Losing The First Amendment

/in /by

speech380x380

The government will NEVER come out and repeal the 1st Amendment. They will never even suggest we modify or amend it. What they will do is declare that we are not “defining” it properly and they will happily provide us with that definition. We were warned this would happen in Federalist Paper 84. Alexander Hamilton, suggested that if we made a list of Rights, the government would use that list to destroy our liberty. He said, “What signifies a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved”? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?”

Let me repeat.They will not TAKE our 1st Amendment, they will simply “redefine” it. They will chip away at every opportunity while appealing to our sense of fairness, justice or simply to our emotions. MAKE NO MISTAKE that is what is happening now…

Headline: Dick Durbin: “What is Press? We need to ask 21st century questions about a document written 200 years ago.”

Headline: Diane Feinstein: “Only government approved journalists get 1st Amendment protection”

Headline: Tim Tebow open about his faith…critics crucify him.

Headline: Miami Dolphins fine player and send to sensitivity training for tweeting opinion about homesexuality.

Headline: FBI investigates protesters at Bundy ranch.

Headline: Mrs. Sterling must surrender her property because her HUSBAND makes racist comments.

It is NEVER an open attack. It will be done through manipulations and subversion. When your 1st Amendment is taken, they don’t cut out your tongue, chop off your hands, or imprison you…first.
No, first they CONVINCE you that your thoughts and speech are bad and the government must protect you, your religion is intolerant and must be silenced and your neighbor is a terrorist or racist and you are guilty by association. Then they get YOU to limit yourself. You then can be convinced that Slavery is Liberty, Evil is Good, and government is always working in your best interest. When they convince you to censor yourself, you are a slave and don’t even know it.
1st Amendment. Use it or lose it.

Oligarchy Of Thieves

/in /by

 

justice-ginsburghOur government has been infected by Federal Supremacists. They commonly assert that the Supreme Court has the power to ultimately interpret the Constitution through judicial review and therefore sovereignly determine the limits of the power delegated to the federal government. They sometimes assert that federal law itself is superior to the Constitution. In reality, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to limit or expand the power of government. Neither does Congress have the authority to pass a law that is contrary to the Constitution itself. To allow such action means that the Constitution has NO MEANING and the government has NO LIMIT.

The power being wielded against the states and the people is stolen power. It is power neither authorized nor delegated. Dear friends, this is NOT what a Constitutional Republic looks like…this is a KINGDOM of stolen power, an oligarchy of thieves.

Here are FIVE simple FACTS that must be taught to our Representatives, so they can honor their oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION, rather than their politics of stolen power. Review these points and the words from our framers and ask yourself how much simpler can it be.
________________________________________________________________________________

 FACT #1:The Constitution is a compact (contract) that must be legally interpreted using contract law. Contract law dictates that a contract is properly interpreted through the framers of the contract and their intent, i.e. the “meeting of the minds.”

“the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact–as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…” James Madison

“…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties;” in other words, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution; and that the Constitution is a compact to which the states are parties.” James Madison

 FACT #2: The federal government does not have the authority to determine the limits of federal power, since it is not a party to the compact but a creation of the compact.

“for the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration…the obvious tendency and inevitable result… would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” James Madison

 FACT #3:The Supreme Court is PART of the federal government not OVER it and possesses no power greater than the executive or legislative branches.

“dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature…” James Madison

 FACT #4: To allow the federal government (i.e. SCOTUS) to determine its own limits is CONTRARY to the Constitution, to the principles of a Republic, and to the limited and defined nature of our government.

“The doctrine…which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through which department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the…Constitution itself, considered as the basis of the Federal Union.” John Calhoun

 FACT #5: The federal government cannot write laws that are contrary to the Constitution.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Supremacy Clause

After review of these FACTS it is very difficult to accept the argument that we are simply subject to the federal government’s will and whim. These facts need to be shared far and wide. Shouldn’t we be able to rely on words of the “father of the Constitution” instead of the judges, lawyers, and politicians who have been taught that THEY are the supreme determiners of their own power?

Before you go, Check out the PODCAST Only A Lil’ Bit Lawless to hear about a conversation I had with a Congressman about this issue.

Florida Dreamin'

/in /by

cautionillegalimmigrantscrossing380x380

 

GOP Gov. Rick Scott and GOP-controlled Florida legislature has passed OVERWHELMINGLY in-state tuition for ILLEGAL ALIENS. The Bill was driven by GOP Leader Will Weatherford from Wesley Chapel. Illegal aliens will now be eligible for benefits traditionally reserved for citizens who possess legal residence in the state and which are not available for those from other states who are actual citizens. In other words Rick Scott and the Republican leaders of Florida have aligned themselves (again) with the progressive politics of the Obama administration. I mean really, why do we even need a Democrat party when the progressives can get the GOP to carry out the progressive agenda for the sake of political expediency (just to get votes)?

By the way, the bill violates federal law, Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1623. Hey Mr. Gaetz, I thought nullifiers should in your words “be shot or hanged”? Should we put you on suicide watch? Just asking… And oh yeah, it also violates the Florida DOE requirements for proof of residency. Class, can you spell lawlessness? Repeat after me, G – O – P.

The Florida Grand Ole Party in Tallahassee actually believes that the Hispanic community is going to vote for them (that’s 14%). What percentage of their base do you think they will lose after this stunt, not to mention some of the other shenanigans like arresting Sheriff Finch for supporting the second amendment? I bet they will lose more than 14% (as if they were going to gain ALL or ANY of the 14% anyway). But who cares about fanatics who believe that the rule of law is being swept away like yesterday’s dust at least, ThinkProgress is excited about this move, right Rick?.

This is not strong, principled leadership. This is pandering, plain and simple. This is lawlessness, just like the FEDs who choose not to enforce immigration law, but instead adjust the law to align with lawlessness and encourage MORE lawlessness. Is this what Gov. Scott meant by Let’s Get to Work? Let’s get to work assaulting the 2nd amendment? Let’s get to work pandering to the lawless? Let’s get to work throwing open the borders? Apparently the answer is yes, since Gov. Scott says he has ALWAYS supported this. I thought he was intent on attracting jobs, not attracting more illegal immigration. You think the immigration system is broken? Here’s why, the politicians spend every election cycle shredding the immigration laws. When their seat on high is on the line, some political operative convinces the politician that all the Hispanic Democrats are going to see your good will and run out and register with the Republican Party and vote you back into office. Perhaps the Rubio campaign is now advising Rick Scott and the Florida legislature. Oh well, I am sure Gov. Scott will have plenty of time to consider his re-election strategy after he is evicted from the governor’s mansion in few short months.

I hear many pundits talking about the great GOP victory that’s coming, despite the fact that they have no articulated vision for America other than “we don’t like Obama.” But rest assured, the one consistent talent the GOP has demonstrated is that it is incredibly adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I suppose Florida is just trying to lead the way. A person would almost begin to think that some within GOP leadership are intent on moving the nation in a steady path to the left. Hmmm…

Right To Resist

/in /by

Recently someone said that God never calls someone to act in anger. If that’s so we must ignore the fact that in John 2:15 Jesus, himself got angry at the money changers in the temple and made a whip and overturning tables started driving people out of the temple :

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; -John 2:15
Although the Bible teaches that anger without cause is akin to murder. Anger is not a sin. If so, then Jesus sinned in the temple that day and God the Father sinned, as the Bible is replete with testimony of God’s anger and the expression of His wrath. But that anger was not without cause. There was a REASON for that anger. There is a right to resist oppression inherent in our nature to be free. It should make us angry when abuses, usurpations, and oppressions remove the Liberty that has been given to us by God. The framers of this nation knew this, and so did David when he fought Goliath, Elijah when he got angry at King Ahab for stealing Naboth’s vineyard, Nathan when he got angry at King David for his sin with Bathsheba, Samuel when he got angry at King Saul for his disobedience to God. So did the Hebrew nursemaids when they refused to carry out government mandated abortions, Daniel when he refused to eat the Kings meat or to stop praying, the Hebrew boys when they resisted the executive order to bow to idols, the Apostles when they refused the local authorities’ order to stop preaching the Gospel.

Resistance to Tyranny is the DUTY of Liberty Loving People. I simply have to sigh at the premise offered by some in positions of authority and influence when they attempt to appear knowledgeable about certain events in history or certain perspectives of the framers and yet profess that revolution or secession or resistance is a form of anarchy. The notion that those who are taking a stand are godless rebels seems to me to ignore the numerous examples of resistance to civil authority we find in the Scripture. God did not make it a sin to resist tyranny. God made it clear he wants us to submit to LAWFUL AUTHORITY not to tyranny. I don’t believe the resistance we see today is an attempt to violently overthrow the lawful authority. I see people taking a stand and not backing up, even if it means being tazed or body-slammed. The people have had enough of heavy handed federal overreach. It may mean we go into the fire like the three Hebrew boys in Daniel, but we’ve made up our minds, we WILL NOT BOW.

Patrick Henry, in his wisdom asked these questions, “Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne…Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

Samuel Adams reminded us in 1772 that “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” We believe as our founders did that we have a NATURAL RIGHT to defend life, liberty and property from oppressive and tyrannical governments.
I don’t believe the following men and women were godless provocateurs. On the contrary, I believe they were God-fearing patriots committed to standing for what was right, regardless of the consequences, even if it meant their friends and fellow countrymen mocked them and disowned them. They knew they had a duty to God to resist unlawful authority as a testimony of the Righteousness of God.

Here are series of statements from the founders of our nation and other wise men and women. Consider the following direct statements, old British spelling and all:

Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

Alexander Hamilton: Is it not better, I ask, to suffer a few present inconveniences, than to put yourselves in the way of losing every thing that is precious? Your lives, your property, your religion, are all at stake. I do my duty. I warn you of your danger. If you should still be so mad as to bring destruction upon yourselves; if you still neglect what you owe to God and man, you cannot plead ignorance in your excuse. Your consciences will reproach you for your folly; and your children’s children will curse you.

Justice Blackstone: To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances-and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”

Samuel Adams: Every one knows that the exercise of the military power is forever dangerous to civil rights; and we have had recent instances of violences that have been offer’d to private subjects, and the last week, even to a magistrate in the execution of his office!- Such violences are no more than might have been expected from military troops: A power, which is apt enough at all times to take a wanton lead, even when in the midst of civil society; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary, to awe a spirit of rebellion, and preserve peace and good order. But there are some persons, who would, if possibly they could, perswade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights or terrify them from doing it.

Alexander Hamilton again: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government…

James Madison: But ambitious encroachments of the Foederal Government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every Government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole…But what degree of madness could ever drive the Foederal Government to such an extremity?

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams Feb 22, 1787: The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

Samuel Adams, Speech [1771] Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.

Noah Webster “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ”

Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788: “The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone… Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Mercy Otis Warren: May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of 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.” “The principles of the revolution ought ever to be the pole-star of the statesmen, respected by the rising generation.”

Patrick Henry: Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Cliven Bundy, Cows And The Constitution

/in /by

Cliven Bundy, is a Nevada rancher standing in defiance of a 2013 federal court order requiring his family to cease and desist cattle grazing on land that their family has used since 1887. Shiree Bundy Cox, daughter to Cliven Bundy explains this background:

“My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival (sic) of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.”

So what’s the problem? The federal government came into the picture with gifts of plastic beads and promises to “help” the ranchers manage this land. The RANCHERS then paid a fee to the Bureau of Land Management to pay the salaries and keep the department operating under the premise that the BLM would be working to help the ranchers better their usage of the land. But just like all negotiations with government, the money got big and the federal control got even bigger.

Ms. Cox explains:
“[To] to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use[d] to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s (sic) against the ranchers.”

This is not a case of a gray area of personal property vs. federal property. And now we are repeating a history of Kings and Tyrants because we forgot that the federal government has no Constitutional right to own land. Period. The only authority for federal land ownership is through precedent and practice. As a matter of fact, James Madison WARNED us of this very tyranny in 1792:

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers – but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

Our founders went to great pains to create a limited and defined federal government so we would not have to negotiate with Kings. With amazing foresight, Madison explains the consequence of allowing the federal government to turn these “clauses” into defined powers:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare…”
Madison knew exactly what would happen if we ignored his warnings:

“I venture to declare it as my opinion that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

Make no mistake, what is happening to Cliven Bundy and his family is the direct fulfillment of Madison’s warnings. We are seeing just what it looks like to “transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.” Madison will, in a few years, identify this type of government as one who will be “transformed” from the “present republican system” into “an absolute, or, at best, mixed monarchy.”(Virginia Assembly Report 1800) What is the greatest indication that this has already occurred? Alexander Hamilton gives us a telltale sign. In Federalist Paper #78 Hamilton warns that if the People allow the federal government to maintain unconstitutional legislative power, we will declare “that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

These are the times we live in. Congress continually creates unconstitutional laws, unconstitutional agencies, and unconstitutional regulation of powers that were to remain in the States. Now, We The People suffer a government that feels it is superior to the People themselves and has the power to rule and reign over them. That, Patriot, is NOT a republic, that is a Kingdom…just as Madison warned.

But don’t worry, the Congressional Research Service has issued a report that says the federal government is perfectly legal in their ownership of land. Rich, isn’t it? That the federal government can tell us what they can and cannot do? I thought we were a government “established among men deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the GOVERNED.”
In the “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data” report issued February 8, 2012, the Congressional Research Service, the brain of Congress, declares that they have the RIGHT to own land. But they can only arrive at this conclusion if we are ignorant of the proper limitation of power for the federal government. Madison explains in Federalist Paper 45,

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… The [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (emphasis mine)

But the CRS says their right to own land comes from the ability to create States. That is a complete misapplication of this power. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the federal government seizing land that is already part of a State and controlling it. As a matter of fact, Madison says the EXACT OPPOSITE. This is CLEARLY a power that is “reserved to the several States”. But since they do not have legal authority they will, as mentioned before, cite “practice and precedent” as the source of their power.

The States have been struggling with the federal government over land for a very long time. And the acquiescence of the States to the usurped power, has created the problems in Nevada today. The CRS clearly states the purpose for federal land:

“Federal lands and resources have been important in American history, adding to the strength and stature of the federal government, serving as an attraction and opportunity for settlement and economic development, and providing a source of revenue for schools, transportation, national defense, and other national, state, and local needs.”

And the federal government has added to its strength to the point that the States are no longer the masters over their creation, but the federal government is supreme over the States. Pay close attention to the “results” of ownership of federal lands and resources…”schools, transportation, and other national, state, and local needs.” This is EXACTLY what Madison warned us would happen if we did not prevent the Congress from obtaining unlimited spending and unlimited power.

From the beginning, federal ownership was not supposed to be permanent. But the government never gives up anything once it has control. In 1976 with the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Congress decided that all the remaining federal land would remain in federal ownership. No more honoring their “expanded” boundaries, they are going to expand them even further into permanent ownership. This sparked what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, an effort to provide state or local control over federal land and management decisions. How did the States choose to fight Congress over the possession of State land? In the federal court system. How do you think this is going to work out? You guessed it. The CRS practically “brags” about it:

“To date, judicial challenges and legislative and executive efforts generally have not resulted in broad changes to the level of federal ownership.”

This is NOT an issue of ranchers and cows. This is NOT about turtles and the environment. It is NOT about missed payment of fees. The feds are going to spend significantly more enforcing the fees, than the loss of the fees themselves. This is NOT about enforcing federal laws. How can cows grazing on land they have been eating from since 1887 be viewed as illegal, and yet the federal government allows illegal aliens to cross borders. Let us not forget, that Congress is trying to change immigration laws to fit the criminals. But when it comes to a man and his cows, we have to enforce this with SWAT teams! Really?

This IS an issue of a federal government completely out of control that acts more like a Kingdom than a republic. The question remains, America, what kind of government do YOU want? A Kingdom or a Republic? The choice is ours, because the powers delegated to this government do come from the consent of the governed. What are you willing to consent to?

Show Christmas

One Town Disarmed

/in /by

History provides us with a valuable gauge to know how much tyranny has beset a nation and just how comfortable people are in their servitude. Are Americans immune to such maladies today? History proves the answer to that question to be a resounding “No.” Let us take a snapshot from history, however, and you can make the decision on your own.

The Boston Tea Party sparked a chain of events that would alter the face of the world forever. The British government had to act quickly and decisively to put an end to the uprisings in Boston. Parliament passed a series of acts, one which closed the port of Boston on 1 June 1774. Two additional acts, what we know as the Intolerable Acts, would be next. These three acts, together with the Quebec Act and the Quartering Act, are all together known as the “Coercive Acts.”

The driving force for the Coercive Acts, was another piece of legislation called the “Declaratory Act,” passed March 18 1766 which stated that Parliament “had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” The British government had declared itself to be all powerful, and outside any criticism, punishable by a charge of treason and death. To put that in perspective, the government declared itself the power to make and enforce any law, and then wrote laws that gave the government the authority to enforce laws with armed force. This did not go well with the colonists.

In May of 1774 General Thomas Gage was appointed military Royal Governor over Massachusetts. Gage would become very aggressive in the efforts to control the colonist and subdue their “seditious” behavior. He was going to enforce the “Coercive Acts” upon the colonists whether they liked it or not.

Gage passed laws that forbade any town meetings without his approval and would only legally allow one town meeting a year. At one point he sent troops to disband and eliminate a crowd that had gathered in Salem, Massachusetts. The people, outraged at the display of force, responded by gathering over 3,000 armed colonists, causing Gage’s men to retreat. This would not be the end of Gage’s tyranny.

Gage was told by the King to get the colonists under control. But Gage did not have the force necessary to control the colonists, because the colonists outnumbered Gage’s troops and out-armed them, as well. Gage had the solution to his problem; take control of the gun powder and ammunition.

Early morning on September 1, 1774, Gage’s troops would seize hundreds of barrels of gun powder from the Charleston powder house. The colonists did not take this show of force lightly. By the end of the day over 20,000 armed colonists, aged 16 to 60, began to march their way to Boston. The colonists were sending a message, if the government was going to use the force of government to take their arms and powder, the colonist would take that to be an act of war! The colonists were now going to “ready themselves”.

Just five days after Gage’s act of war against the colonists, the militia of Worchester County took over their government from the rule of the King. Replacing all leaders appointed by the king with those selected by the people.

The same day in Suffolk County, the people gathered together, issued a list of nineteen grievances against the government, and then promptly took all control of the militia away from the Governor and vowed to have open arms training every single day. The First Continental Congress unanimously endorsed the Suffolk grievances and encouraged all other colonies to send aid to those in Boston.

Remember, only five days have passed since Governor Gage took the gun powder from one city in Massachusetts.

In response to the colonists stand against the government, Governor Gage ordered his men to conduct warrantless searches on the colonists seizing their arms and ammunition.

Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America ordered Gage to disarm the people. Gage told Dartmouth that it would not be possible to control the colonists without force. Dartmouth then sent a letter to George III asking to have all import of weapons and ammunition to the colonies stopped. George fulfilled this request by requiring a permit for all exports of arms and ammunition from Great Britain and then refused to issue those permits.

The Boston Committee of Correspondence received information that the government was getting ready to seize all the ammunition, arms, and cannons from fort William and Mary, and the militia was able to take possession of these items before the government.

Parliament was getting really concerned. The reports they were receiving relayed that there were three million colonists, all armed and ready to defend themselves. They were certain that they did not have sufficient government force to subdue such numbers.

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry gave his famous “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech. Following that speech a committee was formed that issued the Resolutions of the Provincial Congress of Virginia. The Resolution read:

“Resolved, that a well-regulated militia composed of gentlemen and yeomen is the natural strength and only security of a free government, that such a militia in this colony would forever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defence, any standing army of mercenary forces, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support.…
…Resolved therefore, that this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence: and that Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Carter Nicholas, Benjamin Harrison, Lemuel Riddick, George Washington, Adam Stephen, Andrew Lewis, William Christian, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Zane, Esquires, be a committee to prepare a plan for the embodying arming and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose.”

General Gage had another plan, however. In the early morning of April 19, 1775, he would send out regiments of British soldiers to Lexington to capture Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to seize gunpowder. But spies and friends of the colonists leaked word of Gage’s plan and the colonists were waiting. The rest, as we say, is history.

Although the people of Boston would not “win” this battle, the die was cast, the seed of Liberty had been sown and there was no turning back.

February 14, 1776 Thomas Paine would publish “Common Sense”. In this pivotal pamphlet, Paine references that day in April:

“No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April 1775, but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.”

Reconciliation with the king was no longer an option. Independence was their only solution. The people KNEW that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of Liberty. They KNEW that if the government could disarm them, they would be like every other nation in Europe, subjects and slaves. They KNEW that independence from this tyranny was the ONLY way to ensure Liberty.
And what sparked this whole course of events?

One Governor took the arms and ammunition from one city in Massachusetts!

By the way, you can also hear and share the podcast where I talk about this subject here:

One Town Disarmed

AND if you want to set your liberal friends straight check out one of these:

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants

Shall Not Be Infringed

 

quock walker 236x300

Let's Play Connect The Dots With The ACA

/in /by

obamacare spp

 

Expansion of the federal government has crept along slowly but surely decade after decade. It’s a bit like a “connect the dots” page, where you can’t quite make out the picture until the lines are all drawn. We don’t seem to connect the dots of cause and effect, so we never seem to see the picture until it’s too late. When someone does connect the dots, it sounds like a fairy tale because we are not used to seeing it all at once. Here is a bit of connect the dots to make you think.

Some years ago the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) determined that the government could bypass your rights as long as the government could establish a “compelling governmental interest”. That is how the government can create for itself exceptions to your 4th Amendment for national security reasons, or to your 2nd Amendment for safety reasons. The Feds say “we can, we need to, so we will, because we say we can.”
Combine this government created authority to bypass your rights with the newest big expansion of power, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and we can predict what our future may be if we stay on our present trajectory:
The ACA gives the federal government the authority to subsidize your health insurance. Whenever the government spends money on a purpose, they are automatically vested with a “compelling governmental interest” in that purpose. With a “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance, they inherit a “compelling governmental interest” in anything that directly or significantly impacts that interest. Following with that Supreme Court logic we can surmise that…

1. A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in health care. After all, your health care and the subsequent cost of that health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
2. A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in your HEALTH. After all, your health and the subsequent impact of your health on your health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
3. A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in what you eat, where you live and where you work. After all, what you eat, where you live, and where you work all directly impact your health, the subsequent cost of that health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.

Since according to the Supreme Court, a “compelling governmental interest” can trump any of your inalienable rights, this “compelling governmental interest” authorizes the government to tell you where you can live, what you can eat, and where you can work.

Does that sound “extreme”? Think about this. The federal government has an agency called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). This committee meets with the sole purpose to:

“encourage Americans to focus on eating a healthful diet — one that focuses on foods and beverages that help achieve and maintain a healthy weight, promote health, and prevent disease. A healthy diet can reduce the risk of major chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and some cancers.”

What could that agency do with a “compelling governmental interest” over your health? Perhaps they could, through HHS, regulate the food industry to make it impossible to produce food that was not “approved” under the standards, making it impossible to buy anything that is not approved by HHS. Of course the FDA is never going to give up this prime opportunity to expand its regulatory power. Having HHS deem “unregulated” food “unlawful” to sell or distribute will give the FDA all the encouragement they need to issue regulations that will prohibit the sale OR CONSUMPTION of ALL food that is not properly regulated by the FDA. After all, we already violently regulate raw milk and cheese. This could mean that your farmer’s market, your road side fruit stands, and even your backyard garden will be made “unlawful” unless it is regulated by the FDA. That is also not beyond comprehension due to the passing of the Food And Safety Modernization Act on January 4, 2011. The FDA describes this Act as:

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most sweeping reform of our food safety laws in more than 70 years, was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. It aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it. (emphasis mine)

This act does not just control major food distributors and manufacturers, but also has a section that gives the FDA control over “very small farms” and “roadside markets”.

How does this administration view the coal and oil industry? With a “compelling governmental interest” in your health, one government study by the CDC that declares that there is a significant increase in the development of cancer or other diseases among workers in these industries, could give the government the authority to regulate them out of business. Isn’t the EPA already doing that to private businesses?

What if you live in a rural area and have to travel an hour to get to the nearest hospital. Do you consider it outside the regulatory power of the government to tell you that living so far from a hospital negatively impacts their ability to render proper and affordable healthcare, so you must move closer? Perhaps they could create zoning regulations that prohibit the construction of any residential area beyond a certain radius of a properly regulated hospital. What if the government then creates a regulation that forces all hospitals, both public and private, to comply with all government regulations, even when they conflict with the interests of the private hospitals, forcing the shutdown of all privately owned hospitals. Oops.

The ACA expanded the precedent that the federal government has the power to enforce any law, anytime, anywhere. And as the Supreme Court continues to follow precedent rather than the Constitution, it will have no other choice but to authorize further elimination of your Liberty. Here is what Jefferson said about this slow creep:

“It has long however been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from it’s expression, that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, & the government of all be consolidated into one.”

So, are you starting to get the picture?

If you would like to learn more about the Constitution or schedule KrisAnne to speak, please visit KrisAnne at http://krisannehall.com/

Show Koerner

The Future Of Liberty

/in /by

Here’s what I hear from the “older people”.  “Our young people today are lost.”  Our young people today just don’t care.”  “Our young people today are brainwashed.”  Yet, consider this:

In 2013 I taught the Constitution 265 times.  Of those 265 times, I had the privilege of teaching 21 groups of middle, high school and college students.  The younger students are my greatest challenge but also my greatest reward.

I teach these future leaders of America a history they do not hear in the classrooms or read in their textbooks.  Sometimes, I even teach them historical truth that corrects the historical revisions in their lessons.

I have learned that our students are hungry for truth.  They do not begin their academic day with the thought, “Let me see how many lies I can learn today!”  They learn things that are not true, because their textbooks present falsehoods as truth.  Our youth love knowledge.  They feel empowered by it.  And, as our naturally rebellious nature would have it, they love learning things that their “overlords” don’t know.  They love being able to correct their textbooks with facts.  It is liberating for them.  But that is what truth is all about.  Being free from lies is Liberty!  Jefferson wrote a letter to Charles Yancey, January 8, 1816 in which he remarked, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

There is another fallacy about our youth.  We believe our students naturally hate history.  Why wouldn’t they, we hated it too, it’s just a part of being young.  Our youth do not hate history, they hate being bored.  They have been conditioned to believe history is nothing but a boring and tedious ritual of memorizing names, dates, and places in history that they cannot relate to and that have no particular relevance to their lives.  But I KNOW that method of teaching history is part of the progressive design to hide history and the lessons it teaches.  I not only KNOW this in my heart, I KNOW this through my experience.   Because the history I teach is NOT boring.  It is NOT irrelevant. It is about real lives, real people, real drama, and real adventure.  Our young people get excited when they meet Kings who are not presented as 700 year old corpses, but living, breathing people.  They meet kings who are evil bullies.  They meet the people who are brave, who stand up to the bullies in the name of Liberty.  This history is just as exciting, if not more so, than Real Drama T.V.

They get to see, with their minds and imaginations, exciting events.  Like William I taking control of a kingdom by force.  Or, perhaps, Henry I killing his own brother to become king and then hiding the truth with lies and propaganda.  Then there is King John, who was murdering people in the name of taxes and Robin Hood standing against John, the most evil king Great Britain would know.  That is just the beginning of a drama that spans 700 years and unfolds right in front of their eyes.  It is exciting, it is adventurous.  I don’t talk about history.  I put them right in the middle of it.  I make them not only observers but participants.  They love it and more importantly, they get it.

I know they get it because they ask me questions about the Constitution that proves they are paying attention; not just to me but to the world around them.  They ask me more challenging and relevant questions than many of the adults I teach.  My high school students ask me questions like:

“The NSA reading our emails and listening to our phones, that can’t be right, can it?”

“Can the federal government tell gay people they can’t get married?”

“Can the federal government make marijuana illegal?”

Yes!  These are the questions I hear the most.  You think the only thing they do is send text messages, tweet, play on FaceBook or video games?  You are wrong.  They are paying attention and they want to know the truth.   They are not lost, lazy, and apathetic.  They are not thoroughly brainwashed.   They care.  They are interested and they are paying attention.  When they see the truth they recognize it and want more.

I get my greatest encouragement from these young people.  They come to me after the lessons excited about history, wanting to know how they can find more truth.  I had one high school boy come to me and say, “Mrs. Hall you gave me goose bumps!  Why can’t I learn history like that in school?” Another young man said to me, “Mrs. Hall, I want to be president one day.  After what you taught me today, I won’t ever let anyone take my rights from me.”  I’m sure you can imagine how amazing it is to look into their eyes and hear these words from them in person.   Invigorating!  But what one middle school girl said to me the other day literally brought me to tears.

Whitney came to me after teaching at a government school in Southeast Texas.  She asked me, “Mrs. Hall, how can you be so dedicated about what you teach?”  I was confused by her use of the word dedicated, but I responded, “Whitney, I am a Christian.  I believe Liberty is a gift from God.  I also believe that God has given me this history to teach so others can know it, too.”  She replied, “We have people who come and talk to us and they stand up there and talk to us like they are just doing their job.  But you’re not like that.  You’re just so dedicated, how do you do that?”  I realize then that she is using the word “dedicated” to mean “passionate”.  I said, “Well, Whitney, I believe the truth I am teaching you.  But I also know that what I am teaching you is important to protect our Liberty.  I want you to know that, too, so you can protect Liberty one day.  I’m a mom.  My son is almost 8 years old.  And one day he will need YOU to stand up for him.  I really believe in my heart that this is important.  So it’s not a job for me.  For me it’s more like love.”  She said, “Well, thank you Mrs. Hall.  I really enjoyed it!”  At this point I am trying really hard to not cry in front of her.  No such luck as soon as I get in my car!

Let us not underestimate our youth.  Let us not teach them lies and then criticize them for believing them.  They are the future of this country.  They are the future of Liberty.  They are ready to bring greatness back to America.  Let’s help them do just that.

Note: If you want to schedule KrisAnne to teach your group, please visit her website, www.KrisAnneHall.com or download our Android Mobile App http://bit.ly/N3NoFf

Florida Will Be The New Connecticut

/in /by

eagle2AMERICA, FL GUN OWNERS NEED YOU!

Do you Love this Country? Do you believe your right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?  Then FL needs YOU!  We don’t need another State to fall into line with anti-gun laws.  YOU could be NEXT!

WE MUST STAND TOGETHER NOW OR LOSE OUR LIBERTIES ONE BY ONE.

16 States have already passed versions of this legislation!  But Republican Dane Eagle believes that when citizens demand protection for the 2nd Amendment, those citizens are “bullying” their so-called leaders.  Mr. Eagle, however has no problem being bullied by professional lobbyists, nor does he have a problem with politicians bullying citizens.

Rep. Dane Eagle (R) sponsored the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act in FL (HB 733).  This act says no State or local taxpayer funds can be used to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.  Mr. Eagle has now WITHDRAWN this effort to protect the 2nd Amendment in FL, calling Grassroots “INFANTILE” and siding with a pro-gun regulation lobbyist!

DANE EAGLE BELIEVES YOU ARE “INFANTILE” and “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” IS DEBATABLE??!!??

Dane Eagle needs to read my article “2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants!”  Link here: http://bit.ly/Oi8AsD

WE NEED YOU TO CONTACT MR. EAGLE AND CORRECT HIM ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

Phone: (850) 717-5077
Email: Dane.Eagle@myfloridahouse.gov
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dane-Eagle/155443277896065

 Rep. Eagle said in his letter to grassroots organizers that it is:

“infantile to suggest that [2nd Amendment preservation] is not a debatable position”

He then claims that the desire to secure our RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is not only “infantile and debatable” but a “MINORITY OPINION” in America!

“and even perhaps a minority opinion, in America today”’

WE THE PEOPLE MUST CORRECT HIM!

Dane Eagle then says he will not support HB733 because the grassroots have been too aggressive with their defense of the 2nd Amendment!  He would rather side AGAINST the people and WITH the LOBBYISTS!

Where does he get this opinion?  From a gun regulation lobbyist pretending to represent the interests of Gun Owners!  Florida NRA members need to know their organization has been infiltrated by a PRO GUN-REGULATION lobbyist who has opposed the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act from the beginning, declaring that it would affect federal “positive pro-gun legislation”.  Is THIS the position of the NRA, that the federal government has the ability to INFRINGE upon our right to keep and bear arms as long as it is “positive” gun legislation?  I THINK NOT!  I’m sure former NRA President, Charlton Heston, would BOLDLY tell you that the Feds have NO RIGHT to regulate guns, whether positive or negative.  Many other NRA Leaders have supported and helped pass this legislation throughout the US.  Florida’s NRA chapter is clearly not interested in doing the same, while one of our states is at this very moment being forcibly disarmed.  Mr. Eagle when WILL be the right time to stand?  When the federal agents are knocking on our door, like they soon will be in Connecticut?

Call the National NRA and let them know we DO NOT appreciate an infiltrator working against gun rights!

Phone: (800) 392-8683

In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, it is time for American Gun Owners to STAND TOGETHER or we shall surely all hang separately!

DANE EAGLE’s EMAIL:

From: Eagle, Dane [mailto:Dane.Eagle@myfloridahouse.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:12 PM
To: Grassroots email address removed for privacy
Cc: Caldwell, Matt; Fitzenhagen, Heather; Rodrigues, Ray
Subject: Withdraw of HB733

Members of the *******:

We pen this letter with great disappointment, as the purpose is to inform you that the “2nd Amendment Preservation Act” (currently filed as HB 733) has been withdrawn, and that the policy position will not be pursued in the 2014 Regular Session. The reason for this withdrawal is simple: the tactics and methods used by many grassroots supporters of this bill have unfortunately created an air of suspicion within the Capitol, suspicion that some advocates care less about the 2nd Amendment and more about causing divisions among like-minded people. The old adage, “We can disagree, without being disagreeable,” comes to mind.  We find it timely that Sen. Rand Paul just this week spoke to the issue of language and message regarding support of candidates and issues. The fact is, any chance this bill had for passage in 2014 is no longer realistic. We will no longer allow our names be attached to a bill that has been used as a vehicle to attack and create division amongst our allies.

Our fellow Republicans in the Legislature, believe, as you do, that the right of self-defense contained within the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an inviolable right, on par with the rights to speech, assembly, and worship contained in the 1stAmendment to the U.S. Constitution. These are inalienable rights granted to mankind by our Creator, and a law of man can neither rightfully abridge them, nor should they attempt to do so.

However, it would be infantile to suggest that this is not a debatable position, and even perhaps a minority opinion, in America today.  Right or wrong, there are numerous restrictions on these freedoms, at both the state and federal level. Any assumption that a challenge to this dynamic would be no more complex than the passage of a simple commemorative resolution demonstrates a gross under appreciation of the challenge.

Frankly, changing the current dynamic will require the conversion of our friends and neighbors with sweet words of collegiality, not the rude hammer of coercion by state power. Laws meant to protect our rights are meaningless if the majority of the citizenry care little for their protection. This is the challenge with which we believe the grassroots can most effectively assist.

As a further note, throughout the last several months, as we attempted to craft a bill which would meet your stated policy goals, conflict regularly arose between your supporters and Florida’s National Rifle Association and its leader, Ms. Marion Hammer. The fact is, the NRA and Ms. Hammer have been a champion for our 2nd Amendment rights for decades. While they are an independent group and able to provide their own defense, many of the protections we enjoy today in Florida come directly from their efforts. Inasmuch as the Legislature has been the vehicle for those accomplishments, we provide a short list for your consideration below:

 ~ PASSED – Nation’s first “shall issue” Right-to-Carry law
~ PASSED – Firearms Preemption to Stop Local Gun Control
~ PASSED – Right-to-Carry Reciprocity law
~ PASSED – Protection Against Expiration of CW Licenses for Active Duty Military
~ PASSED – Hunter Protection law
~ PASSED – Protection From Shooting Range Closures for Noise/ Nuisance
~ PASSED – Protection From Shooting Range Closures by Government Environmental Lawsuits
~ PASSED – Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit Protection
~ PASSED – Restoration of Castle Doctrine Protection
~ PASSED – Stand Your Ground Protection
~ PASSED – No-Net-Loss of Hunting Lands
~ PASSED – Hunter Voter Registration
~ PASSED – Right to Carry in National Forests
~ PASSED – Gun Registration Prohibition
~ PASSED – No Confiscation of Firearms During State of Emergency
~ PASSED – Penalties for Local Governments who violate Gun Rights
~ PASSED – Protection Against Doctors Violating Gun Owners Privacy Rights
~ PASSED – Numerous Fee Reductions for CW License Holders, etc.

 These protections of our rights did not come without considerable effort and their continued upholding will not come without a commitment to our principles; a commitment which we believe the majority of the Florida Legislature shares.

We hope that this message is received in the constructive manner with which it is intended.  We look forward to working on this issue in the future.

God Bless You and may God Bless the State of Florida.

Sincerely,

Rep. Dane Eagle
Rep. Matt Caldwell
Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen
Rep. Ray Rodrigues

 

 

A Man from Africa

/in /by

liberty first krisanne hall conversation about liberty with an immigrantI took a cab to my hotel the other day. I like to talk to cab drivers. They always have a story to tell. My driver was a young man from East Africa – just south of the Sudan, he said.

I asked him how long he had been in the US. He answered 2 years. I then said to him, “I’d like to ask you a question, and please feel free to not answer.” He replied, “It’s ok. I will answer your question.” “Okay, you promised,” I said “just don’t change your mind later.” I then asked him WHY he came here. He was likely surprised that this was not a very intrusive question, given my initial comment. He replied, smiling, “I came here for better opportunities.” I wasn’t going to let him get away with such an easy answer, which was my intent from the beginning.

I then asked him, “Why did you think you would have better opportunities here? What was life like where you came from? What was everyday like for you in your country?” He began to tell me what life was like for him, growing up in East Africa. His first words were, “There is no Liberty.” (My heart smiled, He knows about Liberty!)
I asked, “How so?” He explained, “The government is in every aspect of your life, every day, and every minute. I always tell people that I came here for better opportunities because it is the easy thing to say. I don’t like to talk about the reasons.” I thought that was going to be the end of our conversation, but he continued.

“I did really well in school.” He said. “In our school we did not get grades like here, not A or B, but rank. How you did in school was not based on your performance, but based upon how you compared to other students. I always ranked 2 or 3 in my class. Even so, I could do nothing unless the government let me. If I had been here I could have done something. Instead, the government took me at 16 and made me serve in the Army. Everyone has to serve two years, but most don’t go until they are 18. But for me they took me at 16, I don’t know why. I served my two years and left the Army. They tried to get me to stay with promises- after two years it is voluntary- but I didn’t want to stay, I wanted to get out.”

I asked him why did he want to leave the Army? Didn’t they take good care of him, a place to live and food to eat? He replied, “A house and food was not a problem. We don’t have a famine where I am from. We have what we need in the urban areas. It is not the food that is the problem. It is the government that never lets you LIVE that is the problem. You cannot live your life because the government is in your life every day. I want to be an engineer, I want to go to college. I had to leave that government to LIVE.”

I then asked him, “Do you like being here? Are you happy?” He said, “Oh, Yes!, But…” My brow furrows, surprised at the “but”. He continued, “But I see people I know, people who don’t know their rights, it makes me want to know my rights. I came here for Liberty, but I don’t know what is allowed here. I got stopped by police the other day. It was a random stop. I didn’t break any laws. The police asked me for my ID. I thought at the time, do I have to answer his question? I didn’t know the answer to that question and it bothered me. I didn’t know that I could’ve asked him if I am being detained. I didn’t know that if I was not being detained I didn’t have to talk to him. I didn’t know this so I just did what he said. But I know now. I looked it up on the internet. I won’t let that happen to me again.” He then explained that he has been studying the Constitution and his rights in America. At this point I tell him who I am and what I do.

We had a great conversation. We were so involved in our discussion that he missed the exit for my hotel twice! I didn’t mind, our spirits were communing. I told him about my website and all the resources on it. He asked me to put my website into his phone. When he handed me his phone I got my final surprise. When I opened the browser on his phone, I saw that his last google search was on…

The Gadsden Flag!

I knew in my heart that this young man gets it!

When I travel and teach it is quite often the immigrants that come to me distressed and in tears; weeping over this nation. They came here to escape the very thing they see happening before their eyes.

America- if we cannot define Liberty, we cannot defend it. If we cannot define tyranny, we cannot defeat it.
If you wish to be ignorant and free, you wish for what never was and never will be.