Bonjou from Haiti

Bonjou (Creole not French) from Haiti. Ki jan ou é? We are 5 days into our mission trip and it has been an amazing experience so far.  We have 9 days to go.  The Haitian people are amazing on the island of Ile a Vache.  We have spent time in 2 villages.  Sou Lettre is the village where the church we are building is located.  Building of the church is slow but steady.  We are considering building a home for missionary families there if God is willing.

So far, knock on wood, no cholera or malaria lol.  We are always right on the beach so the wind is constant and I think that helps keep the mosquitoes away.  We confine our drinking to bottled liquids just to be really safe.  There is one exception to that rule…coconut water and coconut milk.  Both of which I am totally in love with.

They have the most amazing coffee here and it only gets better with a bit of coconut milk!  The coffee is very dark and thick, I am sure it has some chickory in it.  It is not bitter at all and in spite of the darkness it feels as if there is very little caffeine.

I am learning from the women how to cook their food.  The women have a shed away from the home where the cooking takes place.  Everything is cooked on open fire or charcoal.   They make their own charcoal and it is the best I’ve ever used.  It is still shaped like the tree limbs and it burns hot and slow.  I’m sure you can imagine these ladies have this cooking down to an art.

My mind is racing every day with the little conveniences we could share that would make life just a little bit easier.  I never knew how much I appreciated ziplock bags until now!  I would love to get some mason jars here and show the women how to put up tomatoes and pickliet (an amazing vinegar based cold slaw with a hefty peprocini and jalapeño kick).

I have been able to share a yummy southern tradition.  At the market on Monday we bought a bunch of raw peanuts and we are making some boiled peanuts, southern style!   I am so excited to share this treat and to have a little bit of home at the same time.

There are two markets.  One continual market on the mainland in a town called Auex Cayes or Les Cayes depending upon who you are talking to.  There is a market here on the island every Monday.  I have been to both.  I prefer the market here on the island.  It is less crowded and the people are more polite.  On the mainland there are many more people and they tend to be less tolerant of each other and of foreigners.  The best way I can describe the difference in temperament is the difference between country folk and large city dwellers in the States.

Les Cayes reminds me so much of New Orleans its strange.  The architecture and layout of the streets are incredibly similar.  The streets are not paved and the buildings are in need of repair, but other than that there is very little difference.

We are staying in a beautiful place on Ile a Vnache.  Our friend Felix is building a resort hotel (not like a Waldorf, but very nice rooms located right on the beach).  I would recommend it to anyone really wanting a wonderful place to get away from it all.  We have a toilet, a shower (still under construction), and electricity a few hours every day from a gas powered generator.  We even have internet we purchased on the mainland.  We are blessed.  The village of Sou Lettre has none of these conveniences. We are here to help change that.

Living with very limited electricity has been a challenge but we are getting used to it.  The hardest part is sleeping without air conditioning.  When the wind blows cool, you really notice it and thank God for it.

After just 5 days I am convinced America has too many comforts to really appreciate what God has given us.  We look around the world at others who have nothing, like the villagers in Sou Lettre and can’t help but feel a bit superior.  We should, in stead, be realizing just how blessed we are and we should be willing to suffer any consequence to keep it.  Our comforts and conveniences have made us complacent and compliant.  With that attitude it won’t be much longer before we have traded all things of real value for plastic trinkets and a spot of porridge.

I guess that’s all for now.  I will save the rest for another day.  Thank you for your prayers and support.

See more posts about Haiti here: http://krisannehall.com/islander-evangelistic-ministries/

As always, Béni soit l’Éternel.

In Liberty,
KrisAnne

The Precedent To Impeach

hillaryHillary Clinton MUST be impeached.  Here is why…

Recently I wrote an open letter to Trey Gowdy​ that invoked quite a bit of ire from loyal Gowdy supporters.  If you haven’t read the letter, please do: http://goo.gl/pQutYx

In this letter I point out that Hillary Clinton MUST be held accountable and that Congress needs to stop making political excuses for her criminal behavior.  I even offer up the suggestion that Mr. Gowdy and Congress should be looking to Art. 2 Sec 4 for the solution to the Hillary problem.  Many loyal Gowdy commentors didn’t understand this application of impeachment, and I fear that Mr. Gowdy doesn’t either, so let me explain…

Art 2 Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, is a civil officer and because of the numerous documented instances of misconduct while in office, she MUST be impeached.

Some may try to argue that because Hillary resigned she is no longer eligible for impeachment.   That is simply not true and precedent has been established to the Contrary.

William Belknap served as Secretary of War under Ulysses S Grant from October 25, 1869 – March 2, 1876.  While Secretary of War, Belknap’s extravagant life style came into question.  You see, Belknap only made $8k a year but was known for his extravagant lifestyle and expensive william belknapparties.  Congress launched an investigation into his finances and found corruption that extended back to 1870.

According to Senate records, in 1870, “Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory.  Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment.  Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”

Some of the accusations against Belknap included, indirectly selling weapons to France and for accepting illicit kickbacks in exchange for making political appointments.  Gun running, kickbacks, political deals for financial gain…isn’t that exactly what evidence strongly suggests Hillary Clinton is or was involved in?

According to Senate records, “On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”

Belknap’s resignation did not stop his impeachment.  “Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment.”  What was Congress’ chief accusation against Belknap:  “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.” I have never heard a better description of the tenure of Hillary Clinton.  Yet what does Congress do today?  NOTHING, but excuses.  I missed the Constitutional Amendment that changed the Congressional power exercised in 1876 into the powerless and excuse ridden Congress of today.  By the way, impeaching Hillary would preclude her from holding any future public office, ever.

But Congressional responsibility doesn’t end with Hillary Clinton.  According to James Madison, the father of the Constitution, their responsibility to impeach Hillary is not only established but also invokes an even bigger responsibility…to impeach the President, as well.

impeach obama“It is very possible that an officer, who may not incur the displeasure of the President, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place.  The power of this may reach him by the means of impeachment, he may be removed even against the will of the President…[the president will be] in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excuses.” (The Writings of James Madison: 1787-1790, James Madison, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904)

Congressional hearings USED to actually have consequences.  Congress USED to exercise real power.  Congressmen USED to know their duty to the Constitution, their obligation to preserve Liberty, and their obligation to control the executive branch.  Nothing about the Constitution or the power of Congress has changed since 1876, so what has changed?  What has changed is the knowledge and courage of Congressmen!

If the President of the United States has direct power over his agents, is directly accountable for their actions, and can be impeached, himself, for failing to govern proper Constitutional control over his agents, shouldn’t Congress also be held accountable for their failure to govern proper Constitutional control over the executive branch?  Isn’t it time We The People start requiring real Constitutional proficiency, instead of simply accepting the flowery speeches and rhetoric as chief political qualification?

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” Samuel Adams

But then again, “what difference does it make, anyway?”

Open Letter to Marco Rubio: "I am ashamed I ever worked on your behalf"

marco rubioMr. Rubio,

I have read your opinion piece published May 10, 2015.  I understand that this is your opinion, but I am puzzled how you can hold these opinions and still claim to be conservative member of a party that claims to be supporting the Constitution.

Specifically, you claim that the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are essential to the protection of our “national security” and that we must continue these clear violations of our 4th Amendment and our Right to Liberty to keep us “safe.”  To the contrary, with these “permissible” intrusions, we have seen a massive increase in power of government in general and the power of the executive inparticular, an increased control over the people, and a decreased respect for the Rights of the people throughout America.  Faisal Shahzad, the Boston Bombing, and the Garland Shooting are clear examples where the government was continually monitoring these “terrorists” and still allowed the violence to occur, so tell me again how critical it is to do away with the 4th amendment.

You claim that “Bulk metadata includes phone numbers, the time and duration of calls — nothing else. No content of any phone calls is collected.”  You contradict your own claims in the very next sentence, “The government is not listening to your phone calls or recording them unless you are a terrorist or talking to a terrorist outside the United States.” (emphasis mine)  What you are truly telling America is that the government IS listening to our phone calls AND recording them, but “trust us, it’s only when we think you are a terrorist.”  I’m sorry, sir, I cannot garner that much trust for my government and you should not suggest you expect it.  May I remind you that on two separate occasions the DHS and DoD have declared the definition of terrorist to be so broad as to include many within the Republican party!

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are…rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”  This report also claims “return of military veterans…could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. “   DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis Assessment April 7, 2009

dhs“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” January 2013, DoD Training on Extremism

Knowing that these are the OFFICIAL definitions of a “terrorist” how can you possibly expect Americans to trust this government with such a gross violation of our Liberties?

Your statement “Despite recent court rulings, this program has not been found unconstitutional, and the courts have not ordered a halt to the program” is disingenuous at best and borders on complete propaganda.   Production of just one case contrary to your claims shows your dishonesty.  I will give three:

On March 15, 2013 U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared that the Patriot Act section 2709 “violates the First Amendment and the separation of powers principle…The government is therefore enjoined from issuing NSLs under 2709 or from enforcing the nondisclosure provision in this or any other case.”

On December 16, 2013 U.S. District Judge Richard Leon entered “an order that bars the Government from collecting, as a part of the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program.”

On May 7, 2015 a three judge panel, Circuit Judges Sack and Lynch along with District Judge Broderick ruled  National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal, stating that “the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates § 215.”

big brotherIn these three court cases we have seen that actions taken under the Patriot Act have been deemed unconstitutional and illegal, bulk metadata collection has been ordered to a halt, and the National Security Agency’s exercise of section 215 of the Patriot Act has been deemed illegal.

Mr. Rubio, you then try to justify these false claims by clarifying that “In fact, this program has been found legal and constitutional by at least 15 federal judges serving on the FISA Court on 35 occasions.”  This is simply more propaganda intended to deceive the public.  Who are the FISA Courts?

  1. They are federal courts appointed by the federal government whose only job is to review “applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.”
  2. “Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.”
  3. Consideration of the Constitution is secondary to national security needs. (see Rule 5(a))

So let’s get this straight, Mr. Rubio, you expect the American people to be comforted by the fact that 15 federal judges, appointed by the federal government, whose rules and procedures by definition place national security over the Rights of the people, whose judgements are held in secret with no accountability have determined the government’s actions to be legal?  Tell me again how you believe in the bedrock principles of America. One of your flowery speeches quoting the founders while you pander to real conservative who haven’t figured out who you are should do nicely.

You claim, “There is not a single documented case of abuse of this program.”   Not a single “documented” case of abuse in a system shrouded in secrecy, hidden by “national security” claims, conducted ex parte, protected with gag orders?  Wow! That indeed is impressive.  I would find your argument more credible if you simply start yelling, “I AM OZ, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, you young whippersnapper!”

Your Alinsky-like use of threats of future violence puts you in dubious company, to say the least.  Don’t you guys get tired of trotting out some boogeyman to scare the people into trading Liberty for a false sense of security?  Every attack that gets through your vaunted dragnet, you use as proof that we need to sacrifice more and more liberty.  Somehow we are supposed to believe that the reason some nutjob blows something up is that the people are too free!  Your opinion (demonstrated by your rhetoric) that the Constitution is outdated, that the founders were jfkignorant fools is the very thing I labor to combat every day.  I am ashamed of ever having worked on your behalf.   You have been a sincere disappointment to say the least.

Here are some words that you, Mr. Rubio, should take to heart, “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”  John F. Kennedy

You, sir are a cheerleader for the very thing JFK wisely warned Americans to guard against.  I don’t care whether you call yourself Senator or President; your used car sales pitch for security is not worth my son’s Liberty and you, sir, ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

 

Government Regulation of Private Business

regulatory agency collageGovernment regulation of private business is never a good thing. Shocking statement isn’t it? But its true, so lets look at it.

1. First we must recognize that laws don’t stop crimes. If laws stopped crimes we would be a crime free country. Laws aren’t even designed to stop crimes. The criminal justice system is designed to define criminal activity and set up a mechanism to punish criminals. If laws stopped crimes, we would be a crime free country because we have way too many laws.

2. Next we must recognize that every “legitimate” regulation (one that is clearly geared at wrong behavior and not purely regulatory mechanism to raise revenue) is already covered by a criminal law already on the books. Once again proving point #1. If laws stopped crimes there would be no need to “double up” on bad behavior punishment with additional regulation.

US-Chamber-EPA-Regulations-Chart3. Since we know that laws don’t stop crimes, how can we possibly believe that adding additional regulations on top of laws will do any more? Never mind the fact that the government is real good at selective enforcement of regulations depending on who you are.

4. So if we know laws don’t stop crimes and the additon of regulation can’t either, what could possibly be the real purpose of regulations?

Answer: Reinforcing in the minds of the people that government knows best. Giving more power to the government over the people. And finally, the biggest reason for regulations, in my opinion, making sure that people do not actually OWN their businesses and that everything is owned by government.

When government regulates private industry people do not and cannot own their businesses. People merely possess their business as long as the government wants them too. All it takes is one regulation that you can’t or won’t comply with and !zap! no business.

Couting-Hundred-Dollar-BillsSome might claim that you can sue the regulatory agency if the regulation is really a bad one, but that is a false claim of reassurance. You have no business and no income because you can’t comply with the regulation, how are going to afford the law suit? Meanwhile the government will have deep pockets, filled by the regulatory fees you have paid and the taxes collected, to beat you into submission or bankruptcy; whichever comes first.

Let us not forget that you don’t get to sue the regulatory agency in a real court of law. You will first have to challenge them in an administrative law court where the judge is paid by the government to determine whether the government is following their rules. Constitution? Rights of the people? What are those in a court where the government owns and runs everything. Regulations create a monopoly of all industries because everything has a has a single owner, the government.

The problem is not lack of laws or absence of rules. The problem is selective enforcement of the laws we have and punishments that do not fit the crime.

I am for proper and equal enforcement of just laws within the required confines of due process. I am for complete deregulation of private industry and a return of businesses to their rightful owners, the people who built them. Why would I take such a “radical” position? Because it is 2015 Regulators Budget - Figure 1-Budgetary Costs of Federal Regulationthe only position that supports Liberty. And #LibertyMatters!

Now I want to ask a question. Why would this position be radical? Why may those who read this feel uncomfortable with this position? It is after all not my original thought. I got it from James Madison:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!” James Madison, Property, 1792

Cartoons And Reasonable Speech

US_Supreme_CourtThere is no “line” of free speech.  As a matter of fact, even the Supreme Court says that “hate speech” is free speech.  RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992)

The media is now suggesting we should have a “serious” debate on whether a cartoon should be considered as “responsible” speech.  

First: The standard is not “responsible” speech.  The standard is NOT right or wrong. The standard is not whether this speech makes you feel good. The standard is FREE speech; the Liberty to speak according to our own conscience irrelevant of what others may believe. The problem is that many Americans have been brainwashed into believing that speech should be limited based on political correctness.

Liberty and free speech should be non-partisan. Our friends in the liberal media world would be good to remember the words of one their heroes:

Noam Chompsky:  Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.

If we truly love Liberty we will be rejoicing in the presence of all speech, no matter how much it offends us. The fact that we are being led into a debate over the “reasonableness” of speech is very telling of the nature of Liberty lost.

speech380x380Many Americans have even been led to believe speech can be limited based upon safety.  We are told that shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal.  That is NOT true.  You can shout fire in a crowded theater all day long and no one will rush in and arrest you for saying “forbidden” words.

Thomas Jefferson: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

Second:  Free speech is not GRANTED by the Constitution.  The Right to speak freely and voice your conscience is an inherent Right not a gift from government.  Government was never delegated the authority to regulate it.

Thomas Jefferson: The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. 

US-Constitution-compressed.jpgThird: Free speech is NOT protected by the Constitution.  The Constitution has no power to protect speech on its own.  Free speech cannot protect itself. Free speech is protected when we speak freely on a regular basis. Liberty is a use or lose principle and a voice not used will atrophy into complacency and compliance. There is no point of having a Right to free speech if we do not regularly speak on unpopular and controversial things.  

Benjamin Franklin:  Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

Finally:  When we refuse to speak because it might offend someone; when we censor ourselves to be politically correct; when we choose not to speak our conscience because we feel uncomfortable, we have voluntarily surrendered our Liberty.  A Liberty once surrendered is not easily restored.

dilence150x150Now, not only do we face the danger of jihadists; but also from certain Americans who will allow the government to justify censoring our speech or even worse Americans who will demand we censor ourselves in the name of safety. The danger is allowing the enemy to force us to attack our own Liberties.

If we allow violence or threat to silence speech, we allow the destruction of the very Liberties that make America an exceptional place and the Constitution a unique document. 

Mercy Chains 400Without freedom of speech there is no freedom of press, no right to peaceably assemble, no way to petition the government for a redress of our grievances, and no freedom of religion.  Each Liberty in the First Amendment is dependent upon the other.  When we give up speech we surrender all Liberty.  Free speech is not radical, it is not extreme. We should not be uncomfortable speaking our conscience.  Exercising Rights is only uncomfortable to two classes of people; tyrants and slaves.  How do we classify ourselves. 

The Income Tax is Immoral and Unconstitutional – and Not (Just) for the Reason You Think

taxes

Guest Post by Robin Koerner

I have just paid my biggest bill of the year. The invoice was for a cool 9% of my entire annual income – or my “Adjusted Gross Income” (AGI) as it appears on my tax returns, which have just been filed. And that invoice was from my accountant who just filed them for me.

I have a pretty modest income – so modest, in fact, that my AGI is of the order of a half of the median household income across the United States – the kind of income that triggers significant subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Even the “top line” of my income falls short of that median: so it’s not as if I’m earning loads and deducting huge amounts.

My financial life last year was pretty simple: my earnings derived from a modest real estate portfolio and some freelance/consulting work. My income is earned through my small business, which, for those who know about these things, is an S-corporation. I have no employees. I do no payroll.

Yet, I have just paid my accountant more than a month’s worth of income to complete my tax returns.

How many pages of tax returns do you think that I, a single individual, and my S-corporation (a small business) had to file, bearing in mind the small amount of income in question?

Frankly, there’s no good reason the answer is not one or two. But you already know the answer is more than that, don’t you?

Ten? Try again.

Twenty? Keep going.

Surely not 50?

You’re still not close.

Did I hear you say 100 – you’re going for three digits now? Wow.

Still not there.

The answer, my fellow American tax victims, is 149.

Just take a moment to absorb that. A sub median-earning American taxpayer, engaged in simple business activities, has a 149 page tax return. And if he doesn’t get it right, his error is punishable. Of that 149, about 100 go to the Feds.Business Woman Climbing a Pile of Files

Completing 149 pages of tax forms/schedules/supporting statements is a lot of work. And I know exactly how much it is, because of that big invoice from the accountant that I already mentioned.

It’s $2000 of work – my aforementioned largest bill of the year. And it’s $2000 of work I in no way could have done myself.

I’m no high school drop-out. I have a first class degree in physics from one of the best universities in the world. I like numbers. I like logic. I like intellectual rigor. I even have a nerdy love of spreadsheets (which tells me, for example, exactly how much I spent on groceries this month five years ago ($173.41, as it happens. I’m low-maintenance)).

But I could not reverse engineer those 149 pages of tax returns if my life depended on it. And I would defy anyone without a CPA qualification to be able to do so.

I have no complaint about my accountant, who provided very good service this year, but even he couldn’t get it right first time. As I type this article, I am awaiting “corrected” state returns (which are no shorter).

Moreover, as any small businessman knows, my accountant can only generate those 149 pages of returns after I have compiled all the necessary numbers and data in neat spreadsheets, nicely itemized and comprehensively annotated (two or three days’ work, right there, perhaps?). I know for sure that most tax payers are not as proficient with Excel as I am – so my accountants have an easy time of it with me. (He even told me so.)

Here’s the reality of the American tax system for modestly earning individuals who run small businesses:

My government has put me in a position where I must either pay 9% of my income to a professional just to enable me to avoid punishment, asset garnishment and even imprisonment. Supposedly, I can “do my own taxes”, but that is a joke. No one who has not gone to school for it could accurately complete those 149 pages with any honest degree of confidence – and I don’t care what software he’s using. Moreover, even if it were do-able, the time taken lots of benjaminsto learn how to do it and then do it properly would be measured in weeks, not hours. And we don’t get to invoice the IRS for our time.

Look in wonder, America, at the most regressive aspect of any taxation system in the world – its utter complexity to the point of Kafkaesque absurdity. And if you think it must be like that, literally a few days ago, the British chancellor announced the abolition of the annual tax return in the United Kingdom.

Can anyone, conservative or progressive, justify the need for self-employed individual to spend 9 percent of his income just to remain a free citizen in good standing or, should he not have the money to spare, to go to school to navigate his way through whichever of the 74,000 pages of the tax code apply to him?

If the tax code were sufficiently sensible that I could do my own taxes (which, as someone who likes money, spreadsheets and math, I’d be very happy to do), I could have paid the Feds double my actual tax bill – and still have been a thousand dollars better off on the money I’d have saved on tax preparation. Relative to the current situation, both I and the country would have been significantly better off.

It is established Constitutional Law (by Supreme Court precedent), basic morality and simple common sense that the government may not place an undue burden on a fundamental right – such as the right to stay out of prison even if one doesn’t have an accounting degree and the right not be forced to expend one’s property on anything other than actual taxes owed.

To quantify the absurdity, here’s a comparison I’ve never seen made before.

In the course of a year, my assets and non-business activities generate nine times as much tax (in the form chiefly of property taxes and sales taxes), as my end-of-year check to the IRS. The cost to me of compliance on that first nine-tenths of my tax burden is zero, while the cost to me of compliance with the other one tenth is about double the amount I actually owe.

You really can’t make it up.

Let me offer these thoughts, then, not as an article, but as an open letter to our government, the IRS and any Constitutional attorneys out there.

To the government, I am notifying you of the undue burden that you are placing on law-abiding citizens whose income, it happens, is deemed by recent legislation to be sufficiently modest that it wishes to subsidize my healthcare: the cost of this undue burden more than cancels out all such subsidies.

To the IRS, I ask this question. What will you do if I save my $2000 in preparation fees, pay you 50% more than I did this year, and I don’t complete those forms? A bonus to me of doing this would be that I don’t have to lie any more. Because we all know that you are forcing me to lie when I sign that paper saying “I declare that I have examined a copy of my electronic individual income tax return and accompanying schedules and statements for the tax year ending December 31, 2014, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete.”

end irs2… The real truth is that, “to the best of my knowledge and belief”, no person who is not trained, certified and engaged in daily work in the business of tax preparation, could possibly expect that he could generate a correct 149 pages of this stuff – regardless of how well he tried. And, moreover, the fact that he cannot is exactly why he can’t be expected to vouch for the work of the accountants whom he’d not have to hire if he did understand what on earth was going on in the first place.

Finally, and most importantly – to any Constitutional attorney: I can’t pay you (see above), but I have a tax return that will make your eyes bleed. Get me in front of a jury or, better yet, the Supreme Court, and let us ask 12 or nine reasonable people if the burden of completing this particular tax return – a requirement I must meet to retain my liberty and my property – is reasonable or not. And if just one of the jury or bench believes that a reasonably educated person could accurately complete my tax return in a reasonable period, I’ll be happily defeated – as long as he shows me how.

Otherwise, use me as a legal guinea pig to pull down this entire rotten structure that turns good people into unwilling law breakers or liars of both, reserving its very worst for those of us on modest means who wish to rise in the spirit of the American Dream, which our government and its agents seem all too willing to crush.

Our tax code is so complex that people our government deems too poor to buy their own health insurance must fork over nearly a tenth of their income just to comply with it. I cannot be the only one.
If I could reasonably compute my own tax – and it’s a matter of common law, surely, that a typical citizen must reasonably be able to meet all impositions of the state by his own means – I’d willingly pay double my current income tax because of all the money I’d save on compliance: I’d save enough to visit my family in England twice in a year; I’d save almost my entire year’s grocery bill; I’d save the cost of the roof over my head for two months.

I can afford my tax bill. I just cannot afford to calculate it. And as you can see from my short list, the complexity of this calculation has a very real impact on my life.

This complexity of our Federal tax system is crushingly regressive; it is impoverishing, and it is morally indefensible.

Simplifying the tax code would be simply the most immediately effective, progressive and moral low-hanging fruit Congress could pick. More importantly, the Constitutional requirement of not attaching undue burdens to our fundamental rights – whose protection, according to our Declaration of Independence, is the very justification of the existence of the state – legally and morally demands it.

 

robinwsRobin Koerner is a political and economic commentator for the Huffington Post, Ben Swann, the Daily Paul, and other sites. He is best known for coining the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012. His article launched the biggest coalition for Ron Paul and a movement that outlived his candidacy, which now focuses on winning supporters for liberty (rather than just arguments), by finding common ground among Americans of various political persuasions. He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, where 300 volunteers translate opinion about the US from all over the world.

Standardized Testing For The Office Of President of the US

 

In Federalist Paper #69 Alexander Hamilton lays out the difference between a President and a King.  At the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution, many were concerned that the office of president, being held by one person, would become nothing more than a King in disguise.   Hamilton takes the time to point out the extremely limited nature of the President to rest any alarm that the office of president would function as a King.

What if we created a standardized test to evaluate our presidents using the standards by which the office was created?  Would our presidents pass or fail?

 The President or King Standardized Test as authored by Alexander Hamilton:

  • A President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years;
  • A King is a perpetual and hereditary prince;
  • A President, as commander-in-chief,  would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy;
  • A King’s power extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies;
  • A President would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace;
  • A King is sacred and inviolable;
  • A President would have a limited power upon the acts of the legislative body;
  • A King has an absolute power;
  • A President would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties;
  • A King has the sole possessor of the power of making treaties;
  • A President would have a concurrent authority with a branch of the legislature in appointing to offices;
  • A King is the sole author of all appointments;
  • A President can confer no privileges whatever;
  • A King can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies;
  • A President can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation;
  • A King is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time;
  • A President has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction;
  • A King is the supreme head and governor of the national church and can dictate what is lawful and unlawful for the subjects to believe or not believe;
  • A President’s power is in the hands of the People;
  • A King’s power is limited only by his own will, the power of his throne, and is despotism.

Now score your occupant of the White House; is he president or King?  _______________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indiana Freedom of Religion

washington prayingThe Indiana law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is intended to give citizens protection from federal coercion and encroachment upon religious conscience.  It is intended specifically to protect conscientious objectors from participating in acts contrary to their religiously held beliefs and to allow them to seek relief against the violators of their religious conscience.  In truth there is a flaw in this apparently well-intended law. And here it is from the text of the law itself:

“Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based upon a state action, may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if that burden results from a law or policy of general applicability unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying that burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling government interest…”

This law, like many other 1st dilence150x150Amendment Preservation Acts creates a loophole for the government to justify their violations.  These acts change the First Amendment standard from “shall not abridge” to the government CAN abridge as long as they can show “a compelling government interest” for their infringements.  It is the same loophole that the government uses to justify circumventing the 4th Amendment to read your emails and collect your internet and phone data: a compelling government interest in national security.

According to this law, the government could perhaps argue they have a “compelling government interest” to prevent discrimination against ALL classes of people, and viola! the act is meaningless.  As a result this law actually gives legal justification for the very violations it was created to prevent!

Who Will Watch The Watchmen 400This is the danger of compensating for an unbounded GOVERNMENT exercising a power contrary to Liberty and freedom of conscience. While it is the rightful remedy for states to intercede for its citizens, it is very dangerous when it is not done properly.  We may just set up new precedents to further weaken the liberties we are attempting to protect.

What we desperately need is more constitutional education and fewer laws.

As a side note:  I believe anyone has the right to discriminate against me for the color of my skin, my religion, or even the smell of my perfume if they so choose. I trust Liberty.  I believe in the free market system.  I never trust the government to have the power to force someone to do or not do something.  I believe I have the Liberty to go somewhere else.  I do not have a RIGHT to shop anywhere I want.  But if a store owner discriminates against me, I reserve the right to boycott and encourage all my friends to boycott this business into bankruptcy.  

Comparing the “white only” issues of the 50s & 60s is a misapplication of circumstances.  The “white only” discriminations were a result of a law created BY government prohibiting service based upon race.  

In truth, there is no difference between a government using the force of law to prohibit a business owner from serving someone than a government using the force of law to require a business owner to serve someone.  Either way it is tyranny.

Here is a more in depth explanation if you like: http://goo.gl/oqxylz

Quantum Leap

A friend reminded me today of a very important moment in my life. One of those moments where at the time it seems inconsequential and ordinary and there is no way you could possibly comprehend the impact it will have.
For me it was February 26, 1992. I am just out of college. New life, new opportunities, but same old me and same old life. I had no relationship with God, no faith. I was heavily into the occult and living a pleasant life. I had no particular reason to change things.

One of my favorite television shows was Quantum Leap. I watched it regularly. On this day, I watched the show like always. I really enjoyed it. But it was the last segment of the show that would stick with me forever.
I would like to say that I had a life changing moment where I gave my life to Christ and all was right. But it didn’t happen that way and I wouldn’t even recognize what really happened for almost 20 years.
In the last scene, the main character, a young girl, steps into her father’s church after a period of emotional separation. As she walks into the church she begins to sing, “His eye is on the sparrow.” I remember being particularly touched by the song. I had never heard it before. Over the next years I would always be drawn to that episode and searching for that song. God used a popular prime time television show to begin His love song to me. I would be drawn closer to him from that day forward. And, perhaps because I am particularly stubborn, (Amen says my husband) it wasn’t until 19 years later that I would respond to that call of love.

Praise God for his loving pursuit, his gentle persuasion, and eternl love song. Here is a link to the popular prime time worldly television show that started my love affair with God.

The scene begins at 36:50

Something I want to Share

Just for the record, there are many people doing what I do that charge huge speaking fees and make lots of money. I don’t operate that way. My family and I sacrifice to do what I do.

We are not rich. We normally make just enough to keep this thing going. I am not poor-mouthing, but sometimes people just have the wrong impression. I don’t do this for fame. I don’t do this for money. I do this for my child. I do this because I love this Republic and what its ideals represent. I do this because I LOVE LIBERTY.  Most importantly, I do this because I believe God, Himself, put it on my heart.

This is a mom and pop endeavor operating on a shoestring budget. I can’t always do all the things I’d like to do,but we trust God and know that he has all this in his control. This is a faith ministry, not a fame ministry, and as far as I am concerned that’s how it’s going to stay.

If you would like to know more about what I do, where I am teaching, and how you can support us, please visit my website: www.KrisAnneHall.com