$59.97/Every 3 Months
- Access to all courses
- Access to all forums
- Recurs every 3 months
- Cancel anytime
$59.97/Every 3 Months
$19.97/Month (First 5 Days are Free)
Liberty First University is a unique education in the history and application of the Constitution of the United States. So often our history classes start teaching the Constitution with the history of 1776 or even later. The foundation of our Constitution goes deeper than that. Without examining the context that gave America its principles and its founding documents, we cannot understand the true nature of Liberty, the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.
For over seven years we have been traveling and teaching across America; averaging 260 classes in over 22 States every year. Everywhere we went, people wanted more. Liberty First University provides more education to more people than we could ever deliver in person. These classes are perfect for individuals, groups, K-12 and college classrooms, churches, and anywhere else people who are hungry for knowledge and for Liberty gather.
This is a guest article by our dear friend Victor Sperandeo. 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
In light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the left hasn’t changed its playbook. So, it is no surprise to hear claims that appointing an “Original Intent” Justice will bring back Jim Crow and chattel slavery. A reasonable look
at history (which is not to be expected from the left) should give rise to the opposite conclusion. A SCOTUS Justice who follows original intent should be viewed as a safeguard against a racist court. IF you will read to the end you will understand what I mean.
The infamous case of Scott v. US (The Dred Scott Decision) was NOT an example of Original Intent but of judicial activism. In Scott v. US the Supreme court through a series of historical errors, ignorance and racist reasoning wrongly declared that the Constitution never intended to make black men citizens and therefore intended for them to be property. They ignored the history of freed blacks in America, ignored the drafters’ own words, and inserted meaning into the Constitution’s text that could not be found in its plain reading.
The court’s judicial summary of the Dred Scott case is rich with historical revision and falsehoods and demonstrates the court’s venture outside of the text. The court claimed, “The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.” Of course, there are no clauses in the Constitution that identify the “African race,” this was read INTO the text by the racist court. The clauses in question reference persons who are “other than” freeperson and a “Person held to Service or Labour.” This could equally apply to the over 300,000 English, Irish, and Scottish slaves brought to the American colonies between 1618 to 1775. Yet, we do not hear the racist Dred Scott Court or any other person for that matter attempting to argue that an Irishman, Scotsman, or poor white English slave would not be a citizen if freed; that their children if born free would not be citizens.
Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences
In a case titled NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, the supreme Court is asked to opine on whether Beccera’s injunction to stop enforcement of California’s FACT Act should be granted or not. California’s FACT Act requires pro-life clinics to inform their clients on how and where to get abortions. This government forced message, Beccera claims, is unquestionably contrary to their practices and beliefs and is therefore a violation of their freedom of speech. The supreme Court rightly agrees with Beccera and grants the injunction and sends the case to the lower courts to finish its legal process.
This is a victory for freedom of speech and also for the unborn’s right to life. However, it may have some unintended consequences for pro-life supporters. Justice Clarence Thomas writes in the majority opinion:
“Content-based regulations “target speech based on its communicative content.” As a general matter, such laws “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”
Thomas remarks that California’s licensed notice is a content-based regulation of speech. Since this particular notice is forced upon clinics like Beccera’s, who are morally opposed to abortion, this particular notice only serves to “alte[r] the content of [their] speech.”
Justice Breyer, writing for the dissent, claims that the government has traditionally held the power to regulate speech through professional licensing and this case should be no different. However, Justice Thomas reasons that speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals” therefore the California law cannot force pro-life clinics to include government scripted instructions about abortion. Justice Breyer remarks in the dissent that this opinion, depending upon how it is applied, could have widespread ramifications on many laws currently in place requiring certain businesses to supply clients with government scripted notices. This point made by Breyer is where pro-life advocates may find that they have won this case, only to lose another.
Many States have laws on the books that require abortion clinics, both public and private, to provide brochures on alternatives to abortion. Many States have laws forcing these abortion clinics to provide ultra-sound services along with instruction about the developmental stages of the baby in the womb. These are also government scripted notices forced upon these clinics contrary to their practices and beliefs. If these abortion clinics were to challenge these laws forcing the pro-life message, under this precedent the high Court would also have to overturn those pro-life message laws.
This judicial tit for tat is what happens when people use the force of government to promote personal messages. As Thomas so clearly points out in the majority opinion, the pro-abortion proponents could easily inform the women about its services “without burdening a speaker with unwanted speech,” most obviously through a public-information campaigns. To be consistent in their opinions, the majority would have to say the same thing about government forced pro-life practices and messages. This means that both parties will have to use non-governmental methods to inform the public about their services rather than relying on the force of government to promote their message.
The irony is that the supreme Court seems unanimous to a certain degree that freedom of speech deserves the highest level of protection, however, the life of an unborn child does not.
July 2nd is actually America’s #IndependenceDay Our Independence was not the product of the Declaration of Independence, signed by John Hancock on July 4, 1776. On the contrary, the Declaration of Independence was the product of our Independence! On June 7, 1776 a delegate from Virginia by the name of Richard Henry Lee
Safeguard for the Supreme Court By KrisAnne Hall, JD In light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the left hasn’t changed its playbook. So, it is no surprise to hear claims that appointing an “Original Intent” Justice will bring back Jim Crow and chattel slavery.
KrisAnne Hall was born and raised in St. Louis, MO and began her career as a biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and a prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent national non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne received her undergraduate degree in Bio-Chemistry from Blackburn College and her J.D. from the University of Florida, Levin College of Law.
KrisAnne is now the president of Liberty First Society and travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has a nationally syndicated radio show and a cable television show. KrisAnne has been featured on C-SPAN TV and C-SPAN Book TV. KrisAnne will connect the dots for you like no one else can!
Host of The KrisAnne Hall Show, she pulls no punches, puts Liberty First and gives no quarter to those who hide behind party labels. Like no other host, KrisAnne will tell you what the founders had to say on today’s relevant issues .
KrisAnne is a disabled Army veteran, a mother, a pastor’s wife, and a patriot. KrisAnne lives in North Florida with her husband JC, an evangelist, missionary to Haiti, and former Russian instructor for the US Navy, and their adopted son Colton.
Here she is in her own words:
“Right up front there are some things that I need to tell you about myself. I want you to know where I came from and how I got to where I am today. I don’t want to ever be accused of deception or dishonesty. So, in full disclosure:
I was not born a Constitutionalist. I did not live my life with an inherent understanding of Liberty and what is necessary to defend it. I was not raised a Christian. For some, these things will be a stumbling block, so you need to know from me.
I was raised a Democrat. The only thing more evil than Satan was a Republican in my home. There were no choices to be made in voting…straight Democrat party line was the only choice.
I was an environmentalist. An ardent environmentalist. Some of my best friends were members of Green Peace and I supported the WWF and PETA. I was a vegetarian by ideology, not for health reasons, for almost 15 years.
I believed in the “good” of scientific manipulations of food and the necessity of vaccines. Not only believed this, but helped create them when I was a biochemist for Monsanto.
I believed in Global Warming and defended it vigorously. I believed in the Big Bang and openly criticized those who believed in creationism as ignorant and misled.
I believed Government’s duty and purpose was to be a provider for the people. I supported programs that would give the government more control over the people. I even believed a One World Government was the best way to go to ensure “global peace.” I supported the principles of socialism, although I cannot claim to have known at the time it was socialism, per se, that I supported.
I supported abortion and often openly condemned others for being pro-life. I have argued with abortion protesters on street corners and called them names that I am not proud of.
was not only not a Christian, but I practiced many other religions, including many occult versions. I was bitter against God and felt that only ignorant, weak people needed faith. I was too intelligent and too educated for such a feeble crutch.
I was not born with the knowledge that I have now. I did not wake up one morning with a divine epiphany. I traveled a long road. I learned some hard and painful lessons. My beliefs were challenged and I came to know the Truth.
I am able to stand firm on what I believe because I have discovered the difference between truth and lies. I am able to defend the truth because I walked the path. I can show you my path of discovery, and to be guaranteed it is not tied to any political motivation or personal gain…unless you call the liberation that comes from knowing the truth in the face of lies, a personal gain.
So when someone says to you…”Did you know that person used to be associated with this or that group or used to believe this… How can you possibly believe him now?” Remember this story.
It is good to question someone’s “transformation”. You SHOULD do that. If they cannot show you that path, step by step, you should question their motivations.
But do not discount someone’s current position just because of who they USED to be or who they USED to associate with or what they USED to believe. Sometimes it is NOT a selfish or deceptive motivation, but a path to enlightenment. We all had to wake up somehow.
Just so you know where I stand.” -KrisAnne Hall
Author of Not a Living Breathing Document: Reclaiming Our Constitution, and the DVD series The Roots of Liberty: The Historic Foundations of The Bill of Rights and Bedtime Stories for Budding Patriots and Essential Stories for Junior Patriots. Two books that inspired KrisAnne’s love for our history were Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis and 1776 by David McCollough.
Awarded the Freedom Fighter award by Americans for Prosperity, the Certificate of Achievement from the Sons of the Revolution for her defense of Liberty, and Congressman James Blair Award for Defending the Constitution.
KrisAnne is an incredibly passionate speaker – a true Patrick Henry of our time. She speaks to audiences all across the country on Constitutional History, American Exceptionalism, and the Fight for Liberty. Her passion and enthusiasm is contagious and she is able to inspire any group. A steadfast warrior in the battle for Liberty.
KrisAnne Hall’s “The Roots of Liberty Seminar” is NOT JUST ANOTHER LECTURE ON THE CONSTITUTION. She presents the 700+ year history that gave us our founding documents – proving that our founding documents were not created on a whim and that they are reliable and relevant. It is important to know not only what your rights are, but why you have them.
In addition to the history of the Bill of Rights, KrisAnne presents each of the first ten amendments in their context – in the words and history of our founders. She also presents the 17th amendment and what we must do to make our federal politicians accountable.
KrisAnne is a passionate speaker and has kept crowds attention for hours. This information is a must for all patriots and it must be passed on. If we are to reclaim our nation, we must reclaim our history!
The full seminar 5hrs (1hr segments). Partial Seminar also available.
KrisAnne is also available to present at regular meetings. Presentations last from 30 minutes to 1 hr.