Note from KrisAnne:  This is an entry under out guest author series by Victor Sperondeo.  Mr. Sperandeo was a 2008 inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and has been included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters.  Mr. Sperandeo was featured in the best-selling, The New Market Wizards: Conversations with America’s Top Traders, by Jack D. Schwager and Super Traders: Secrets and Successes of Wall Street’s Best and Brightest, by Alan Rubenfeld, has been profiled twice in Barron’s, The Wall Street Journal and Stocks & Commodities, and has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox and other networks.  I hope you enjoy this thesis as much as I do! ~ KrisAnne

It’s Impossible to Outlaw “Crazy” — The Government has a Better Chance of Curbing Being Struck by Lightning

by Victor Sperandeo

The outcry that takes place whenever a “Mass Shooting” occurs, especially in a “school”, is certainly deserved. However, politicians thinking that “laws” will curb these events is mindless and statistically impossible. Certainly, lessening these occurrences in schools is possible, and should be done. Visit any government building for effective tactics to accomplish this, as they have virtually zero incidence of shootings.

Moreover, some historical facts should be considered. The largest number of deaths both at a school and away from a school, were from a bomb, not a semi-automatic gun. Most of us remember Timothy McVeigh killing 168 (wounding 680) people in Oklahoma in 1995, but almost no one remembers the “Bath Michigan School” bombing of 1927. It killed 44 (38 elementary school children) and injured 58 other people. This was the largest mass murder of school children in US history! The bomber, Andrew Kehoe, did this because he was fired, lost an election, and had his taxes raised. He also killed himself, and his wife. Most (72%) of these mass killings end in suicides. Wouldn’t we all classify him as “crazy”?

The “free press” doesn’t use statistics to tell a historical story, but to promote an agenda such as gun confiscation. Using statistics in a misleading manner is pure propaganda. Manipulating statistics to seize free people's guns has NOTHING to do with stopping gun violence. See the article by the Daily Caller as an example “EXPOSED: Obama Advisors' Emails In Immediate Sandy Hook Aftermath Reveal Anti-Gun Agenda: 'Tap Peoples Emotions' - “Go for a vote this week asap before it fades. Tap peoples [sic] emotion. Make it simple - assault weapons.”

Furthermore, CNN published a story by Saeed Ahmed and Christina Walker on 5/18/18 called “There has been on average one school shooting every week this year.” To fabricate these “school SHOOTINGS” statistics, the writers counted a BB Gun shooting, and an accidental discharge of a gun during a safety class. These incidents and other far-reaching examples attempt to mislead the reader to think it’s a “mass shooting.”

Let’s review the real stats on “Mass Shootings” over a long period. Mother Jones has an excellent data base of mass shootings from 1982 to date: “US Mass Shootings, from 1982/August- 2019/August : Data from Mother Jones Investigation.” A “mass shooting” is an incident in which a random shooter targets people in general and where three or more people die by firearm related violence. According to this progressive left-wing organization, from August 1982 to, August 2019 (or 38 years), the total of such incidences is 114 . This comes to 3 mass shootings per year on average.

With this understanding, what are the odds of this event? Today’s population (according to the US Census Bureau) is reported to be 328,036,963 as of 1/17/19 .Let’s adjust this number for people between ages 15-64, who are most likely to be involved in a mass shooting, or 207 million people. The conservative “average population” that might commit a mass shooting from 1982-2019 an estimated (conservative)160 million per year in age group 15-64. The occurrences number a mass shooting at 0.00000002 or two one-millions of one-percent, (114 divided by 38 (years) or 3 incidences divided by 160 million). The only conclusion is that these 114 people can be deemed as having suffered from a psychosis manifested in a wild or aggressive way. Synonyms for psychosis are: mad, insane, out of one's mind, deranged, demented, not in one's right mind, crazed, lunatic, non- compos mentis, unhinged, i.e. crazy. Indeed, it is reported 72% of them committed or wanted/tried to commit suicide. In a population of people this large, certainly some very small fraction of people, suffer from psychosis, or crazy, while some are altruistic geniuses.

This statistic shows that the number is so small, you can’t legislate against it to eliminate crazy people. When you have a large population, the very few who want to do harm, “gun control laws” are impossible, as these people will always find a way to accomplish what is driving them, whether it is with guns, knives, trucks, bombs, etc.

It would be more effective to create a law against lightning deaths, as the odds of getting struck by and dying from lightning are much higher! So, in this case (20 years) 1,020 deaths divided by an average of 250,000,000 people is only 0.0000002 or two one hundred thousands of one percent. In the last 20 years, the average deaths annually from lightning numbers 51 average per year according to * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). More people of all ages (thereby the 250,000,000 )can go outside,and can be stuck by lightning, than are likely to be a mass shooter.

Therefore, if those in government made a law that no one can be outside while it was raining, punishable by a fine or jail, far more people would be happy to comply, and the number of lightning deaths would decline. But not for mass shootings. Fines or jail don’t bother people who generally intend to commit murder, and who then are highly likely to kill themselves or die in jail.

With a population of 328+million people, no law can stop 3-11 crazy people from doing evil each year. Also note, as the population grows, mass shootings will slightly increase. This point is known by the Statists, who desire to rule over other people. Historically, as one can see, this is the true point of gun control; to rule by force without the people’s ability to fight back, and ultimately not preventing what is impossible to prevent.

If one wishes to see the proof, read Mao’s, and other dictators’ views on gun confiscation: “Every Communist must grasp the truth - Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Mao). This is a slogan popular among Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms.”

Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”

Benito Mussolini: “First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.”

Vladimir Lenin: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

Fidel Castro: moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power. He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists - compiled by the preceding Batista regime - to confiscate the people's firearms. Different tactics, same objective. A defenseless people don't give the all-wise leader any lip.

Hugo Chavez' government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians. Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition. 6/1/12

But Karl Marx, who actually wanted a revolution, said, “the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition... Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

However, in contrast, George Washington believed: “A free people ought to be armed.” Indeed, the words in the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated “militia”, (which means ALL THE PEOPLE, as permanent standing armies were not allowed See Article1, Section 8, Subclause 12 - 16: To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions) being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the RIGHT (NOT PRIVILEGE) of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Emphasis added).

With the fact that 3 people (or perhaps as a high 11) in a year, who would be certainly deemed crazy, out of 250,000 million adults today, does it seem reasonable to effectively attempt to overturn the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, or a Natural, (most would say God-given) Right? These are events that are unpredictable, but statistically inevitable. As for laws against “crazy” i.e. a psychopath - see the quote of Adolf Eichmann and see if a law would have changed his mind: “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.” This is the mindset the Government is using to take a Free People’s guns to stop a mass murderer!

*According to the NOAA, over the last 20 years, the United States averaged 51 annual lightning strike fatalities, placing it in the second position, just behind floods for deadly weather.[13][14] In the US, between 9% and 10% of those struck die,[15] for an average of 40 to 50 deaths per year (28 in 2008).[16]

Contact:  Victor Sperandeo (214) 969-0559

Share this post

When Censorship Is OK

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

This may not be popular, but it is true:  One of the largest factors in the loss of #Liberty is the lack of understanding of the word "public."  The fact remains, just because I have a business where people can come in off the street & purchase my goods that does not make my business a public business.

The term "Public" as used by those who founded America was a term reserved strictly to places, products, and affairs conducted by government with the use tax dollars. Everything else is a "private" affair.

"...if once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress, & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. it seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions;"  Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

Americans have been taught to believe that just because I sell donuts in a store front to people I don't know, I am engaging in a "public" affair.

Lets be clear: Public property is property purchased, maintained, and operated by the use of tax dollars. Private property is property purchased, maintained, and operated by the use of personal funds.

Now we are rapidly sliding down an extremely slippery slope where if you are doing something that is seen or heard by other people it is now a public affair.

Here is the problem with that error - Everything becomes publicly governed and NOTHING is privately owned. Your business is not your own. Your website is not your own. Your words, your life, your choices will soon belong to whomever has the most control and power over the public realm.

Now we have people claiming that just because privately owned social media platforms allows people to use their privately owned, personally funded platforms they are now somehow "public domain;" either because the people say so or the federal government says so.

• The federal government has no delegated authority to designate a private business as public forum. When the FCC or some Federal Act, like the Communications Decency Act, attempts to force private businesses under government control by defining them as public businesses, Americans ought to recognize that as completely unconstitutional and fundamentally tyrannical (can you say communist?).

A shopping mall is NOT a public forum, it is a privately owned business. If a website, which is a privately owned and paid for internet address can be designated by the federal government as a public domain, what is to stop them from designating your home, a privately owned physical address, as a public domain? The communists actually did this in Russia.

• People do not have free speech, press, or assembly rights on someone else’s private property. They have those rights on public property. See the definition of of public & private above.

If someone has entered into a contract or a lease agreement with a private company (such as a social media platform) the remedy is civil - between two private individuals. It is NOT a matter for government force.

Americans who claim to understand the principles of Liberty ought not cry out to government to force private property owners to surrender their private property rights to government enforcement of any message foreign and offensive to their own. Americans ought to see that as an unconstitutional taking of property rights.

Hannah Winthrop, one of our founding mothers, said this:

“How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!” Hannah Winthrop to Mercy Otis Warren, 1773

When Americans who claim to be supporters and defenders of the Constitution conflate the terms public and private, demand freedom of speech "rights" on someone's private property, and then demand government use the power of many to force submission of a private business owner to opinions, subjects, pictures, speech, etc that they do not believe, these Americans are truly maddening on to their own destruction. They must be unaware of an axiomatic truth:

The power of the sword you give government to force your beliefs is the same power of the sword government will eventually use to persecute your beliefs.

The purpose of a just government is to secure individual rights not to establish by force one person's rights as superior to another.  This entire conversation is why I endeavor to always be, Liberty over Security, Principle over Party, and Truth over Personality.

Share this post

Religious Liberty in Jeopardy By Mandates

Re: Florida SB 64- An Act Relating to Exemptions from School-Entry Health Requirements

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Florida has long been a State that shows great respect for religious liberty. That is about to change with the passage of SB 64.  This bill would remove the right of free exercise of religion for Floridians all across the State by mandating them to engage in behavior contrary to their religious beliefs.  Floridians must prevent this unreasonable intrusion.

SB 64 threatens religious freedom by imposing mandatory vaccinations upon individuals contrary to their religious belief by removing the right to object to those vaccinations based upon religious grounds (Florida Statute 1003.22(1)).  Vaccinations have been available to Americans since the early 1800s.  Once governments began attempting to mandate vaccinations upon citizens, many people began to object.  Why would someone object if we are simply talking about eradicating disease?  

Many religious faiths hold murder to be a violation of their beliefs and hold abortion to fall into the category of murder.  Shockingly, the list of mandatory vaccinations for children include vaccinations that are derived from aborted fetal tissue.  Vaccinations for Chicken Pox, Hepatitis-A, and Rubella, are produced from aborted fetal tissue and at this time, pharmaceutical companies offer no alternatives. According to a report issued by Liberty Counsel, most physicians who oppose abortion do not realize these vaccines are produced from aborted fetal tissue.  The Rubella vaccination know as RA/27/3,  developed during the Rubella epidemic of 1964, is so named based on the fact that it is derived from aborted fetal tissue: R stands for Rubella, A stands for Abortus, 27 stands for the 27^th fetus tested, and 3 stands for the 3^rd tissue explant.  In layman’s terms, there were 26 abortions prior to identifying the right formula for the vaccination.  Aborted babies were sent to two scientists at the Wistar Institute by the names of Plotkin and Hayflick.  By dissecting the kidneys and lungs of these aborted babies Plotkin and Hayflick developed the  virus strain identified as WI-38 (Wistar Institute 38).  Further development of this vaccination was created in the 1970’s from a male baby at 14 weeks gestation. (HistoryOfVaccinies.org – Human Cell Strains in Vaccine Development)  The cells from these aborted babies have also been used to create many other commonly used vaccinations, two of which are the Hepatitis-A and Chicken Pox vaccinations.  With these facts we can discern that even vaccinations that may not actually contain aborted fetal tissue, were actually developed initially using the cells of aborted babies. (see Liberty Counsel report)

Not only does the Chicken Pox vaccination contain strains derived from aborted babies, it also contains monosodium glutamate (MSG), a chemical compound the FDA has identified as dangerous to infants, children, pregnant women or women of child bearing age, and people with mental or emotional disorders.  According to the Liberty Counsel report, Dr. Arthur Lavin of the Department of Pediatrics at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, strongly opposes the chicken pox vaccine.  Some experts believe the Chicken Pox vaccination can actually signal a more serious underlying chronic condition called “Atypical Measles.” (see Liberty Counsel report)  Although the FDA claims less than a 10% chance that serious illness and death caused by vaccinations, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (a federal government program) pays nearly $100 million per year to victims and families for vaccine related disabilities and deaths.

In addition to the dangers and use of aborted babies to create vaccines, many people simply hold sincerely religious beliefs against vaccinations in general.  One religious objection is the firmly held belief that God created the human body as a temple and that the body should not be destroyed by injecting a virus into it.  Although a few of the vaccinations containing aborted babies have alternatives that do not contain aborted baby tissue, those alternatives do contain animal bi-products.  There are many people in Florida that have firmly held convictions against ingesting any animal products into their bodies.  Mandatory vaccinations that are designed to prevent sexually transmitted diseases also create problems for those with particular religious convictions.  These parents believe sexually transmitted diseases ought to be prevented through abstinence and not injections into the body that condone sexual activity contrary to their religious beliefs.

There are less intrusive ways to deal with these issues and the courts are not inconsiderate of the rights of those with deeply held religious beliefs.  For example, Liberty Counsel won two cases in New York City where the school system attempted to mandate the Hepatitis-B vaccination on the children of two families.  These families expressed their sincerely held religious beliefs against vaccinations and the schools expelled the children of both families.  Liberty Counsel filed a federal law suit on behalf of both families and the federal court held that the children had to be readmitted to school and the school could not force the parents to vaccinate their children. 

In another case, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against Arkansas’s law mandating vaccinations and denying religious exceptions.  Because of Liberty Counsel’s law suit, the Arkansas legislature promptly passed new legislations providing for exemptions for philosophical and religious objectors, as well as objectors who claim medical necessity.

We cannot allow our State level representatives to simply disregard the Religious Liberty of the people.  America’s founders fought desperately to establish a place where all could be equally free to live true to their religious beliefs without government intrusion.  The very principle of separation of church and state requires government to not infringe upon the religious beliefs of the people. 

John Witherspoon founder of America and former president of Princeton University said, “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.”  Senate Bill 64 is a deliberate expression of State mandates contrary to Religious Liberty through the removal the religious exemptions intentionally put in place to protect those essential rights. 

For the preservation of civil and religious liberty for all, Floridians must say NO to SB64.

Please feel free to contact the attorneys at Liberty Counsel for specific guidance, in whatever State you might live in.  https://www.lc.org/

Share this post

    -A Note from KrisAnne: One of our missions at KrisAnneHall.com is to bring truth back into history.  History is our greatest teacher, our founders often referred to history and experience as being an invaluable oracle used to make a better tomorrow.  Consistent with that effort, our friend Kate Dalley has written a wonderful article on the History of the Underground Railroad & Harriet Tubman’s role in that era of history.  With Kate’s permission we are publishing it in our Guest Article series.

Truth In History - The Underground Railroad

by Kate Dalley

I’m not sure how to put this, so I’ll just hope people realize I’m not looking to disparage anyone but our American history is grossly inaccurate and I’d like to correct one  historic exaggeration that is affecting our nation right now in major headlines. Even if history bores you, please take two minutes and read this.

This is one of the reasons I do my daily radio show. Is to find the truth and hopefully get the truth out there.  Had they told the following story accurately,  I doubt this race war context would be a big headline.

When you think of the Underground Railroad (secret slave escape routes before the Civil War), what comes to mind?  Probably the name Harriet Tubman. They have made her into an icon and called her the “Moses of Her People”.  Most of us  think she founded the Underground Railroad and if you google it - it all but proclaims her to be the founder.  But, if you look a little deeper, they use odd language when describing her as the “actual” founder.  They don’t really say that- they just heavily insinuate it in every way possible. They say she’s the “face” of the railroad, or the “spirit” of the movement. 

And it’s  not true.

She wasn’t born until 1820 and didn’t escape until 1849 using the UR herself -when a white neighbor gave her the name of a location to run to and a white family gave her a ride in their wagon. At that time, already 100,000 slaves used the UR to escape! 100,000!

The Underground Railroad actually started right after our country’s founding- in 1787.  

Slaves couldn’t read or write and could hardly speak to other slaves living in other towns so coordinating the concept and on -the-ground locations would have been impossible for them to do under such oppression. So,  who came up with all the safe houses, the secret code name concept of the “railroad terminology”  like “stockholders” ( those who funded it) “conductors” (those who guided people from location to location “Station master” (Regional coordinator)and so on, back in 1787? Who built up this huge network all the way to Canada? Who put in all of the time, money and resources and kept it secret?  As soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution, there was a huge movement to stop a widely accepted horrible practice of slavery and who had a love for mankind strong enough to risk losing everything to help free the slaves? 

It was the white Quakers.

The man known to operate the first cell of the railroad, was a WHITE man named Issac Hopper- a Quaker in his late teens even, who risked everything to liberate over 1000 slaves himself and that number is modest. 

Also the  “President” of the UR  was Levi Coffer.  A WHITE Quaker who, along with his wife helped over 3300 slaves acquire freedom.  Thomas Garrett several decades later, also a Quaker helped over 2700 slaves.  They got entire Quaker congregations to hide people, pay money to help out and to create safe houses.  There were at least 8 wealthy white men noted in history who were behind it but there were thousands more who helped. They made sure to compartmentalize the big plan so that no one person knew the whereabouts of all the safe houses -so they couldn’t be coerced into giving info if in-prisoned.

Harriet Tubman didn’t use the railroad herself until it was in its final 15 years of existence - the UR had already been going for almost 65 years strong.

She made 13 runs on the railroad with small groups that included her own family members and is responsible for freeing about 70 people. 

Some of those 13 runs were only partly aiding those that were already in the process of escaping already. I’m not saying that isn’t wonderful or wasn’t brave- it was-but why she is called Moses and referred to in text as the founder or face of the movement? This is very inaccurate.

White Quakers, Native Americans, and Free Blacks worked together to free slaves.  Those entire Quaker congregations knew they were risking their lives and wealth to participate but did it anyway.

The reason Harriet Tubman was recognized for this was because a friend of hers wanted to raise money for her and wrote a book about her in the late 1800’s about her efforts- a very glowing account that exaggerated her efforts into claiming she had rescued thousands and thousands and William Still wrote about her because he joined the movement at the end as well and wrote about several people involved.

I’m glad they acknowledge the following in the African American Experience (source)-

“The exact year in which the system began is unknown, but it is believed the Quakers started it in 1787. By the time Mrs. Tubman made her escape in 1849, escape via the Underground Railroad had become a frequent practice and it involved a much larger network of people....

By 1857, she had helped free dozens of slaves (not the hundreds often touted in history books; Tubman believed the figure was closer to 70), including her own parents and other family members”. Source-AAE

Books claimed that she sheltered people on her property as a philanthropist- but she actually ran a boarding business and charged people.   They said she was a political activist in the women’s vote but if you look deeper, they said she “felt strongly about women voting and “LIKELY worked among those LIKE Susan B Anthony”- they don’t exactly say she did.  There aren’t any actual accounts of this. They said she worked as a spy for the military and risked her life in battle as the first  black woman to do so. Well, truth be told she found a couple of scouts for them to bring them into battle  because she didn’t know the areas and wasn’t on the front lines. 

I mean it’s great - she helped out, but they have grossly exaggerated her biography. She has since had museums, bridges, a naval ship, a postage stamp, streets, parks, statues- all named after her, movies made about her starring Cicely Tyson  and also almost landed on our 20 dollar bill.  And does anyone remember hearing about Issac  Hopper in history class as the founder and inventor of the UR? I’m guessing not so much.

A writer in 1940 tried to write the truth - Earl Connor - and received threats and condemnation for wanting to write the truth.  ( This makes sense knowing that our public  education system was hijacked by the Carnegie Foundation to change our American history in the early 1900’s- as found right  in their meeting’s written notes from 1908 and exposed in Congress hearings later on.  Their main directive was to “re-educate” teachers with watered down and completely altered American history. By 1920, our nation was touting Tubman as the name associated with the UR- source Norman Dodd sent to investigate Carnegie Foundation by Congress).

They wanted a black woman to be the face of the Underground Railroad and that was that- regardless of true history.  Apparently they also wanted to make it appear as though all white people were racist and loved slavery.

Can you imagine what our conversations would be like right now in America if we were constantly sharing this info about all of the White people that wanted to free those in slavery, risked it all and THEY made it happen- all along?

To make sure the UR was successful, many different religions, Methodists, Presbyterians and all kinds of clergy risked their lives. It took so many people from all over that cared about ensuring freedom and changing the (sadly) widely accepted practice of slavery.  There were white  slaves, Irish slaves and yes, black owners of black slaves.

By the way, this is also NEVER talked about,  but starting in  the 1600’s  black  AND white  slaves were brought over together by ship and “indentured or “Durante  vite”-meaning- in order to “pay for their voyage” - they had to be a slave for 4-7 years to pay for the voyage they didn’t want to take and work it off as a slave.  They were also called “redemtioners”- they were the poorest amongst us and sold poor orphans too.

At the end of their pay back period they got 3 bushels of corn and some clothes when set free. Horrifying? Yes. But our history. 

You can find all of this online. It is written about.  But with today’s headlines and political posturing - you’d never guess that anyone ever read about this.

Ironically and shockingly, the  first slave to be given “for life” instead of 4-7 years, was to a BLACK SLAVE  OWNER in 1640’s - Anthony Johnson - who had black  and white  slaves by the way- and argued to the court that John Casor of the Virginia’s  Colony , a black slave that he purchased, was to be for life and the court/Judge sided with Johnson that he would be his slave for life.   A BLACK slave owner and his black Slave.  “Johnson, insisting he knew nothing of an indenture, fought hard to retain what he regarded as his personal property, stating, "hee had ye Negro for his life." On March 5, 1655 the presiding judge, Captain Samuel Goldsmith, ruled that "the said Jno Caster Negro shall forthwith bee returned to the service of his master Anthony Johnson."

Johnson was one of the original “20” black slaves brought over from Africa and ironically, paid off his own indentured servitude and the bought slaves for himself- among them John Casor. - (source- Smithsonian Magazine Horrible Fate of John Casor).

Our media never mentions this though.

Harriet Tubman was a brave black woman who endured a lot in a very difficult time. No doubt.  But she was hardly the face of or founder or “Moses” of her people.  Many others sacrificed so much more, for so many decades and in a time when this practice had become so accepted, they also were brave in dedicating their lives and prosperity for the love of their “neighbor”.  George Washington also was the first to say he would give up his own slaves and help this cause as he felt slavery was wrong.

I just want us to give history it’s due.   Right from the start of America, we sought to correct accepted wrongs and America was the only land that espoused the religious and economic freedom for anyone to come and make a better life.  Not every white person was a racist slave owner nor was every black person was a slave, either. We didn’t just passively let slavery happen for a 80 years- as soon as we declared our Independence - whites, blacks and Native Americans sought to end slavery.  We are not a racist nation now and were not then.  Only a select  group - not our entire nation- were considered truly racist (full of hatred toward other human beings for skin color only) and saw others as non-human.  To most it was horrible yes, but just economical to them. White Irish slaves (over 300K) were indentured slaves as well.  They never talk about this.

The truth matters and our history book lies and misinformation have  shaped our thinking of this country and it’s so unfortunate.  

Had this been taught all along- how different would the last 100 years have been for us?  How different would our headlines be right now and how different would our perceptions be for people of all color. How would this have impacted what became the Civil Rights Movement in the South?

We need to start educating people about the truth. It matters. The truth matters.

-Kate Dalley

Kate Dalley is a cutting-edge nationally recognized radio host! She is nationally syndicated  in multiple markets -live -including Chicago and on Red State Talk Radio in drive time ( the world’s largest political online 24 hour station with 1 million listeners) along with other online outlets as well. Listeners  from around the globe listen and stream her daily 3-hour political talk show (First hour Utah topics, followed by the 2 hour nationally syndicated show).  http://katedalleyradio.com/

Share this post

Southern Poverty Law Center Interview

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

An investigative journalist from the Southern Poverty Law Center contacted me today for an interview.  She emailed me some questions and I provided a written response.  In the interest of preserving the conversation and ensuring honesty, I am printing the SPLC questions and my written respsonse.  I have no idea what portion of my response, if any they will publish, so here is the full monty. ~ KrisAnne

From Rachel Janik of the Southern Poverty Center:

I’m an investigative reporter with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I’m reaching out because we are writing an article about a talk you gave earlier this month at an event that included the group the League of the South. Here are my questions:

-Can you explain why you thought the League of the South venue was a good fit for your presentation?
-Would you be able to share with us the slides of your presentation, or a Youtube link to your speech? If not, can you give us an idea of what it was about?
-You believe in states having autonomy, correct? But what’s your position if a state wants to secede or implement a law contrary to federal statutes? May a state reinstitute segregation? Discrimination of LGBTQ people? Slavery?

Thank you so much for your time and attention to these questions. We are on a very tight deadline, and I understand if you are not able to get back to us before publication. If we hear back from you after the story is posted, we are more than happy to run an update with your comments.

My Response:

Greetings Rachel,

Thank you for your honest inquiry. I will be posting my response to you in full at my website.  I will begin by letting you know how I work.  I do not solicit events or venues.  For nine years every event, for years exceeding 250 classes in over 22 States every year, all my classes are scheduled because someone invited me to come to their venue.  I have no speaking fees and have never turned down an opportunity to teach any of the classes that I teach unless I could not physically do the teaching.  I have spoken to groups of all political identities, all ages, and all levels of government.  Your question of “why you thought the League of the South venue was a good venue for your presentation” does not apply to me.  I do not seek venues that “fit” a particular class.  My classes are not political, they are factual, historical, and constitutional; they are about Liberty and the responsibility in a Constitutional Republic to be an educated and self-governing people. 

I discovered that I my teaching ran contrary to the position of The League of the South, namely I do not believe that the Constitution and the republic it created have failed. I do not believe that the “Empire should be dismantled and reformed.”  So I felt it was an opportunity to promote liberty, unity and demonstrate that the system that the founders gave us can indeed be relied upon. Frankly, my classes fit every venue, every person, and every age.  The blessings of Liberty are a gift to all people and are not contingent upon gender, sexual orientation, faith, or skin color, therefore I do not discriminate against any group who desires to know more about our Constitutional Republic and how it is supposed to work.  Even more so, if the group is reputed to have offensive views I feel that the message of liberty for all that I teach is more than appropriate.  I explained this in a post I already made in reference to this event.  https://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/resources/articles/412-public-statement-on-racism

I have attached a google drive link of my PowerPoint presentation.  Note the last slide.  I always end with this slide and emphasize that our methods should lead us to liberty and unity, not hate, violence, and disharmony. 

As to your question regarding LGBTQ, Slavery, and Segregation. The short answers are no, no and no.   It is interesting that the assumption is that State sovereignty is intended to oppress people rather than to defend against oppression (like a state refusing to comply with the unconstitutional dictates of a despotic President for instance).  Liberty is inherent to all people.  All government, both State and federal are instituted to protect liberty.

“All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…and to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Declaration of Independence

When any form of government fails to secure that liberty, it fails to accomplish the single purpose for its existence and becomes an unjust government.  Our system of Republican Federalism was established to exist with very powerful checks and balances to ensure that no form of government can deny the rights of the people unchecked.  The separate spheres of government that exist in the creation of State and federal are designed to mutually check each other within their enumerated boundaries.

“Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different government will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself…”  Federalist 51

“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject within their respective authorities than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” James Madison, Federalist 39

For instance when the federal government demanded that States return “fugitive slaves,” the State of Wisconsin, from 1854 to 1859 asserted its sovereignty and refused to comply with a power not delegated to the federal government and contrary to the rights of the people. (Ableman v Booth 62 US 514 (1859)  If the designed checks and balances had been working properly, NO Japanese American would have been unconstitutionally and unjustly seized and detained in camps even though the president “ordered” it and SCOTUS “sanctioned” it.

As with any power in government non-compliance can be used for good and it can be used for evil.  But the essential checks and balances our founders established within these separate spheres of government enable the people to ensure that one sphere will not become so powerful that it may exercise its will without restraint. This essential check and balance that exists in our Constitutional Republic is the shield against slavery, masters, and oppressors, not a restoration of it.

The Supremacy Clause upholds the authority of the Constitution and establishes that all Acts of the Legislative branch must me made consistent with the terms and enumerations of the Constitution.  The Supremacy Clause also very clearly establishes that any Act of Congress not made “in pursuance” to the Constitution is invalid and not binding upon the States.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.  James Wilson

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

I support the Constitution and the tenor of the commission under which it was created.  Therefore I support every law of the Legislative branch creates under those terms and understand that every State has a duty to comply with those laws.  I also understand, as instructed by those who wrote the Constitution, that every State has no obligation to submit to any federal law that is not made within those terms. And while I am not a proponent of secession, a state certainly has that contractual right when it feels that the compact has been irrevocably broken.  Our states are not fiefdoms under subjugation to an unquestionable despot.  Yet while a State may secede or be expelled, that State would lose all benefits and privileges afforded to it under the federal compact.

Blessings,

KrisAnne Hall, JD

Share this post