Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law Unintended Consequences

/in /by

Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences
By KrisAnne Hall, JD

In a case titled NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, the supreme Court is asked to opine on whether Beccera’s injunction to stop enforcement of California’s FACT Act should be granted or not. California’s FACT Act requires pro-life clinics to inform their clients on how and where to get abortions. This government forced message, Beccera claims, is unquestionably contrary to their practices and beliefs and is therefore a violation of their freedom of speech. The supreme Court rightly agrees with Beccera and grants the injunction and sends the case to the lower courts to finish its legal process.

This is a victory for freedom of speech and also for the unborn’s right to life.  However, it may have some unintended consequences for pro-life supporters. Justice Clarence Thomas writes in the majority opinion:

“Content-based regulations “target speech based on its communicative content.” As a general matter, such laws “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”

Thomas remarks that California’s licensed notice is a content-based regulation of speech.  Since this particular notice is forced upon clinics like Beccera’s, who are morally opposed to abortion, this particular notice only serves to “alte[r] the content of [their] speech.”

Justice Breyer, writing for the dissent, claims that the government has traditionally held the power to regulate speech through professional licensing and this case should be no different. However, Justice Thomas reasons that speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals” therefore the California law cannot force pro-life clinics to include government scripted instructions about abortion. Justice Breyer remarks in the dissent that this opinion, depending upon how it is applied, could have widespread ramifications on many laws currently in place requiring certain businesses to supply clients with government scripted notices. This point made by Breyer is where pro-life advocates may find that they have won this case, only to lose another.

Many States have laws on the books that require abortion clinics, both public and private, to provide brochures on alternatives to abortion. Many States have laws forcing these abortion clinics to provide ultra-sound services along with instruction about the developmental stages of the baby in the womb. These are also government scripted notices forced upon these clinics contrary to their practices and beliefs. If these abortion clinics were to challenge these laws forcing the pro-life message, under this precedent the high Court would also have to overturn those pro-life message laws.

This judicial tit for tat is what happens when people use the force of government to promote personal messages. As Thomas so clearly points out in the majority opinion, the pro-abortion proponents could easily inform the women about its services “without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,” most obviously through a public-information campaigns. To be consistent in their opinions, the majority would have to say the same thing about government forced pro-life practices and messages.  This means that both parties will have to use non-governmental methods to inform the public about their services rather than relying on the force of government to promote their message.

The irony is that the supreme Court seems unanimous to a certain degree that freedom of speech deserves the highest level of protection, however, the life of an unborn child does not.

Feds Admit Manipulating Americans With Propaganda

/in /by

Former State Department Official: The Federal Government Using Propaganda on Americans – And This is Why

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

Richard Stengel, a former high-level U.S. government official, head of the office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department from 2013 to 2016, former editor of Time Magazine, and a regular pundit on MSNBC, said in April of 2018, at a Council on Foreign Relations forum about “fake news,” that he supports the use of propaganda on American citizens.  He then continued and said;

“Basically, every country creates their own narrative story and, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the ‘chief propagandist’ job.”

Keep in mind, that in 2013 Congress passed legislation allowing the federal government to fund and create propaganda they knew could be used to manipulate Americans on American soil.  This legislation was called The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, sponsored by Mac Thornberry (R-TX), that failed in 2011 when it was submitted on its own.  But in 2013 Thornberry and his co-sponsors buried this legislation in the NDAA of 2014, where it was surreptitiously passed.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act overturned a prohibition against domestic propaganda that had been in place since 1948.  This act was passed as a result of a series of events in American history that drew the concern of those who wanted to secure a free press and the freedom of speech of the American people.  The concern began when Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information through an executive order with the purpose of influencing American public opinion toward supporting the US involvement in World War I. The man appointed to be the chairman over this committee was George Creel, a well renowned investigative journalist and editor of the Rocky Mountain News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 created a limitation for propaganda to be released in the United States. If such propaganda was requested, the information could not be released until 12 years after its publication. This was an additional protection established so that this government created information could not be used to influence current public opinion.  The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, eliminated that protection.   The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act not only legitimized the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but allowed Congress to fund it with tax-payer dollars

In 2011, I wrote a detailed analysis of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act and its potentional dangers.  In spite of our concerns, many congressmen were adamant that this legislation would not be used to spend tax dollars to create propaganda to be used domestically.  They told us it would just be used to create propaganda on foreign soil, nothing to worry about.

Six years later, did a former State Department Official just admitted he created and used domestic propaganda, and believes it’s the right thing to do?  We don’t need to be concerned, right?  They are just trying to keep us safe.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

Supreme Court & Baking Cakes

/in /by

Supreme Court And Baking Cakes: Not About Religious Liberty

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

The supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion on a highly anticipated case regarding the right of a baker to refuse to design and create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony based upon his religious convictions.  However, for the SCOTUS, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom, but one of unjust government discrimination.

The History

Jack Phillips, a practicing Christian, often refused to design and create baked goods based upon his religious beliefs.  His store was closed on Sundays and other Christian holidays, he refused to create or design desserts for Halloween, and he refused to make desserts that contained alcohol.  Mr. Phillips did not refuse to serve the same-sex couple who later filed a complaint.  He only refused to design and create a cake for their wedding.  He remarked that he would be happy to design and create cookies, birthday cakes, shower cakes, or brownies, just not a wedding cake due to religious objections.  The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the

commission, after several hearings, decided that Mr. Phillips violated Colorado’s public accommodation laws by refusing to create and design this wedding cake for the same-sex couple.  The Colorado commission did not accept Mr. Phillip’s defense of religious conviction.  Members of the commission, on record and as justification for their decision, mocked Mr. Phillip’s beliefs and compared his religious convictions to slavery and to the Holocaust.  The supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Phillips in a 7-2 opinion, based particularly on the statements of the Colorado commissioners.

There are some very significant points that must be made to clarify this carefully written opinion.  Because of the great public anticipation over this case, there will be a tendency to make more of what was said than was actually said and mischaracterize the magnitude of this decision.

  1. Not a Matter of Freedom of Religion

The court did not render its opinion on the basis of religious freedom.  They did not declare that private business owners are free to discriminate based upon religious beliefs.  As a matter of fact, they said the opposite.

“It is the general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny 

protected persons equal access to goods and public services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” (Page 9)

“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” (Page 10)

Mr. Phillips made multiple statements asserting his refusal to make the cake was based upon religious conviction.  However, it seems the Court only references these objections for the purpose of condemning the Colorado commissioners’ apparent discriminatory statements voiced against Mr. Phillips.  This Court never asserted that Mr. Phillips was justified in his refusal based upon his right to religious freedom.  It is not clear that this is an overall victory for private business owners or Christians to publicly maintain their convictions.

  1. Clergy Cannot be Compelled

The court took time to clarify that it should be “assumed” that “when it comes to weddings”, “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral 

and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform that ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”  (Page 10)  It seems interesting that the Court feels that it should be obvious and therefore not questioned that a professional clergy maintains full right to expression of their freedom of religion but a baker does not.  It would seem that the court sees the possession and expression of fundamental rights like freedom of religion as inherent in a profession rather inherent to all persons.

  1. It’s Not Freedom of Religion, It’s Freedom from Discrimination

This Court did not declare that Mr. Phillips’ personal religious objections justified his refusal to bake this cake.  Instead they took a safer and more politically correct approach by finding that the Colorado commissioners’ statements applied the Colorado public accommodation law in a discriminating and biased manner.  The Court says “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” (Page 3) However, the government cannot use Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs as the basis for the application of their laws.  Justice Kennedy points out that when commissioners on the Colorado board made statements describing Mr. Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use,” and equating his refusal to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage to the acts of slavery and the holocaust they began down the path of discriminating against him.  In addition to these condemning statements, the Colorado commission had, at the same time, determined that three other bakers could refuse to bake cakes critical of gay marriage, contrary to their secular convictions, making clear their bias and discriminatory application of this otherwise “neutral” law.  The majority opinion determined that it was this discriminatory act by the Colorado commission that required the court to overturn this case.  Again, for the majority opinion, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom of expression, but one of unjust government discrimination.

  1. Not Legal Yet

The Court, almost in passing, also mentioned that Mr. Phillips’ may have been justified in his refusal to design and create this wedding cake, because Colorado had not legalized gay marriage yet.  His refusal, at that time, was not only in compliance with State law, but also a refusal to participate in an illegal activity.  Perhaps Kennedy added this point of fact as a way of publicly saying to business owners in States who have legalized gay marriage, you have no argument to withhold your services if State law compels service.

  1. What About Freedom of Speech?

There is one aspect of personal rights the majority opinion mentions but strangely never fleshes out; the matter of freedom of speech.  The majority court introduces the question; Is the government’s law forcing Mr. Phillips to design and create a cake contrary to his personal message, a violation of freedom of speech?  But then, in what seems to be a lapse of concentration, the majority opinion never answers this question definitively.  It isn’t until we get to Justice Thomas’ concurrence that we find a truly worthy discussion of this important element.  Thomas’ opinion on the matter of freedom of speech is so thorough and so supported by precedent it makes one wonder why the majority court refused to give this topic its due consideration.  Justice

Thomas points out that it is well within the history of the supreme Court to support the expression of offensive beliefs in the name of freedom of speech.  After all, he reminds us, if the burning of a flag or a 25 foot cross (Virginia v. Black), or designing and creating “a film featuring Klan members brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the niggers,’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio) are all protected speech, then surely designing and creating a cake ought to fit these categories as well.

By the terms laid out by Justice Thomas, this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of Mr. Phillips on the merits of freedom of speech.  Why the majority court would introduce this element, and then not complete its thought on the matter is puzzling.  Why the majority court would choose a single justification for their opinion when they could have had two compelling arguments is equally puzzling.

  1. The Dissent

One final matter worth discussing is the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, Ginsburg feels that this case should have been decided in favor of the same-sex couple.  However, her argument against the majority opinion is so weak it makes clear her bias.  She does not address the fact that gay marriage was illegal at the time Mr. Phillips refused to design and created the cake.  She does not even broach the freedom of speech aspect.   Instead she asserts that the biased statements of a few commissioners against Mr. Phillips, during a government hearing in judgment of Mr. Phillips, do not rise to the level of “hostility” toward Mr. Phillips and therefore cannot be the justification for overturning this case.  Apparently, Ginsburg believes in a lower standard of discrimination for government than private citizens by claiming that these clear and impermissible words of hostility placed on the record by members of the commission and used as justification for their decision were not an exercise of content discrimination, yet the baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, that was currently against the law, and violated his religious beliefs was discrimination.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

TSA Secrets Violating Rights

/in /by

TSA Secrets Violating Rights

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

According to a memo received by the New York Times (https://nyti.ms/2J6P038), in February of this year the TSA has developed a brand new “secret watch list.”   This list is for special people who don’t necessarily qualify for the big “No Fly” list, but for people individual agents of the TSA feel have been “offensive” or have created “challenges to the safe and effective completion of screening.”  So if you don’t like where the agent’s hands are roaming, or you question a TSA agent’s authority, motives, or honesty, you get to be on this new list.

According to the memo and anonymous TSA agents interviewed by the New York Times, being on this list allows other TSA agents to identify you as a “problem.”  The TSA claims the list cannot impel “extra screening” at checkpoints, but those of us who fly often know how ridiculous it can become when you are “randomly chosen” to for extra screening.

The feds already have multiple “watch lists” and being on this new list won’t put you on the “no fly” list, so why does the TSA need a new super-secret one? Kelly Wheaton, a T.S.A. deputy chief counsel says the TSA needs a list for passengers who have been demonstrably unruly at, or near, checkpoints.  Matthew F. Leas, a T.S.A. spokesman, said in an email to the NY Times, that the agency “wants to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and others from any individual who has exhibited disruptive or assaultive behavior at a screening checkpoint and is scheduled to fly.”

According to the NY Times, Federal security directors, top T.S.A. security officials at airports and top Air Marshals supervisors can nominate individuals to be put on the watch list. Only the T.S.A. administrator, his deputy and the top two officials at the agency’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis may add or remove people from the database.  The interesting thing, from a Constitutional standpoint, is that there is no notice given that you are being put on a list, and no apparent way for you request to be removed from this list.  If the government can secretly put an American on a list that could lead agents to identify that American and impose regulations or even lead to some kind of discriminatory activity, this is a violation of every American’s Right to Due Process; Rights that are expressly enumerated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.

Another serious Constitutional problem is that there is absolutely no oversite.  Congress is not privy to this list.  Congress is not establishing the policies that get someone on the list, nor have they established that people are noticed and a procedure to petition to be removed.  This is truly pure arbitrary power resting in the hands of individual agents.  This not a new dynamic, however, for the TSA and Congress, it is actually a designed one.

Most Americans do not know that the very congressional act that created the TSA, also established that airports could replace federal TSA agents with private security two years after the law was enacted.  However, in January 2011 when over 16 airports had “tried” to opt out, TSA refused to leave these airports and the director of the TSA put a “freeze” on the airports’ “ability” to opt out, Violating the very Act that created the TSA.  When the TSA violated this Act with their policies and actions, Congress didn’t step up and remind them of the existing law.  Instead, Congress passed a new law, HR 658, reasserting the “right” of the airports to opt out of TSA screeners and required the TSA to notify all airports of this “right.”  Yet, in a questionable move by Congress, within HR658, Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security, the directing agency over the TSA, the authority to approve or deny an airport’s “request” to transfer to private security screening.  In summary, Congress told the airports they had a “right” to opt out of federal screening and then put the TSA in charge of approving or denying this “right.”  If the TSA has the authority to approve or deny their own employment, then the airports do not possess a RIGHT to transfer to private screening, they merely possess a privilege granted by those they wish to remove.  Would that not mean that by all form and function, our airports are now occupied through force by the federal government?  That, by definition, is despotism.

Unfortunately, this point is proven by the fact that in 2011 Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a law outlawing TSA pat downs. The FAA responded immediately by threatening to turn Texas into a de facto “No Fly Zone” if the law was signed. Of course, Texas backed down.  If the federal government can deny a State’s right to internally govern itself, this is a violation of the delegation of powers expressly enumerated and a violation of the reserved powers of the States expressly identified in the 10th Amendment.

Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, Democrat of New Jersey, said during a House homeland security subcommittee hearing. “What I don’t want — what I think no American would want — is an excuse for unfair, secret profiling that doesn’t even offer a chance for people to contest their name appearing on such a list…I am concerned about the civil-liberty implications of such a list.”  Hugh Handeyside, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Washington Post, the policy gives the agency wide latitude to “blacklist people arbitrarily and essentially punish them for asserting their rights.”  WE ALL should be concerned about the implications of a single agent, within a federal agency, possessing unlimited and unchecked power!  Those who fought for the foundations of America lived through a nearly identical exercise of federal power.  For those living under British Rule in 1761, they called these laws, “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.”  If you would like a history refresher, so you can see the alarming parallels with today’s TSA, you can read this article on the history of our 4th Amendment. http://bit.ly/Feds4thA

There is no constitutional authority for the TSA to exist, much less wield unchecked power within the states.  This unconstitutional agency was created by Congress through the pretense of “national security” and it is failing miserably.  According to the LA Times, (https://lat.ms/2JkyuMv) and watch-dog James Bovard of USA Today, “the Department of Homeland Security concluded last year that TSA officers and equipment had failed to detect mock threats roughly 80% of the time.  In Minneapolis, an undercover team succeeded in smuggling weapons and mock bombs past airport screeners 95% of the time.  An earlier DHS investigation found the TSA utterly unable to detect weapons, fake explosives and other contraband, regardless of how extensive its pat-downs were.”  Americans have been deceived into trading their essential liberties for a completely non-existent security. We have a private or state option that would likely be more effective and one that could more closely overseen through the states.

Congress has created this monster. They have made TSA above check and balance, above the law and Congress, and above the Constitution itself: not only the 4th Amendment, but also the 1st Amendment, 6th Amendment, 7th Amendment, 8th Amendment, & 10th Amendment.  It is time for the American people to stand up to Congress, the DHS, and the TSA and assert our Right to keep ourselves “secure.”  It is time Americans replace this ineffective, intrusive, and secretive unchecked system with one that follows the law and the Constitution and where the States protect the internal security of the people and the feds are limited to the specifically enumerated powers.

Get the book “Sovereign Duty” to learn what the designers of our Constitution wanted Americans to do when their federal government became bloated and out of control.  Find this book on Amazon, Books-A-Million, Barns & Noble, Wal-Mart, and many other merchants.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

Lower Inflation But Why Don't You Have More Money?

/in /by

 

I would like to introduce to you, as a guest author, a friend of mine, Victor Sperandeo, also known in his world as “Trader Vic.”  I recently asked him a question, “Why do we hear that the economy is improving but it seems like Americans still do not have ‘extra’ money to spend.  Victor answered my question, by sending me this article and teaching me an economics lesson.  I am sharing this lesson with you, because I found it so educational.  Hope you learn something, too.

Victor Sperandeo serves as the President and CEO of Alpha Financial Technologies, LLC (AFT), is a founding partner of EAM Partners L.P. (EAM), and serves as the President and CEO of its general partner, EAM Corporation.  Victor Sperandeo is a trader, index developer, and financial commentator based in Dallas, Texas. He has over 45 years’ Wall Street experience trading both independently and for many notable investors.  Mr. Sperandeo is widely regarded as an expert in commodities, particularly in the energy and metals sectors. His market crash prediction during the September 1987 Barron’s interview earned him great recognition and highlighted his deep understanding of financial markets.   Author of three books detailing his philosophy: Trader Vic — Methods of a Wall Street Master, Trader Vic II — Principles of Professional Speculation, and Trader Vic on Commodities: What’s Unknown, Misunderstood, and Too Good To Be True    2008 Inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters

 

Inflation: Why Hasn’t It Increased?

By Victor Sperandeo

 

I want to discuss why inflation hasn’t increased during the past decade. Ironically, inflation has decreased to 56-year lows during the period from 2009 to 2017.  During this time U.S. debt virtually doubled, with M-2 compounding at 6% from December 2008 to April 2018. The Federal Reserve and leading economists have said they don’t know the answer.

To have inflation commodity prices must perform better.  Commodities are non-correlated to stocks and bonds while they are highly correlated to inflation, volatile interest rates, and high or rising GDP growth rates. All of these were at historic U.S. 240-year lows over the last 9 years.  Using the CPI to represent inflation, inflation made continuous new lows ending in 2017 at a compounded rate of 1.61% on a ten-year rolling annual basis. The five-year rolling annual rate also made new lows but has since recovered by 7 basis points. Since 1961 the five-year low was 1.36% (2012-2016), but now from 2013-2017 is 1.43%.

The reasons for the decline in these economic barometers were the policies of President Obama.  The “change” brought to the nation included increased regulations (see Todd/Frank), higher taxes for everyone (see the end of the Bush tax cuts in 2012), and the creation of Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The ACA was effectively a huge tax on the middle class disguised as an insurance policy, which was then redistributed to the lower class, who got health care insurance policies at way below the market prices, by subsidizing the insurance companies. As a consequence, Obama transformed America into a virtual Corporatist/quasi-Socialist State. Today the U.S. is essentially an oligarchy of party leaders and federal judges, who are controlled and heavily influenced by multinational corporations, and outside special interests. They operate much like cartels. In short, we now have government similar to that of a banana republic.

Therefore, with 0% nominal Fed Funds rates for seven years and three large Quantitative Easing (QE) programs, combined with an increase in the Federal Reserve Balance sheet from $800 billion to $4.5 trillion, why isn’t inflation at least approaching historic compounded levels of 3.10% that were seen between 1913 and 2017? The primary reason is: when you execute extraordinary amounts of printing of paper money via QE, i.e. buying government debt, and other assets, such as mortgages, the cash created “out of thin air” goes only to the very few investors who own those assets in large quantities. No inflation occurs,

as those investors don’t spend that money, but rather invest it in assets such as equities, real estate, other debt, and art.  Prices for these assets rose to historic levels as a consequence. This is called “wealth creation” instead of inflation.  This Fed monetary and tax policy is also encouraging corporate stock buyback programs, which caused the velocity (or turnover) of money (via M2) to decline to the lowest level in 60 years, or 1.4 times. This, coupled with a lack of investment in new plant and equipment – causing capital expenditures to decline – resulted in a major decline in productivity to 0.7.  That in turn had led to stagnant medium incomes over the last 20 years. (This doesn’t even take into account the Free Trade thinking that caused the 19.8 million manufacturing jobs to decline to 11 million since NAFTA was enacted.)

If the bulk of people don’t get the money, they can’t spend beyond their revolving credit card limits. Household non-revolving credit debt (house equity and auto loans) is at record highs as of January 2018.  Total household debt is $13.2 trillion, also a new record. Credit card interest rates average 19.9% and range from 9.9% (often only as a promotional rate) to 29%. Contrast this to corporate debt which despite being at record levels costs around 3% to 3.25% on seven-year term debt.  This is the rate corporations are paying to borrow money to buy back stock. Inequality exponentially increases while the middle-class standard of living steadily declines; meanwhile low but steady inflation still takes its toll (for which nobody blames the Federal Reserve?).

Since 2008, “financial repression” has been in effect with interest rates below inflation. This is why stocks go up but no major actual inflation occurs. In effect, it is a method of government theft of individual savings; inflation is a stealth tax.  So, people hoard more as they earn less and their savings decline. For

example, the 90-day Treasury Bill yield at the end of March was 1.71%, while the CPI was +2.36% year over year.  This makes government and corporate borrowing virtually free. Historically (since 1926) T-Bills have traded at a compounded rate of 70 bps above CPI, not 75 to 50 bps below CPI. This is what is meant by “Government is created to serve the rich, while enslaving the poor.”

Moreover, these increases in government debt are not sustainable.  This is an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic’s political structure. Normally a nation with a printing press never defaults by bankruptcy, but rather by hyperinflation. This in turn historically has led to authoritarian dictatorships (see Napoleon and Nazi Germany). I should also mention these schemes of “Universal Basic Income” such as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is proposing would most likely cause hyperinflation, as people would get free money estimated at $36,000 a year per family, and certainly they would spend it.

In June 2017 the CBO projected that total stated debt would grow to $30.7 trillion in 2028 (up from the current $21 trillion).  However, in March 2018 that estimate was increased to $33.2 trillion, or an additional $254 billion per year.  Interestingly, they also raised their revenue estimate over the same period by over $1 trillion (even after the latest tax cuts).  So, these higher debt projections already take into account increasing revenue!  This assumes no recession during the period, which I estimate would increase debt by additional $12 trillion (making US debt $45 trillion). Not to mention our unfunded liabilities which could be anywhere from $100 trillion to $220 trillion in ten years going forward.

It should be noted that the longest recovery since 1854 – when the NBER began to keep track of such statistics – was 120 months.  We would reach 121 months in our current recovery in July 2019.  To think (via the CBO projections) the US can go 10 more years in recovery (for a total of 227 consecutive months) is like assuming the US will win the lottery; it may not be impossible, but it is highly unlikely. That is, unless you’re a politician (or the CBO) who lies for a living. Certainly, the borrowed times we live in will not be the future we assume we know?

At the bottom line are two fallacies. The first is the idea that paper money wealth will protect you, and what you see in asset prices around the world is accurate. Interest rates are manipulated by governments to the extremes in the history of civilization.  Therefore, we come to the second fallacy: the belief that prices are real.

How is this mindset allowed to persist, and why is this growing danger consistently ignored? This kind of thinking is based on “perception policy” to keep the sham going.  The situation was best described by Ayn Rand in her novel The Fountainhead: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident, which everybody has decided not to see.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

 

Memorial Day: Something To Remember

/in /by

Memorial Day:  Something To Remember

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

Our contemporary American experience seems often Orwellian.  We have a Congress that denies our Rights in the name of security.  We have a judiciary that often denies the Constitution and violates it by asserting a power to make law.  Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. We are all 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 out. 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.”

We 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)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORALITY. 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  men 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 lives 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 harder 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.

The 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

Let 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!

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

State Power over Sports Gambling is Not the Same State Power Over Aliens and This is Why

/in /by

State Power over Sports Gambling is Not the Same State Power Over Aliens and This is Why

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

“To assert that the two are the same, undermines the authority of the Constitution itself and has the potential to create the very crisis the creators of the Constitution were attempting to avoid.”

The supreme Court recently rendered an opinion in the case Murphy v NCAA regarding the State’s ability to legalize sports gambling.  The majority Court opined that the Tenth Amendment made The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional thereby taking the stance that the States were not only not bound by this federal law, but that the States could indeed, pass legislation to legalize sports gambling within their State.  (To better understand this particular opinion, please read this explanation.)  There are many, from Judges to media pundits, who now profess that this opinion regarding State’s power and sports gambling will also set a precedent to justify several States’ actions to ignore federal laws regarding naturalization.  I would not even be surprised if some federal judges attempted to use this argument to render certain federal laws regarding naturalization void.  However, this is not the conclusion that can be drawn if we are to follow the Constitution and the terms of this contract that binds the States into the American Union.

1. Controlling Law is the Constitution Not Precedent

The controlling law in this matter, first and foremost, is not precedent, but the Constitution itself.  We know through Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  We also know from this clause that only the laws made by Congress that are within compliance with the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land.  Several drafters of this Constitution spoke on this matter making the conditional nature of federal laws even more clear.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson 1787 Ratification Debates

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Fed #78

The Supremacy Clause itself declares that laws made by Congress that are inconsistent with the powers specifically enumerated to the federal government are not binding upon the States.  Within the Bill of Rights is the Tenth Amendment which serves as further clarification of this separation of powers between the States and the federal government.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment (emphasis mine)

2. Delegation of Powers Makes the Legal Distinction

It is within the distinct separation of powers between the States and federal government that the Constitutional difference exists between States legislating sports gambling and States denying the Uniformed Rules of Naturalization.  Simply put, the power to establish Uniform Rule of Naturalization is a power delegated to the federal government through the States’ Constitutional compact, the power to make laws regarding gambling is not. (NOTE: The assertion that the federal government is empowered to regulate gambling through the “commerce clause” is an errant expansion of federal power through “interpretation” not intended by the drafters. LINK)

The authority to make the Uniform Rule of Naturalization was delegated to Congress through Article 1 section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution:

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

The purpose of this power being delegated was to correct serious problems that had arisen through the Articles of Confederation due to “the dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization” that James Madison identifies in Federalist #42 as “a fault in our system.”  Madison appropriately defines “naturalization” as the classification that bestows upon an alien “all privileges and immunities of free citizens.”  In the previous Constitution, the definitions of citizenship were left to the independent States creating not only confusion amongst the States, but as Madison asserts, a potential for “embarrassment” and “chaos.”  When the States established their own standard of naturalization, creating different standards across the Union, an alien could enjoy the benefits of citizenship in one State but not others.  So an alien who enjoys the benefits of citizenship in one State could bring the legal claim to demand the benefits of citizenship in other States who have different standards.  Madison said this claim would establish that “the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of another.”  Those who ratified the Constitution considered this to be a problem too serious to not be provided against.  Therefore, the power to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization was established; to ensure a single standard from State to State for aliens to become citizens and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

3. States who are a part of the Union must recognize the authority established by the Constitution

Every State that enters the Union under this Constitution, must agree that this power is delegated to the federal government and must admit they do not have the authority to alter those standards.  If they do so, they are violating the terms of the Constitution they agreed to when entering the Union and are breaking their fiduciary duty to the other States.

The federal exercise of the power over the standards for naturalization is consistent with the Constitution, by the terms of the Constitution it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the States are bound by it.  Any alteration of this standard is not only contrary to the intent of the Constitution, but also contrary to the very language itself.  Cities and States who are allowing aliens to vote, to hold government office or to participate in tax payer benefits and welfare are violating the terms of the Constitution and their duty to the other States.

4. Gambling and Naturalization are not Constitutionally the same

The supreme Court was correct in its opinion to say that PASPA does not control the States.  However, to claim Murphy v NCAA creates a precedent that will allow States to create their own standards for applying the benefits of citizenship to aliens is errant and dangerous.  If the courts suggest that a State can create its own standard for citizenship, then what will prevent a State from refusing citizenship status to person based upon their religion, skin color, or political ideology, and then subsequently demanding that standard upon other States?

Finally, as Madison explains in Fed #42, “If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.”  The entire purpose behind the States creating the federal government is to be a representative on behalf of the States in foreign affairs.  The manner in which an alien becomes a citizen is just as much a foreign affair as a domestic one.  To have uniformity in that manner not only makes for better foreign relations, but will also, as Madison again explains, foster “the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.”

For the State to create laws contrary to the Constitution is quite different from a State creating laws when the power has been reserved to the States.  That distinction is what the Tenth Amendment is all about.  Gambling is a power reserved to the States; Naturalization is a power delegated to the federal government.  To assert that the two are the same, undermines the authority of the Constitution itself and has the potential to create the very crisis the creators of the Constitution were attempting to avoid.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

 

Supreme Court Betting On College Sports

/in /by

Supreme Court Betting on College Sports

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

In a baby step back toward protecting reserved State Powers, the Supreme Court on Monday overturned a twenty-five year old federal law called The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).  The Act was originally signed into law in 1992 to target organized markets for sports gambling.  This federal law was not a flat ban on sports-gambling schemes, but only a law that prohibited States from permitting sports gambling by State law.

In an opinion written by Justice Alito, the majority of the court decided this law was a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Alito says, “The legislative powers granted to Congress are sizeable, but they are not unlimited.  The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers.  Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms.”  The Tenth Amendment limitation is referred to by the court as the “anti-commandeering doctrine.”

The people of New Jersey want to legalize sports gambling but PASPA makes it illegal for States to legalize any “sports gambling schemes.”  The people of New Jersey argued that this federal law infringed upon the State’s sovereign authority.  The State relied upon two cases; New York v. US (1992) and Printz v. US (1997) that struck down federal laws that imposed improper regulatory powers upon the States.  In Printz v. US the supreme Court used Federalist Papers 39 as support for their opinion in which James Madison explained:

“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

In these cases, the supreme Court recognized that there are separate and independent jurisdictions that exist within the two sovereign spheres of government; the State and the Federal.  When the power has not been delegated to the Federal that power remains in the State and outside of the Federal’s power to impose laws upon the State.  Following this same standard established by the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution, Justice Alito and the majority court recognized the State’s authority to regulate gambling lies within the sovereign realm of the state’s authority and that Congress directing state legislatures to prohibit sports gambling is not an enumerated power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

“The anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.”

It is refreshing to see the supreme Court return to this fundamental and essential truth; that the States are independent sovereigns and the federal government can only lawfully exercise powers that have been properly delegated.  This Court also recognized the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the States in NFIB v. Sebelius when Chief Justice Roberts, writing the majority opinion said;

“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogative by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policy as their own.  The States are separate and independent sovereigns.  Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Although this is just a small step, Alito and the majority court may be steering the federal government back in the proper direction; one not only required by the Constitution but also by those who wrote it.  Alexander Hamilton makes this very clear in Federalist #78:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

Hamilton is explaining in this text that in order to for a federal law to be valid, it must not only comply with the text of the Constitution, it must also be consistent with the “tenor of the commission under which it is exercised.”  The Constitution requires adherence to the intent of the drafters as well as the words of the document.  In a display of adherence to this intent, Justice Alito quotes the Declaration of Independence and Madison’s Federalist #39 in his majority opinion to once again remind the people and their Congress that the States are sovereign.

“When the original States declared their independence, they claimed the powers inherent in sovereignty- in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the authority ‘to do all…Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do’…the States…retained ‘a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.’”

However, one point Alito seems to miss in his opinion is that the power to regulate gambling is not a power that is delegated AT ALL to the federal government.  He claims that “[c]ongress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.”  In this broad assertion of power, Alito actually sides with Justice Ginsberg and the dissent; that the federal government is realistically unlimited in its exercise of power.  Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, is the only Justice who denies this assertion of unlimited authority:

“Unlike the dissent I do “doubt” that Congress can prohibit sports gambling that does not cross state lines.”

Indeed, you may search the entire text, you may scour the writings of the drafters of this Constitution, but you will never find an authority delegated to the federal government to regulate such activity.  The assumed authority to do so comes from an interpretation of the Commerce Clause, in which the federal government stretches the meaning and application way beyond the “tenor of the commission” of the Constitution.  As Madison explained in 1792, during the Cod Fishery debate, the clauses within the Constitution are not powers delegated at all; they are merely explanations of “the purpose of the powers which are delegated.”  These clauses were never intended to be boilerplate blank checks written to Congress to create whatever law they could somehow justify.  Madison issues a very stern warning against using these clauses for that purpose.

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit… it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

What Alito suggests is that the powers of the federal government are not limited by the Constitution, but by mere will enforced by interpretation of clauses.  Alito seems to only differ from the dissent in policy but not in principle.  However, as Alito does assert in his opinion, the Tenth Amendment is very clear; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  However, Alito’s final statements seem to assert that there are no reserved powers that rest within the States.  What he is really saying is that ALL POWER exists within the federal government and anything the feds choose not to use, is then “available” to be exercised by the States.  Alito’s claim then becomes the very manifestation of Madison’s warning, transmuting the limited nature of the federal government to one that is limited only by its own interpretation and desire for power.  Alito is not supporting a Constitutional Republic, but an unlimited federal kingdom that grants permissions to its vassal colonies – the states.

There should be no doubt as to the limited authority of the federal government.  There should be no doubt as to the reserved powers and sovereignty of the States.  Both are well documented within the Constitution and in the drafters’ explanations of the Constitution.  However, this fundamental and essential principle necessary for the existence of our Constitutional Republic still eludes our justices who claim the federal government can regulate the lives of the citizens in whatever manner they choose, as long as they can create an articulate justification and manipulate the Constitution, irrespective of the tenor in which it was written.  It is a step in the right direction to see the Court once again asserting the Sovereignty of the States.  However, what is the real difference between the majority and minority opinions when they both support an unlimited congressional authority over the people and left over power for the States?

An Open Letter To Our American Youth

/in /by

Dear #NationalSchoolWalkout:

I weep with you. I am also proud to see you standing for what you believe in. However what you ask for will not bring the results you desire.

These problems in society have never been a result of too much Liberty & eliminating the natural rights of all people will never bring the proper solution. If we want to make you feel safe at school & everywhere in public we must be honest as a society & deal with the real problems.

1. Schools & government are failing you. They have little to no security & practically no real policy to keep your schools secure.

2. We have to endure more security at a public museum than we do at our public schools. I ask our governors & administrators which of these treasures is more valuable?

3. We need to not just make promises to keep you safe, we need policies & actions. We need real secure entrances & exits into the schools. We need real policies limiting “visitors” on campus. Nearly every school shooter would have never even been on campus with proper security & policies.

4. Adults have failed to see your cries for help & have failed to act upon them, putting everyone at risk. We need more adults who are concerned with your mental, physical, & emotional health rather than political correctness, job security, or hurt feelings.

5. We need to train your teachers better. They know CPR; they know how to help a choking child; they need to know how to stop someone from hurting you.

The real solutions that will bring the safety & security we all desire do not require a new federal law or regulation; they do not require a constitutional amendment; they do not require depriving anyone of any rights. The real solutions are much simpler than that.

The real solutions to keeping you safe require only a people who love their children enough to create and enforce local policies & proper training dedicated to the preservation of life, liberty, & property.

The history of the entire world dictates that taking the rights of people to defend themselves will not keep them safe, but will only serve to enslave our future to those more powerful. We must learn that without liberty, security is nothing more than a vapor. Unfortunatley, those who do not recognize their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

By not addressing the real problems & and not employing the real solutions, we end up destroying what we set out to preserve. We will make you & your future less safe & we will pass on to all our children a future of greater oppression.

I am telling you this not because I am judging you. I am telling you this because, as a mom, I love you.

We can keep our you safe and keep your rights & liberties secure at the same time. It is time to take back the narrative. It is time to get to work & secure Liberty for all. That is not just our duty to you and to all our children, it is who we are as Americans.

Sincerely,
KrisAnne Hall
www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

DHS to Monitor "Media Influencers"

/in /by

DHS To Collect, Catalog Journalists, Blogger info to Monitor “Media Influencers”

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking bids from contractors to create a database that will monitor and collect information on journalists and bloggers the government designates as “media influencers.”  The call for bids first showed up on FedBizOps.gov can be seen now at https://goo.gl/3dWwX3.

Now the Department of Homeland Security says we have nothing to worry about.  As a matter of fact, DHS spokesman Todd Houlton tweeted on April 6, 2018 that anyone who has concerns is merely a “tinfoil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorist”:

So the Department of Homeland Security is going to be collecting personal information and internet activity on people they classify as “media influencers” and anyone worried about that is just an anti-government extremist.  What could possibly go wrong with that?

For more details on this program listen to this short clip from The KrisAnne Hall Show: https://goo.gl/Lwqziv

For the entire episode of the KrisAnne Hall Show listen here: http://krisannehall.com/zuckerberg-cohen-daniells-raid/

To learn more about your Rights to be free from government control of speech, press, and all essential Liberties, go to www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com