In Paris Massacre’s Aftermath, Here’s One Important Truth We Must Apply From History

As we pray for the people of France today, can we learn some very important lessons from the past?

When the Twin Towers fell, we made a very serious mistake. We believed we could trade our Liberty for security and allowed our government, with our permission, to “temporarily” impose upon our Rights in an effort to keep us safe.  

Let’s be very clear of two things: it was NEVER temporary, and we are NO safer now than we were then. We have just lost very precious Liberties, and dangerously expanded the power of government.

You will undoubtedly hear, over the next few days, people claiming the need for MORE government power of surveillance and the need for MORE government power to keep us safe. Make no mistake; whenever government gets more power, the people have less Liberty.

When we hear these “desperate” cries for power, in the face of a fearful and vulnerable generation, we must remember the words of William Pitt, the younger:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

These cries of necessity, Pitt is explaining, classify people in their own human nature. Those who want the power as tyrants, and those whose fear will turn them to slaves. Who do we want to be?

I believe John Milton would punctuate Pitt’s statement with this:

“And with necessity, The tyrant’s plea, excus’d his devilish deeds” (Paradise Lost)

These tyrants will NOT let a crisis go to waste. They will frame the narrative such that if you care about civil liberties, then you don’t care about national securities. They admit you can’t both keep their oath and fight terrorism. So they take the oath disingenuously and then set about to remove the constraints of that oath. Their cry will become, “We must defend America from these radical barbarians at all costs! If you don’t give us the power to do this, in all cases whatsoever, you won’t have your Liberty because we will all be dead.” Enter the “Necessity Plea.”

The danger we are facing is the attitude that Liberty doesn’t matter, that any boundary and limit of government can be violated if you can come up with a good enough reason. Then those who control the narrative will be able to use any reason at any time to violate the Liberty of an uninformed people for the purposes of power and control.

Our framers lived through ALL of these scenarios prior to our Independence. There is a reason they declared the purpose of the union was to “Preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  There is a reason John Adams wrote in 1765 that “Liberty must at all hazards be supported.” There is a reason that Samuel Adams wrote:

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

We cannot let our ignorance destroy our Liberty in the face of ignorance and fear. There is a reason that Patrick Henry asked these questions and made his final stand:

“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!”

Without Liberty, you are a slave, and your life is not worth living. Without Liberty, your peace, your national security, will become your chains and bonds.

These are the times that will try men’s souls. We will see what Americans really want. Do we want to remain the greatest place on earth, established on the fundamental principle of Liberty? Or do we want to be just like every other country in the world, driven by fear and dictated by government power?

On an individual level, I will simply say that no person’s fear ever trumps my Rights. And as for me and my house, we stand with Patrick Henry.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Oregon County Stands To Defy Federal Gun Laws

The People of Coos County, Oregon, are standing up against unconstitutional federal laws! However, according to an interview in World Net Daily, The Heritage Foundation​ says they are wrong to do so. So let’s see what the founders of the Constitution say…

Coos County, Oregon, has passed an ordinance that says that the Sheriff is not to enforce any unconstitutional laws in their county. But the Heritage Foundation says:

… the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution leaves “no question that federal law trumps state law”…(Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation)

No, Mr. von Spakovsky, you are wrong. The Supremacy Clause says the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and federal laws are ONLY supreme if they are made in compliance with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI sec 2) is a very simple statement, and it doesn’t need complicated legal analysis. It says what it means and means what it says.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme law of the land.”

That means that if federal law is contrary to the Constitution, it is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. Not only that, Alexander Hamilton tells us that any law that is contrary to the Constitution is NO LAW at all.

“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.” Federalist #78

The Heritage Foundation then claims that the sheriff is an “agent of the state” and has to abide by Oregon law; if the state passed a law that requires its officials, including the sheriff, to violate the Second Amendment, individual citizens could pursue a lawsuit, or he could resign from his job. (Andrew Kloster, Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation)

No, Mr. Kloster, you are wrong about a couple very important things. First the Sheriff is NOT an agent of the State. He is an elected representative of The People. The State does not hire a Sheriff; the People elect him, and they expect him to keep his oath to the people. Inherent in that oath is the requirement of the Sheriff to protect the people from all who would take their property in violation of their rights. We expect that our Sheriff, as much as he is able, will help to protect our homes, our property, our lives, and our families from the acts of those who would violate our rights. But what happens when it’s the government itself that takes up the role of one who would take our rights, the role of the criminal?

James Madison wrote in 1792, “In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” If you would want your Sheriff to protect your home from criminal invasion, Madison is simply reminding us that we should also want our Sheriff to protect us from having our Rights criminally invaded. Is the Sheriff bound to uphold the law even when that law violates his oath to the Constitution and seeks to deprive the citizens of their Liberty? Of course not! The duty and the obligations of the Sheriff do not change, even when the violator of our Liberty is the government itself. To fail to protect our Liberty from all unlawful activity is a dereliction of duty. Remember, our Right to keep and bear arms is NOT a 2nd Amendment Right; it is a Natural Right. It is not there for hunting, sport, or just for robbers and rapists. It is there to oppose ALL forms of government that would deny us of our Rights.

“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.” Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Samuel Adams, 1769

I suppose the Heritage Foundation would like our Sheriffs to assume the posture that they must simply enforce the laws as they are written, good, bad, and ugly. That is a very interesting position to take, as that is the same defense most Nazis tried to use at Nuremburg. It didn’t work for them, so why would the Heritage Foundation expect our Sheriffs to take up that defense? Can you just imagine what America would be like today if some Sheriffs had followed their oath instead of the law? Rosa Parks would’ve been able to sit anywhere she wanted on the bus. Civil Rights advocates would not have been jailed and beaten. Japanese Americans would not have been forced into internment camps. Dred Scott would not have been deemed property, but a man with inalienable Rights. All of these acts were supported by “laws,” State and Federal, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

The one thing these Heritage Fellows have correct is that this Sheriff and the People of Coos County may be looking at some legal challenges. But that should not dissuade the people in defending their Rights. After all, our framers believed defense of Liberty was worthy of Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. It is unfortunate that some Americans have become so fundamentally miseducated about the Constitution that they would actually want our elected representative to uphold laws that take our Rights.

What is more deeply troubling than the wrong education of the people is the lack of understanding of many in the legal system. People must remember, however, that law schools don’t teach the Constitution anymore; they teach Constitutional Law. These classes teach our future lawyers and judges that they know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it. After all, we are technologically advanced, so we must be intellectually superior. Therefore, our highly educated judges and lawyers need to use their advanced intellect to tell the framers what they meant when they wrote the Constitution because they were too stupid to know for themselves. Law schools will then spend the rest of their legal instruction teaching future lawyers and judges how to circumvent the Constitution to win their arguments.  Law schools have bred generations of lawyers and judges who are completely diseased with the concepts of Federal Supremacy.

I am very concerned by the opinions of these men who claim to represent the Heritage Foundation, opinions that clearly contradict the words and intentions of our framers. We should not be shy questioning these men; after all, they are products of their education. If these two men truly represent the opinions of The Heritage Foundation, it appears that Heritage, too, may have been overcome by Federal Supremacy and may need a course correction.  

Meanwhile, we must educate ourselves on the Truth regarding the application of the Constitution and the proper role and duty of our Constitutional Sheriffs. May I encourage you to support Coos County, Oregon, and their Sheriff as they act in defense of our inherent Right to keep and bear arms? You can contact Sheriff Craig Zanni at or 541-396-7800. Let them know you support them in the defense of our inherent Rights. If you would like to become better educated on this issue, may I suggest chapter 5 of my book Sovereign Duty, titled “A New Sheriff In Town”? Perhaps we could encourage von Spakovsky and Kloster to read it as well?  

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Don’t Believe The Media Lies; Americans Are Awesome!

In spite of it all, I am truly blessed. Let me share something, because attitude is everything.

I am currently stranded in Ft. Pierce, Fl. Last night, after teaching the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County, Fl., my 2004 Chevy Colorado (274k miles!) had a total electrical failure. Dash lights going crazy, no power as I am driving down the road. I managed to pull into a gas station where my engine completely died. Two very nice men tried to jump my truck. As soon as the cables were removed, my truck died again. I am now stuck in a “bad” part of town, an hour away from my hotel. I am alone, my husband is in Haiti, and I am feeling very vulnerable. Can I mention that I really wanted to cry? But instead, I said a prayer for strength and smiled, knowing that I am never truly alone.

We have come to call them “Hall Family Adventures;” experiences, good and bad, that will be stories told one day, experiences that we would never have had if we had not accepted this unique way of life.

I called my assistant, Janet (who is more like my best friend than an assistant), and she worries about me like a mom. She gave me Alex’s phone number. Alex is the leader of the group I just taught, and he was happy to come to my rescue. I was also able to contact my husband in Haiti, and he talked to me until Alex came. (I am blessed to have such a wonderful husband.)

Alex picked me up and took me to 2 Walmarts before we found my battery. Walmart replaced my battery for free as it was under warranty. We changed the battery. The truck started, but the battery light came on immediately. I was able to make it to my hotel in Ft. Pierce at about midnight.

I am currently sitting in JJ’S Cafe on Hwy 1, eating a Denver Omelet, waiting for Dyer Chevrolet to tell me what is wrong with my truck.

I am blessed to have a truck that is paid for.  In this way of life, I could never maintain a car payment or even find a place to finance me after I told them I work for free (LOL!).

I am blessed to live in a day when I can call my husband in Haiti to just hear his voice for love, comfort, and support.

I am blessed to live in America, where the American Spirit drives us to be kind and compassionate to strangers (red, yellow, black, or white) in need. Americans prove that the media is in the job of lying and deceiving. We are not selfish bigots full of hate and greed ready to gun down our neighbors. We are some of the best people on this planet!

I am blessed to have been able to sleep in the comfort of a hotel room. I am blessed to have a place to get my truck fixed. And, as I sit here in JJ’s with tears streaming down my face, I am blessed to have a cup of coffee and a Denver Omelet in my belly.

I am blessed by people like Service Manager Mike Rivera, at Dyer Chevrolet in Ft. Pierce, FL, for his kind help of this woman in distress. Because of all of these blessings, my family and I are able to engage in our mission to restore the American Constitutional Republic through proper education, teaching over 265 classes every year!

Is this life of constant travel glamorous? Absolutely not. At times, it is downright impossible. But there are people who pray for me and my family all over the world. Even the bad times are a blessing when I remember WHY my family chose this life.

America is worth fighting for. Liberty is worth dying for. My child is worth the sacrifice. Many gave their Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor so we could live in the greatest place on the planet. I am just repaying them for their sacrifice. I count myself blessed to be able to do so. Just another Hall Family Adventure!

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 

Learn more about my family’s mission:

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Fraudulent Contract

Obama promised he would make us just like Europe. He is fulfilling that promise. What can we do about it?

Everyone is going to be talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for the next few days. After 7 years of secrecy, the people of America will be “allowed” to view this agreement for the next 90 days. I wonder how many will be telling the truth about how evil this usurpation of the Constitution really is?

The driving force for the establishment of TPP is a congressional act called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). This is a congressional act that authorizes international executive agreements and attempts to give these international agreements the same force of law as constitutionally established treaties. In a recent article, I explained this process, why it is unconstitutional and why Congress is the real problem, not Obama.

So, what can WE do about it?

Power to create treaties is established in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The power to create a treaty is delegated by the people to the President with approval of a two thirds vote of the Senate. The Supremacy Clause then declares that Treaties are ONLY supreme when they comply with the Constitution.  

[For a full explanation of the establishment of the constitutional treaty process, please read this article.]

TPP is NOT a Treaty. Therefore, it is an unlawful agreement and a fraudulent contract.

John Jay explains in Federalist #64 that, to the founders, it was nearly incomprehensible that the President and the Senate could act in concert to usurp the protections of the Constitution regarding treaties; but if they did, there is a simple solution:

“if they [the President & Senate] act corruptly, they can be punished; and if they make disadvantageous treaties, how are we to get rid of those treaties?…As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.”

You see, the solution is simple. TPP is a fraudulent contract; therefore, it is null and void by every aspect of law. Since it is a void contract, here is exactly what John Jay, James Madison, and even Patrick Henry would expect to happen.

The Governors of each State should draft a letter explaining that TPP was drafted outside our Constitutional process. Since the States were not given proper control through their representatives, the Senators, this “agreement” will not be honored by the States or their local governments. Therefore, the 12 countries involved in this agreement must be put on notice that the States of America will not recognize this agreement as legal or binding, and these 12 countries should act accordingly. This is exactly what our founders expected our States to do!

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded… [this act] would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33

We have yet another opportunity to cull the chaff from the wheat, but will we be able to put Principle over Party, or Truth over our Favorite Personality or Organization? If ANYONE, and I do mean anyone, tries to defend this unconstitutional and wicked agreement, they have declared themselves not only an opponent to the Constitution, but I dare say an enemy to America. I make that assertion based upon fact, and boldly proclaim its accusation without any mental reservation.

What we need now are people who are educated on the Constitution, and State leaders bold enough to defend it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Who Has Control Over The Government’s Budget?

I was recently contacted by a concerned Texan regarding a town hall meeting she attended with her Congressional representative. Her email to me reads as follows:

I have a constitutional question. At a town hall yesterday, we had a heated discussion with our Congressional representative Mike Conaway. Our question was why isn’t the House withholding funds for Obama’s overreaches? Conaway’s reply was the House can’t do that alone, it also takes the Senate. I have been under the impression the House alone controlled the purse strings. Am I correct?

I wanted to respond to this email publicly since it involves an important constitutional issue. I fear that many are confused on this vital check and balance; and because of our ignorance of this principle, we are losing one of the most important controls on government incorporated into the Constitution.

Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of spending. It reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Since the Constitution is a contract, pursuant to contract law we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity. James Madison explains exactly what we need to know in Federalist 58:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government…This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure.

Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.

On May 15, 1789, Madison, then a federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White during the ratification debates:

Mr. White said: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with.  I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58, that it is the duty of the House to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

Madison replies to White with confirmation:

The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.

It is clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse. Pursuant to Article 1 section 7, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but their assent is not necessary. As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives, and best suited to redress their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches as the people see fit. If the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands. If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget, and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands. It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking, the president has no veto power over a budget.

Some may confuse the procedure for passing a law with the procedure for passing a budget. A very important distinction must be recognized; a budget expires, but a law does not. A law must follow the procedure of both houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law, it must be repealed. Budgets, however, expire and must be renewed by each congressional session. No future Congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget. That is why the Senate is not necessary and the President is procedurally excluded from the budget process.  

We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government. It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control. It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity with the Constitution.

The current budget procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution by past Congresses, have achieved exactly what both Madison and White have warned about; they have let this vital power out of their hands and placed it into the hands of those not constitutionally fit to fulfil the demand. We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurp of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach.  

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by