications, my teaching on the subject of State Sovereignty, and the matter in which I taught the citizens of Harney County, Oregon. If Ms. Smith researches her legal teachings in the same sad manner in which she researched my teaching, I pity her students at Williamette University Law School.

In Ms. Smith’s first footnote she questions my qualifications as a “scholar.” Unlike Ms. Smith, this is not a title that I have ever been so arrogant to bestow upon myself, and I think a simple definition might clear the confusion:

schol·ar ˈskälər (noun)  a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic. A person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study. synonyms:  academic, intellectual, learned person, man/woman of letters, mind, intellect.

I would be curious to understand why Ms. Smith doesn’t believe my years of dedicated specialized study, the five books, and over 100 published articles I have written would not qualify me as a “specialist.” Is it perhaps because I am not currently employed by a small rural college (ranked 132^nd out of 144 ranked law schools in the US)? I wonder how many classes Ms. Smith teaches that qualify her to give a “scholarly opinion?” How many people has she taught? Annually, I teach an average of 265 lessons in over 22 States, and in just ten months I teach an average of over 40 thousand people, yet that is not good enough for Ms. Smith. Prior to my private teaching, I taught at the law enforcement academy in Madison County Florida for over a year as an adjunct professor. Perhaps she didn’t take the time to research all of this, which wouldn’t surprise me.

Next Ms. Smith tries to impugn my reputation by questioning my association with the Florida Bar and my qualifications in the area of Constitutional law. Once again, this highlights Ms. Smith’s pathetic research skills. First, I am a member of the Florida Bar. My bar number is a matter of public record. Additionally, as a member of the Florida Bar, I have chosen to be listed as “inactive” because I am not able to take on litigation cases due to my incredibly active teaching, speaking, and publication schedule.  My standing with the Florida Bar is not under question and I have never received any disciplinary actions by the Florida Bar.  All of this can be discovered by a rudimentary search on the internet.

Finally, as to my qualifications; I received my JD from The University of Florida, Levin College of Law (ranked in the top 50 law schools in the country).  While in law school I was the only member of my class to receive the University’s Constitutional Law Scholarship.  Prior to graduation, I was fast tracked into the University’s certified legal intern program by the State Attorney of the 3^rd Judicial Circuit of Florida, receiving my certification before any of my other 300 classmates.  While participating in the internship program, prior to graduation, I had already successfully tried over 10 criminal jury trials.  I was not only a prosecutor for the State of Florida for nearly a decade, but I also specifically practiced Constitutional law with a private firm for over two years. With this firm, I defended the Rights of dozens of people in active court, in multiple States.  Additionally, I gave legal advice to dozens of private citizens, and to both public and private organizations in the area of Constitutional law every year. I wonder, how many real Constitutional cases, in a real courtroom, has Ms. Smith had the opportunity to lead? Any attorney would know how to find this information.  But, I guess truth was not an important part of Ms. Smith’s paper to Harney County.  Maybe someone at Williamette should explain Ms. Smith the elements of libel?

Ironically, Ms. Smith claims that I teach an interpretation of the Constitution called “textualism.”  That could not be any further from the truth. A simply review of my over 100 teaching articles, videos, or any one of my five books, (all available with simple glance on my website) proves that statement to be patently false. Ms. Smith claims her interpretation is based upon “original intent,” yet she nearly immediately deviates from original intent by invoking Supreme Court cases as matter of “precedent” to support her opinions, rather than the actual words of intent of the Framers. I will resist the overwhelming urge to reteach my classes to her in this letter; as they are easily accessible in writing, and on YouTube, for those who are actually interested in truth.

You can also discover that I was an environmentalist and a biologist, so I am not unfamiliar with the environmentalist thought process. As with Ms. Smith, it doesn’t seem unusual for an environmentalist at one point in the name of saving swamps and salmon to rail against the federal government’s immunity, yet cheer for the federal government’s universal supremacy when suddenly they are siding with the plants and shredding the Constitution. I will simply say this to the people of Harney County- beware of “scholarly” interpretations that support federal supremacy and judicial supremacy over the inalienable Rights of the People and the powers reserved to the States. Such is a person arguing for slavery, not for the rule of law.

If what Ms. Smith says is true, then Oregon is not a State, but a colony or territory of the federal government. In that case, Oregon should have no representation in the House or Senate and no electoral votes for President. To be a State, that government must be “sovereign and independent” (see Massachusetts v Mellon 262 US 447, 482 (1923) and NFIB v Sebellius 567 US ____ (2012) Docket No. 11-393. A State that does not have sovereignty over its land is not a State but a Territory. Perhaps the people of Oregon might want to know the federal government views them as merely a Territory of the federal government?

The most striking fact of her opinion is Ms. Smith’s complete reliance upon the federal government through its judicial branch to exercise an authority to determine exclusively and finally the limits of its own power. If that is true, we do not live in a Constitutional Republic, where the government is limited and defined by the Constitution. Instead we live in a “totalitarian fedocracy” where the only limit to the government is its own will, dictated by an oligarchy of 9 kings and queens.  Unfortunately, this is a natural consequence of an educated class of people who have been trained in the principles of judicial supremacy rather than in Constitutional supremacy. After all, once a recognized part of this elite class, who wouldn’t want to be the ultimate arbiters of all things; who would voluntarily relinquish that authority to the people through their States as demanded by the Constitution? Apparently not many in our current judicial system, and certainly not Ms. Smith or the federal government she defends.

When the only argument to substantiate federal authority is “because the federal government reasons it to be so,” there is no limit, control, or check and balance to such federal authority. The people are left to surrender to the “whim of the sovereign” and we are reduced to the nature of tributary slaves.

People of Harney County, this is simply a matter of fact and a matter of who you choose to be.  By fact is Oregon a State or a colony? By choice are you free people in a Constitutional Republic or subjects of a federal Oligarchy of nine kings and queens whose oppressive rule is propagated by their slavish minions in the legal field declaring LONG LIVE THE KINGS? It seems that Ms. Smith believes the KING CAN DO NO WRONG as long as he happens to be on the side of her own pet issue.

In spite of it all I am truly blessed.  Let me share something, because attitude is everything.

I am currently stranded in Ft. Pierce, Fl.  Last night, after teaching the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County, Fl., my 2004 Chevy Colorado (274k miles!) had a total electrical failure. Dash lights going crazy, no power as I am driving down the road.  I managed to pull into a gas station where my engine completely died.  Two very nice men tried to jump my truck. As soon as the cables were removed, my truck died again.  I am now stuck in a “bad” part of town, an hour away from my hotel. I am alone, my husband is in Haiti, and I am feeling very vulnerable. Can I mention that I really wanted to cry?  But instead I said a prayer for strength and smiled knowing that I am never truly alone.

We have come to call them “Hall Family Adventures;” experiences, good and bad, that will be stories told one day, experiences that we would never have had if we had not accepted this unique way of life.

I called my assistant, Janet, who is more like my best friend than an assistant and she worries about me like a mom.  She gave me Alex’s phone number.  Alex is the leader of the group I just taught and he was happy to come to my rescue.  I was also able to contact my husband in Haiti and he talked to me until Alex came.  (I am blessed to have such a wonderful husband.)

Alex picked me up and took me to 2 Wal-Marts before we found my battery. Walmart replaced my battery for free as it was under warranty.  We changed the battery. The truck started, but the battery light came on immediately. I was able to make it to my hotel in Ft. Pierce about midnight.

I am currently sitting in JJ’S Cafe on Hwy 1, eating a Denver Omelet, waiting for Dyer Chevrolet to tell me what is wrong with my truck.

I am blessed to have a truck that is paid for.  In this way of life I could never maintain a car payment or even find a place to finance me after I told them I work for free, Lol.

I am blessed to live in a day when I can call my husband in Haiti to just hear his voice for love, comfort, and support.

I am blessed to live in America, where the American Spirit drives us to be kind and compassionate to strangers (red, yellow, black, or white) in need.  Americans prove that the media is in the job of lying and deceiving.  We are not selfish bigots full of hate and greed ready to gun down our neighbors. We are some of the best people on this planet!

I am blessed to have been able to sleep in the comfort of a hotel room.  I am blessed to have a place to get my truck fixed. And, as I sit here in JJ’s with tears streaming down my face, I am blessed to have a cup of coffee and a Denver Omelet in my belly.

I am blessed by people like Service Manager, Mike Rivera, at Dyer Chevrolet in Ft. Pierce, FL for his kind help of this woman in distress.  Because of all of these blessings my family and I are able to engage in our mission to restore the American Constitutional Republic through proper education, teaching over 265 classes every year!

Is this life of constant travel glamorous? Absolutely not.  At times it is downright impossible.  But there are people who pray for me and my family all over the world.  Even the bad times are a blessing when I remember WHY my family chose this life.

America is worth fighting for.  Liberty is worth dying for. My child is worth the sacrifice. Many gave their Lives, Fortunes, & Sacred Honor so we could live in the greatest place on the planet. I am just repaying them for their sacrifice. I count myself blessed to be able to do so.  Just another Hall Family Adventure!

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers.

Learn more about my family’s mission: www.KrisAnneHall.com

From time to time I accept guest articles on my website.  I hope you enjoy this one.  I hope that it will spark a valuable discourse about wisdom ~ KrisAnne Hall

 

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and the problems they represent to the current political party system are mirror images of each other. In the coming months it will be extremely interesting to watch how the two Parties attempt to bring to heel their respective renegades.

Most recently, the Republican Party has gotten Trump’s signature on some sort of “Loyalty Pledge.”  Can there be any better proof of the Republican Party’s desire to rule contrary to our own wishes? I would love to know what the author of “The Art of the Deal” got in return for a meaningless piece of paper proffered by Reince “Chamberlin” Priebus. “Party loyalty in our time!”

While the genesis of Trump’s and Sander’s independence is different, the sizes of their rallies are approximately equal. Trump is, for all intents and purposes, immune to the typical financial leverage from the donor class of the American Political power structure due to his self-sufficiency. Sanders, on the other hand, has massive grassroots appeal from the hard Left even without the financial resources of Trump. As a result, Trump and Sanders are essentially out of the control of their parent parties.

But what about the Party/Donor Class favorites, Clinton and Bush?  Shouldn’t they be doing better than Trump and Sanders? Jeb Bush, on paper, is the ideal Republican Party candidate.  He is a former president’s brother which means he has all the major donors in his rolodex.  He is a former governor which gives him the Executive Experience so many governors tout as a requirement for the Presidency.  And, last but not least, he is a faithful friend to the System that we live under.  This friendship implies that the System can rest assured that the gravy train that it has enjoyed through cronyism will continue under a Jeb Administration.

Hillary Clinton, just as Jeb, is/was the ideal Democrat Party candidate (on paper, at least).  She, like Jeb, is a member of a former president’s inner circle; in Hillary’s case, she was one of many with whom the former president “did not have sexual relations.”  Because of her access to such a rarified inner circle, she too has access to the major donors who keep the System humming.

Also, like her Republican counterpart, Hillary has Executive Experience by way of being a former Senator and Secretary of State to Barack Obama.  There’s nothing in her resume speaking to any  accomplishments that enumerate her executive experience beyond occupying an office (just ask her supporters and other low information voters), but there you have it. And really, “at this point, what difference does it make?”

Also like Jeb, she is a friend of the System.  Her lifelong membership of the Political Ruling Class ensures that she will tow the line of her benefactors, just as Jeb would.  It should be noted here that it was recently discovered that both Jeb and Hillary enjoy the same donors.  This fact alone should tell you, dear reader, that the System under which we live, does not care who wins the election; it owns both sides of the electoral equation.

Many in the punditry class love to tell you how much money each candidate has raised and describe the size of their “war chest.”  With the understanding that money rules politics and politicians, and the vast majority of those millions of dollars do NOT come from Ma and Pa Kettle sending in their five dollar donation, isn’t the amount of money ‘raised’ really only a measure of how “paid for” that particular candidate is?

Shouldn’t a candidate be insulted by large donations which only serve to imply he/she is for sale?

So with all this in mind, how are the respective party favorites doing in the era of instant information and new media? Poor Jeb is stuttering his way through pressers trying to land a punch on Trump and Hillary can’t fill high school gymnasiums barely pulling 300 people together (always be wary of close up shots of candidates speaking to an audience that obscure how many people aren’t there).

But why? Why are the party favorites failing when Trump and Sanders are exploding? In both cases, Trump and Sanders, for all intents and purposes, more accurately reflect the concerns and wishes of the electorate on both sides of the aisle. The people inherently recognize that we live within a highly managed System of Control and the support for those who buck that System are garnering the support of the population.

But I am not here to comment on who’s better, Jeb-Hillary, or Bernie or Donald.  What interests me more, and something I wish to highlight to my readers is: What does this electoral landscape imply?

Well, for one thing, there are now two Americas (Left and Right). The political consultants’ myth of the “undecided voter” is now shown to be either a long-lived farcical idea at worst or simply no longer true at best; There is no Middle Ground; there is no “undecided voter.” Everyone has, whether they like it or not, taken a side.

Another key take away from the current electoral landscape is that Americans (of both stripes) have realized that their government, or political party, does not represent them anymore (the only lingering question now is, how long has it been this way?).  Conservatives and Liberals both realize that the System no longer protects them, but rather exploits them.

Neither Clinton nor Bush represent the desires of Americans and the population is making its collective voice heard in this regard. The general population is now eschewing the candidates chosen for them and is instead supporting candidates that speak to directly to their concerns (left and right).

What must also be just as panicking for the System is not only are their favorite “candidates” being ignored by the population, but the tried and true mouthpieces for the “System” now appear completely obsolete and comical since the advent of New Media.

Incredibly, John Kerry himself commented about this “difficulty.” 

“This pesky Internet makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest.”

This admission of the Ruling Elite’s true aim is jaw dropping.  But you must have eyes to see and ears to hear” in order to understand what he truly was trying to say.  Simply exchange the politically correct terms with what Kerry means to say and his true meaning and frustration comes into sharp focus.

What Kerry really meant was: 

“This pesky Internet makes it much harder to rule, makes it much harder to categorize people, much harder to choose the common interest.”

Quite a stark difference, wouldn’t you say?

I am reminded of a quote by Daniel Webster in 1837:

“There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but they mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters.”

People all over the country, both left and right, are waking up to the fact that the assumptions they have held for so long are proving to be false.  That the Democratic Party believes in Liberal Principles and that the Republican Party believes in Conservative Principles is now demonstrably false and the American people are waking to this truth.  The Parties are nothing more than instruments meant to control and rule, nothing more.

While the American people may differ on specifics, ultimately we will, as one people, are recognizing the overarching lie together.  And nothing can stop a people united in truth.

As people begin to question their old assumptions, they will discover that there is more that unites us than separates us.  As proof of this, I challenge you to find anyone (anyone who does not personally profit by it) who supports the chopping up humans (some of whom are still alive)  and selling their body parts. This is not a left/right issue, it is a Human issue and one that will ultimately serve to lift the veil and unite the American people.

To my eyes, it does not matter who secures the presidency.  In a perfect world the Media would occupy an adversarial position to those in power.  Lacking this, Trump has done it for them and has occupied the adversarial position himself.  And in so doing, he has (probably inadvertently) opened many people’s eyes to the System that has existed for so long.

The old assumptions are falling away. The population, once having glimpsed the truth, once having glimpsed the System as it exists to exert control, can never un-see this. 

The old System is already dead, we are merely witness to, and the instruments of, its ultimate demise.

And with this sentiment, I would like to close this essay with another quote from Daniel Webster, one that seems eerily appropriate for the times we find ourselves in.

“Wisdom begins at the end.

Yours in Our Time,

 

 

 

 

 

September 4, 2015

Government land grabs are becoming more and more prevalent every day.  There are executive agencies taking private land through regulatory acts.  The federal government is seizing up more and more private land under the auspices of environmental preservation and national parks.  We are even seeing the military taking private land and calling it national security.   Our framers believed that the Right to secure property was vital to the preservation of Liberty.  Under what circumstances can the government legally and constitutionally take our land?

From John Locke, the father of our understanding of Natural Law, in his “II Treaties”:

“The Supream Power cannot take from any Man any part of his Property without his own consent. For the preservation of Property being the end (purpose) of Government, and that for which Men enter into Society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the People should have Property, without which they must be suppos’d to lose that by entring into Society, which was the end for which they entered into it, too gross an absurdity for any Man to own. 

For I have truly no Property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think, that the Supream or Legislative Power of any Commonwealth, can do what it will, and dispose of the Estates of the Subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure…

For a Man’s Property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable Laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his Fellow Subjects, if he who commands those Subjects, have Power to take from any private Man, what part he pleases of his Property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good.”

We have an inherent Right to acquire, possess, and secure private property.  That doesn’t mean that the government has a duty to provide all people with property.  It means that we have the Right to acquire it without government control and permission and once we acquire it, we have the Right to possess it and protect it.  The entire purpose for establishing government is to collectively protect the inherent Rights of the individual.  To accept that the government can operate contrary to its entire purpose, by taking those Rights instead of protecting them, Locke calls that a “gross absurdity.”

Locke’s principle of the inherent Right to acquire and possess land is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1795:

“From these passages, it is evident, that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent and inalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects that induced them to unite in society. No man could become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact…”  Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, US, 1795.

The government should not arbitrarily take property from the people.  Arbitrary taking is a clear violation of the Constitution and as the Supreme Court so eloquently states, it is contrary to the primary object of government.  But not only that, James Madison explains that arbitrary taking of private property is the mark of an “unjust government”, an act of “complete despotism:”

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.” James Madison, Property, 1792

The principle of the inherent Right to possess is embodied in the 5^th & 7^th Amendments to the Constitution when it declares that “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Notice the three restricting elements: due process, public use, just compensation.  How do we determine what is adequate due process and what is just compensation?  According to contract law, the law that is controlling over the interpretation of the Constitution, we must look to the framers of the Constitution for guidance.  Alexander Hamilton says,

“It is there declared that, no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right, but by due process of law, or the judgment of his peers. The words “due process” have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature.” Alexander Hamilton, Remarks on an Act for Regulating Elections, New York Assembly, 6 Feb. 1795

Due process is an act of the courts of justice, not an act of the legislature.  It is not within the delegated power of the legislature to pass a law that takes your land, the legislature’s only power is to negotiate a settlement with the land owner.  When that negotiation fails, any taking must be facilitated through the courts via proper application of due process.  How must that be done?

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – 7^th Amendment

When the government attempts to take any property valued at more than $20, due process means a trial by jury of our peers.  This means that private property should not be a legislative act.  Private property should not be taken by a single judge, or even a tribunal of judges.  Private property should not be taken by an executive agency.

The Supreme Court in Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance explains that, in reality, there are only 3 ways a private citizen can legally and constitutionally give up their private property Rights.

“Public exigencies do not require, necessity does not demand, that the legislature should, of themselves, without the participation of the proprietor, or intervention of a jury, assess the value of the thing, or ascertain the amount of the compensation to be paid for it. This can constitutionally be effected only in three ways.

1. By the parties–that is, by stipulation between the legislature and proprietor of the land;
2. By commissioners (neutral third party arbitrators) mutually elected by the parties (the land owners & the legislators); or
3. By the intervention of a jury.” (clarification mine)

What we can conclude by the application of these principles and the accompanying law is that:

1. The acquiring and securing of private land is an inherent Right of men, not government;
2. Government is established with the purpose of securing private property Rights;
3. Government is not authorized take land arbitrarily;
4. Government cannot be the one to determine the value of the compensation;
5. Compensation is set by agreement of the land owner or by a trial by jury of peers;
6. Government Executive Agencies cannot take land, cannot negotiate the taking of land, and are not the legal parties to the taking of land.
7. The only legal and constitutional negotiating parties to the taking of land are the land owners and the legislators;

This Supreme Court in 1795 believed that if the federal government could take land from private land owners outside these limited constitutional parameters, that government would,

“display the dangerous nature of unlimited authority; it would [be] an exercise of power and not of right. Such an act would be a monster in legislation and shock all mankind…

It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance, in every free government; and lastly, it is contrary both to the letter and spirit of the constitution.  In short, it is what every one would think unreasonable and unjust in his own case.”

James Madison made a plea, in 1792, to the people of America and for future generations:

“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions….

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.”

Do we have a just government?  Does our government deserve the full praise due to wise governments?  Do our legislatures, courts, and governors equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights?  This is our real litmus and this is one of the ways that history will judge America.

As you may know, we have been wanting to expand the Liberty First ministry.  One of our goals was to begin an internship program to bring young people into the Liberty First mission to train and equip them to stand for Liberty against government infringements.  We are seeing this goal become a reality!  I am so excited to introduce to you, Elizabeth Manley, our First Liberty First intern.  Elizabeth will be traveling, working, and studying under my Constitutional training from August 11th through August 20th.  Our Youth is the future of Liberty, that cannot be denied.  Your continued support will help us meet the costs of this invaluable training program.

If you would like to help us out with this program, please click HERE and donate.  We are so grateful for the combined efforts of the Liberty First Brigade.  Through the grace of God and your generosity, Elizabeth will be the first of many interns for the Liberty First mission.  Don’t forget to keep us in your prayers and thoughts as we travel and teach the future of Liberty!

Now, let’s hear from Elizabeth and learn about this amazing young lady.

I was born July 25^th, 1998. I am 17. I have seven siblings, four brothers, three sisters, and am third oldest. Though I was born in Oregon, we moved to Idaho shortly after I turned one. The trip to Idaho was a God thing. He thoroughly and obviously instructed my parents to move. My parents didn’t have much money, but they trusted God, and He provided.  Our little family of only five at the time, packed up and moved to Idaho.  They had been praying for a home debt free, were able to purchase 5 acres, and planned to slowly build a small home.  However, our church came together and in three days the framework and shell of a house was standing.  It was a direct answer to prayer.  “… unless the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.”

I grew up on this little 5 acre farm.  I was a home-schooled, free, semi-tomboy blessed with few cares and a wonderful life.  I grew up with my older brother (2 years older) taking me hunting, playing tag with me, and having general daily adventures.  I was baptized and publicly accepted Christ at age ten alongside him.   My sibling and I all enjoy each other very much!

I love people. They are my passion in life. I love to encourage and edify them. I love speaking and reaching out to people. That said, over the last few years my life has continued to revolve quite fully around people.  Last fall, a friend and I taught a Geography class for middle-schoolers, and my brother and I taught a ballroom dance class. That was fun and incredible.  I’ve tried to learn during low times in my life to be thankful for the things I do have in life, not what I don’t.  This has helped me look around myself and see what I can do to bless others, instead of being “bored” or lonely.  I have also worked at a week long summer camp for the last three years.  Last fall I was blessed to begin working as a waitress at a tiny cafe right down the road from my house.  This working experience has been absolutely thrilling for me.  It has continued to mature me in learning how to interact with co-workers and the general public.

I was also blessed when the Lord opened doors, allowing me a week long adventure.  I flew to Colorado in early July of 2015 and attended a Home School Legal Defense Association sponsored camp. This camp was very interesting and was a complete simulation of the White House and our government.  I loved making new friends with the staff and campers. The chapel and worship sessions were also incredible. Overall my experiences there were insightful, wonderful, and challenging!

Besides the fact that I love people, I also love to read.  As I have gotten older, I have found a natural desire to stand up for people. I very much dislike when people are wrongly treated, and I want to change that.  I realize that there is only so much one person can do, but I want to live my life for Christ completely.  My favorite Bible verse is probably Joshua 1:9 which states: “Do not be afraid nor be thou dismayed for the Lord your God is with you withersoever thou goest.”

I am really looking forward to this trip with you, Mrs. Hall. I don’t know what the Lord has in mind, but I am excited to trust Him.  I look forward to seeing what His plans are.  He made this trip possible for me.  It was thrilling to see Him act in such a real way, providing finances, food, and the opportunity as a whole.

Thank you so much for being willing to train me and let me “tag” along with you.  I look forward to getting to know you in person!

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Grace Manley