happy couple in this. that version of the truth seemed remote but still. grace went back to her office thinking trying to come up with a plan. when she got to her office she called her good friend the private detective named julius j. crown. cron was a federal agent when he was first assigned to grace during her u.s. district attorney days and grace, one of the things i found out she was the first female u.s. district attorney. this is i think a major historical point and you have to look really, really, really hard to find it. it's a major accomplishment. [applause]

>> all right, i am jc chris paul and my wife. many of you here are the no krisanne and i don't know how many visitors should that don't let krisanne is a native of st. louis missouri. she got her bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from black or in college in illinois. she joined the united states army and was trained as a russian linguist for military intelligence in the army and as most people know here she worked for the state attorney's office for many years as a prosecutor after graduating from the university of florida, college of law and she worked under jerry blair at the state attorney's office and then went to work at a constitutional law

firm defending religious and first amendment liberty for several years. came back again to the state attorney's office and worked under the honorable steve jarvis and was providentially launched from there into speaking about our liberties and the constitution. she now travels and teaches an average of 265 events in over 22 states for about the last six years since that providential launching. she has a radio show in addition to all of that but she does six days a week. one of those is broadcast as a television show on the christian television network lifestyle channel. and many more things. she has been a plumber, an emt, a biochemist, a paralegal, an

attorney. i think the label that she carries most proudly would the a mother, wife, christian and patriot. [applause] the slogan on her radio show is liberty over security, principle over party and truth over your favorite personality. she takes a lot of flak because she happens to be of the belief that we should protect, defend and abided by constitutional principles no matter who is in office or which party is in power. please welcome krisanne hall. [applause] >> all right, here we go. can you hear me now? okay, i am very excited to be here. it's always warming to my heart to be at home.

you can imagine teaching 265 events in 22 states every year. we don't see our homes very often. so we are blessed nonetheless and we are happy to be here. right now, there is a 77-year-old man, a veteran who serves our country in federal prison right now in colorado because he built a stocked pond on his land with the permission of his state, with the direction of the army corps of engineers that the epa said we don't care and prosecuted him for violating the clean air act.

prosecuted him for violating the clean air act even though the clean air act has a section that exists from their jurisdiction. we have an amish person in federal prison because he made a staff out of chickweed and shared it with his friends and family members. we have a disabled u.s. veteran who has had his civil rights stripped from him by a federal judge for following state law. we have farmers, dairy farmers in indiana being harassed for

having raw milk and cheese. we have political prisoners in oregon and utah or nevada because they took the bold enough desai step off peacefully protesting federal government overreach into their lands and into their property. so let me ask you a question. do you think our federal government is still out-of-control? we need to find the solution, and do we not? as i travel and i teach it is almost unanimous the response i

get when i ask do you think the federal government is out of control and i teach at varying groups with different ideologies, different political spec drums and for different reasons everybody has an idea that the federal government is out of control. and the most asked questions i get, what do you suppose that is? what do we do about it? if we have been teaching the constitution properly for the last 150 years, we would know what to do. we don't have to reinvent the wheel. we don't have defined the solution because the same solutions that existed in 1789 when we ratify the constitution are the same solutions that we have today. how do we get the federal government under control? the solution is the state's must

fulfill their obligations as a proper check and balance. look at what thomas jefferson says. if the state look with apathy on the silent defense of their government he is talking about washington d.c.. when he is talking about this which is to swallow all he's talking about everything being consolidated from big to little in washington d.c.. your environment being controlled by washington d.c., your right to keep and bear arms , your land, your food, your medicine, everything being controlled and washington d.c. has been the gulf of which to swallow all. and look what he says. we have only to weep over the human character forms

uncontrollable to buy a rod of iron. when the government is out of control the society is reduced to chaos. when the checks and balances are not functioning then the only thing that can controlled chaos is a rod of iron. our framers gave us the greatest gift, the opportunity to self-govern and their greatest condemnation today is our refusal to self-govern. everything is in place. we to simply must be dedicated to exercise it.

our checks and balances. how does the state have the right to check the federal government? that is what we are going to go through today. this whole class is going to be establishing not by my opinion, not by my interpretation but by history, by fact and by the words of the men who created our constitutional republic. i don't really feel myself to be a teacher of this information. today i'm more of a facilitating, facilitating the lessons that have been before us since we ratify the constitution how does the state have a right to check the federal government? because the states came first.

we need to reestablish some basic foundational principles. we need to connect some dots so that we start heading off in the right direction and we need to get back to some very basic things. when i see basic i mean abcs and 123's and just that simple principle of understanding that the state came first establishes a very important understanding of who is in charge. i want us to look at how first the state came because we don't see history quite accurately in our schools i think it's fair to reestablished the historical truth. in our textbooks we teach that we became independent from great britain with the signing of the declaration of independence on july 4, 1776. that's not true. we became independent from great

britain with the ratification of the lead resolution on july 2, 1776. the lead resolution, a three step process to declare independence from great britain proffered by a delegate from the state of virginia by the name of richard henry lee. richard henry lee proposed goalie legislation to the continental congress on june 7, 1776 and on july 2, 1776 the revealed will -- we resolution was brought to congress debated voted and ratified into law. our independence from great britain was not a random act by a bunch of elite slave owners who want to separate from their government so that they can have the power to address everybody.

it was a legislative act by a duly elect a legislative body and just as legally binding as anything that our congress does today that his constitutional. as a matter of fact this was such a huge day that john adams would write home to his wife abigail on july 3 and say july 2 will be an epic day where americans will celebrate their independence forever. you know it wasn't until the mid-1800's that we started celebrating our independence on july 4? so knowing this not by opinion or interpretation but by legal fact by historical fact became independent on july 2 that we

must admit that the state existed prior to everything, right? prior to the declaration of independence even. the declaration of independence was not actually fully signed on july 4. july 4 is when the declaration of independence was given to the general public. only been signed by john hancock. he wouldn't be signed by the rest of the representatives of the state until the end of august. now we have to understand on july 2 is there federal government? know because we just thrown it off. on july 4 is the federal government either. there is just the state. our first federal government is forced through the articles of

confederation but there's a problem and the problem isn't probably what you've been taught popular teaching teaches that the articles of confederation failed because we created the federal government to small. you know what the implication is then right? that the next federal government we created was much bigger and much more powerful and that simply is not true. when you look at the debates a new look at the history you see that the largest driving force to the reconsiderations of the articles of confederation had to do with an authority that was designated to the federal government. the problem was not that the art of fools of confederation created a government that was too small, they created a federal government that had sufficient guidance on how to do

what they were supposed to do. so like governments without proper guidance and proper checks still do things they are not supposed to do, which they were but they were also doing the things they were supposed to do but not doing them properly. for example one of the biggest points of contention that the articles of confederation had to do with treaties. treaties are a power delegated to the federal government only in the article of confederation the federal government was making an equitable treaties. they were making treaties with foreign governments in which one state or a set of states head to foot the whole bill and in a completely different state a completely different set of states got all the benefits. now the states who were being required to pay for the expenses of the treaty were obviously in

opposition. are you kidding me to? that's not why you join a union so we can transfer our prosperity to another state. that's not what general welfare means. and they were refusing to comply with these treaties. now the states who were supposed to get all the benefits are now mad at the states who won't pay the bill but we have an even bigger problem because the treaty is a contract with a foreign government. a foreign government has no idea how we are supposed to be working so they have no idea that the federal government has made an unlawful treaty. all they see is that they made a contract with the united states and the united states is not holding up their end of the bargain. we are most literally on the verge of war between the states

and on the verge of war with foreign countries and we just got started. so congress is like look this is not going to work. we are going to have to put together a new delegation. we are going to have to fix these articles of confederation and the constitutional convention is called. now the constitutional convention does not amend the articles of confederation because the articles of confederation are not what we operate under now, right? what we have presented now is called the constitution and the constitution has declared itself to be the more perfect union. that's why it's called the more perfect union because it was supposed to be more perfect than the articles of confederation. now we are going to learn a little bit later that the nature of the constitution is that it is a contractual agreement between the states. you can't have two competing

contracts. if you are going to have a new contract you have to get rid of the old contract and that's exactly what has happened. now, when we get rid of the articles of confederation what happens to the central government that it creates? it is gone to matt, right? so right now ratification of our current constitution there is no federal government. there is only the states. now we also know that to be true from facts backs in history. how many of you remember from your history class for your civics class that there was a very precarious moment prior to the ratification of our current constitution where we did not have enough states to ratify. how many of you remember that? and the proponents of the constitution were very concerned

and they said over and over and over again, if we do not ratify the constitution there will be no union. the states will be separate and independent. they will operate independently and they will have no means to operate as a union. doesn't that fact pretty much tell us that there is no central government any more? we have over 13 years where the only consistent government exists without interruption is the state. 13 years, 13 years before the federal government. the state came first. in order to understand the role of the states we must understand what is a state.

what does it mean to be a state? now my opinion on that is irrelevant. i think the facts tell us all we need to know and we find the definition of the word state in the last paragraph of the declaration of independence. a state is not a college. this last paragraph of the decoration of independents actually comes from the first paragraph of the liu resolution and it says we therefore the representatives of the united states of america and general congress appealing to the supreme judge of the world do in the name and by the authority of the good people solemnly publish and declare. we didn't become independent on july 4. he publicly declared what we had done two days prior. that these united colonies are

to be free. we have just discovered what we are not, a state is not a colony there must be be a distinction because if there is no distinction between a colony and the state then there's no point of making that statement. so what is the difference between a colony and a state? very simply a colony is not free and independent. if you live in a colony you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can use your land. you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can use or manage your resources. you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can create the laws, before you can regulate your businesses, even before you can educate your people if you are a colony.

anybody feeling a bit like a colony out there? well here's the good news. we are not colonies. we are free and independent states. knowing what a state is not is not as good as knowing what it is so here we know it is not a colony so what is that? continuing now with the declaration of independence we know that a state state is a free and independent state of salt from all allegiance to the british crown and all the political connection between them and the state of great britain. the state is not synonymous with new hampshire rhode island or virginia. that word state is synonymous with great britain, france and

germany. we made 13 free and independent sovereign governments. now that is beautiful, isn't that? that's a great explanation that we can go even further because the declaration of independence not only tells us what a state is that tells us the power that each and every state holds. the people through the authority of the people have delegated this power to its free and independent state. they have full power to conclude peace, to contract alliance into all other things which independent states like great written france or germany may of right do. and this is the power your state

holds today. now someone might try to explain this away and simply say well your state is not one of the first 13 then this does not apply to you. the problem is that's not starkly accurate. that is not politically accurate. that is not legally or constitutionally accurate. there's a doctrine called equal footing doctrine which says every state that enters the union enters on the same footing as the first 13 and their sure footprint. conclude peace contract alliance to all things that each and every sovereign and independent government on the planet has a right to do. someone might try to say that maybe who you were when you formed the state but when you

entered the union you surrender your power. that's ridiculous but it's all hollow -- also politically inaccurate and constitutionally inaccurate. what does the constitution say about power packs the 10th amendment says the power is not delegated. doesn't say the power is not surrendered. it says the powers not delegated. now let me ask you a question are the words delegate and surrender some anonymous? absolutely not. give yourselves a hand you now know more than the supreme court of the united states. i have actually read supreme court opinions written by justice antonin scalia that the state surrendered power and it's

simply not what happened. let me ask you a question, how many of you have ever heard of a sovereign government by the name of germany? some of you don't know germany, okay? didn't germany joined the european union? so let's all fly over to germany and we will hold a big town hall meeting and will explain to the german people and their chancellor that because they joined the eu germany is no longer a sovereign government. how do you think the chairman are going to take that little piece of news? so why do floridians? our states were created with a greater sovereignty then germany could ever imagine. our state were created out of the principle that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and

endowed by their creator with those inalienable rights. germany was created under the principle that kings delegate rights. we were created with a greater sovereignty and yet somehow we expect a greater servitude. what is the nature of this constitution that we are trying to operate, trying to apply properly? well the constitution legally speaking is a compact. it is a legally binding compact. it is a compact, an agreement between legally sovereign government. that's the view distinguished a compact from a contract. a contract is an agreement between legally sovereign people and when i say leave lee sovereign i mean you have

achieved the age of legal consent. can your be tenure ohrid illegally binding contract? know because your 15-year-old is not sovereign in the eyes of the law. a compact is what our constitution is. we know that because that's what the drafters of the constitution call it and a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign states. what is the structure of a compact? how does it work? the states are the parties to the compact. let's think about this. the compact is a legally binding agreement between sovereign governments going back to what we have already learned, connecting art dots. what were they only legally sovereign governments that existed prior to the ratification of our constitution? the states.

since we know that the states that the constitution is a compact and the contact is in the green and between legally sovereign governments that we must admit that they states are the party for that compact because they are the only ones that existed. the states then we must know that the central government is the product of the compact. did the federal government exists prior to the ratification of the constitution? know, the federal government existed once the constitution became a legally-binding contract. now someone might try to tell you that i am misapplying the truth and that the constitution is an agreement between the people and the federal government. ..

>> >> the only sovereign government that existed that could leave the parties of the compact are the state's central government is the product knowing that that the central government is the product then we must know that the states are the creators of the central government right? the the state created the constitution creating the central government. when they created the central government they created a limited central government they enumerated in specific powers and then

did the most important thing they could ever have done they reserved all other powers to themselves. powers not delegated to the united states would are reserved to the people respectively. if we're going to keep the federal government in the designated power structure as required by the constitution then we have to know what power has been delegated in the also need to know what is deleted. what does that term mean? we'll have to have the supreme court give is the ultimate power to the federal government or interpret anything. because james madison the

father of our constitution wrote it down in the document recall federalist 45 he says the powers delegated there's that word again, is a very important word with an understanding their right in the duty of the state's and their power over the federal government. our few and defined. those that remain are numerous and indefinite. he does not leave the definition set that now he gets specific tuesday the powers dealt delegated bluebead are in extra objects and names those

specific powers the negotiation and commerce the power to tax companies for delegated powers none fire meant or welfare the power to tax mystery war and commerce. this list should look more familiar did we see this so morel's blacks and whiff this state's. to have full power with all those that have independent

states so let's look at this. been delegated that to power. into has delegated the power to the federal government? the state's. that is why this word is so important. a temporary trust of responsibility or authority of a higher power to a lower power. by factor history or prostitution so that the state's are the firepower --

higher power in this is the distinction to delhi is a temporary trust. trust. if i have a business to do this job for me what if they do the job from? no because they surrendered -- i did not surrender i delegated then if that is within the rightful authority of the higher power to pull the power from the lower power.

or to do with the way we want you to do it or you will be fired. lot power has been reserved? and what powers have been reserved blacks we don't have to guess. for them to announce u.s. because james madison the father of the constitution have already told us in through the ratification to declare madison to be corrected. he said continuing in federalist 45 reserved to

the federal states. it does not mean a few but separate. would extend to all. what does that mean? i think that begs the question of clarity so as long as we are still in agreement that extends to all the objects with the ordinary course of affairs to concerned of lives and liberties and properties of the people the internal order and prosperity of the state's. what about the fda and blm?

property of the people? the lives of the people. the department of energy the internal order in prosperity of the state's. in the father of the constitution says these are not powers delegated to the federal government but reserved to the states. why is power reserve? so that the state's can

retain the integrity of the constitution to maintain the federal government in the few and defined authorities in 1830 many of the things we're experiencing today of a federal government and states trying to push that back people are thinking the federal government could do these things a period the history called the great debate and in this great debate trying to help us understand the power of the word reserve. that doctrine is a bold

statement say they have the right to do something. why would they have a right to protect their reserved powers? tune the exclusion of all others think about this affair is said chair this is reserved in some deals sits in the chair what do i have the right to duplex kick them out. but if i don't have the right is the chair reserved? no. by establishing the four men

function the state's powers are reserved to create the state's these are the property of the state's to exercise dominion. so there is a very important consequence to deny the power of reserve if the states do not have the right to to protect their reserve power then what you are actually a declaring is the federal government to have the right to determine exclusively the limits of its own power.

with the federal government can determine the limits of its empower and limited only is not a constitutional republic but a totalitarian kingdom. to look at the building blocks the constitution is what kind of document peck's this day compact between sovereign states. with everything the federal government says are the state's sovereign dryexx if

they are not can they create a legally binding contract? no. if they cannot protect the reserve properties if the federal government can dictate how operates the constitution is not legally binding document we're not a constitutional republic 50 colonies in the federal king down. but here is the good news for the state's are sovereign legally binding contract the only thing they're really needs to happen we have to change the

way we think about government the way we want government to operate in change how the state operates within the republic. because it would acquiesce. then we're not a republican anymore. we are a kingdom. what happens when the federal government uses the and delegated powers? pdf thomas jefferson explains. he says when the general government assumes the and delegated powers let's look at that for just a second

because when the federal government uses power is deals that power from the state's what is your name? so if i have just zero in his car, do i have the authority to drive his car? no i do not. because my power over his car is not legally delegated so i exercise over his car is an authoritative and of void of a force. fifth leg do not have legal possession of his car. does he have to sue me to

get his car back? no. provides the title and they will return the car to him as the rightful legal owner jefferson explains to us that when the federal government uses power outside the constitution is steals the power from the state's is their rightful and legal property and using it without proper delegation to the states have to sue to get their power back? absolutely not, have to provide the title to their power? constitution not only is it

a necessary but ridiculous and dangerous the state suing the federal government that is like tim sieving need to get his car back showing up in to find out the judge and jury are my family members. because the states are suing the federal government where in federal court where the judges are appointed by the federal government. and given the progression of our federal courts today do we have any reasonable expectation david we in favor of the states of the constitution? not know me that comet is

dangerous. if the states are left with the only recourse to sue the federal government what happens when the federal government no blacks that we reduced to an oligarchy. why must the state check federal power? and it is their duty to do so. in 1799 we are experiencing similar circumstances with the state's trying to

enforce the conduct and then this period of time the legislators of the state of virginia to give a general assembly address to have a job and duty above everything else. it is not economic improvement to the number one responsibility of the state and local government is not security. the number one responsibility is declared to be the guardians.

why must they guarded the state sovereignty? they have taken a solemn oath to because remember we have the established to the states are not sovereign and independent economic a legal leave binding contract then the union does not exist is the obligation of the state and local government to maintain the sovereignty of the state's. one of the greatest attacks is federal encroachment. bed every dollar that they take from the federal government they end their sovereignty.

and operating according to the dictates of the federal government and before long you have a population of people will think they cannot even survive without federal money. the creation dictating over the creator or it is an aberration. those federal encroachments because we should not have national health care. of course we must if we don't we will all die. i have bad news.

we will all die. but when the federal government is funding health care the only thing established is that it will decide when where and how you die. to be disguised we have to pass the bill to read the bill sound familiar? there is nothing new under the sun. in the same tools of government that has existed today those who do not know their history somewhat of the consequences of these encroachments? that they will to establish

the presidents of all consequences the lion with his head out of the cage emission not be surprised when he buys the head off. what must they do grex in then to have the right to step in between the federal government to exercise the power to underwrite to do

that because of power is reserved because the powers reserved to them because they are duty bound the duty is greater than right that self-evident all their created equal in doubt by their creator with certain unalienable rights that should securities rights the governments are instituted among men'' the people that greeted the free and independent state and

limiting it to few undefined powers with that single purpose of their existence that is when we have a duty thomas jefferson explains the process to form the constitution to have that unquestionable right is the cruder the contract the nullification of the sovereignties was the nullification.

was the right devastates to exercise the reserve power and with government officials in the nullification is not a state refusing to comply with all federal government it is the same to say you stole my car and i will not let you drive it anymore per car taking the keys back in the simply will not comply with stolen authority. so now to be little more accurate with the analogy militias say he went on vacation for three weeks to the bahamas or he has been

in the, the last 160 years. he doesn't know his car stolen he is living up and but for three solid weeks i drive around in his car. to assume i have the legal authority to do so. in realizes i of stolen his car and said he stole my car and i have that rifle legal authority to do so. just because the federal government has been exercising stolen power within the last 100 years to put that into a legal

authority. it is still of lawful. there are people my federal supremacist friends that is made -- not a rightful remedy that nullification is not because the supreme court is the ruler of the constitution i was in a federal court room the other day in kansas when the federal judge announced it is the job of the supreme court and the circuit court to announce the constitution i am sorry we announce that 1789.

and of the supreme court with its own authority? with that defended of authority and to secure from themselves with that kind of universe and look what madison says if the decisions of the judiciary be raised over the sovereign parties of the constitution who are they? to be raised of the authority of the state's those powers not delegated to be executed by other departments may also be

exercise the powers of the constitution. the ultimate right of the state's the compaq has been violated and must extend to those one authority as well as the judiciary and the executive van legislative and the federal government it was three bridges the federal government that even the judiciary but is power has been delegated that

means the states of the firepower that the supreme court is the lower power? to design the power of the wall is of limited by its zero will. your friends will try to change his mind about nullification. everyone of those flip-floping from a different context that you heard context is king?

medicine is speaking to the house of representatives that they would be because it is in a unique position that the federal government would use that against them. that someone is in government would simply allege that we have created an authority of the federal government to regulate our rights. that isn't on the list of the wise to put that on the of last it is this how we know?

we will define the rights for you not to infringe the madison said they will not abuse those rights the legislative or executive powers will not abuse those rights with impenetrable work in the legislative the check of the judiciary is a check of the of legislative and executive not on the power of the state's. but madison does not end because the very next with fact of history and truth.

there is a great probability the bill of rights will be enforced because the state legislators will watch the operations of the government why would they be jealously and closely watching the operations of the government? because they have did duty to preserve their reserved powers. the state legislators can resist with more effected more than any other power on earth can do. the stay end government is to be the greatest opponents not their best friend or co-workers on the same

payroll. in did 1812 with that federal old judiciary to gain ground step-by-step to engulf insidiously the special government and remember that president power on power they engulf all and says the devon would be for which we separated.

with the oligarchy of kings and queens. with the defenders of our liberty. how can we give in their history that the supreme court said that dread scott cannot be a citizen of the united states this was not the constitution and erroneously to be property and not people. what about the supreme court is so kay to detain japanese americans because it is necessary for us to feel

safe is it a guardian of the liberty? know of your federal power there is a supremacy clause because they say is supremacy clause is that what they're really says? about we left the -- listen to hamilton instead of a supreme court justice. to say no legislative can be valid. the supremacy clause with

the constitution of the laws of the united states shall be the supreme law of the of land. khmer for it this supreme however to submit that regulations is only is the supreme law of the land not every law is supreme you cannot have a federal law and constitution on equal footing. if your constitution was not supreme hamilton said in a

legislative action that is not consistent with the constitution. what obligation to we have to find ourselves to be bound by a lot and has no legal effect? there is no constitutional one. you could look for that word all day. so let's look at the constitution. and all reserve to

respectively. if nullification is not in the constitution then it is not a power that is delegated. so not being in the constitution it is reserved to the states ended is their duty to do so. you all know this guy? justice roberts? and justice roberts majority opinion some to say looking

to adopt the simple expedient of not yielding to embrace federal policies as their own. did in a majority opinion if they need to nullify. to said that the states are separate and independent sovereign. is in the time we start to act like it? is the remedy lawful?

someone will say they cannot nullify the federal law now reno what is lawful? to comply with the federal law bearing is anarchy here is the problem what controls the federal government? the state because nullification is not the state testing but to enforce the supreme lot of the land so to disregard any federal law but they have a duty to

disregard the federal law that is not constitutional they have a duty to limit the creation because here is the consequence of the federal government is not defined by the constitution what is the purpose if they can make what never once? what is the limit of the federal government? the only limit to the federal government to make a proper check and balance when you can only do we have delegated you to do anything

beyond that is all and for a. we'll get what jefferson said. when all government domestic and foreign is a center of all power to render powerless one government over another. he didn't say one branch said one government. the states over the federal government to declare the antecedent. to work with that silent assent the state must take

control. because of the states refuse to take control then there's simply declaring that their colonies in the year not free, we are subjects. so why do we even need state government if that is how they operate? and they act like colonies why do we have the metal? there going to defend the constitution and leverage and -- liberties with the state's reserve power to deny unauthorized federal power. in the meantime we need state and local officials to say until we have

legislation we will not comply. the tissue have no authority over these matters airpower it is null and void. it is not an invention or interpretation but was established by the nature of the constitution to be a contract because the states are still separate because we created them to protect our rights and liberties and what we must drive for. [applause]

>> if you enjoy this presentation there is say book named "sovereign duty" duty", and you liked the slides and the quotations? this book teaches not just what i taught you but the nature of the constitutional share their right to keep them bear arms to be secure the lesson on article five conventions and in this book i give you my original source in the back of the book i gave you all my research we have to stop

believing people what they say because they stand onstage to call themselves a professor or a judge. to find the original source to be the defenders of our liberty. i don't want you to believe a word that i told you but i want you to know to be true so i'm giving you all my research because i am confident if you test me you will be the expert then we will have tabled this to stand over our legislators and local governments to say you must defend our liberty and we will not comply. [applause]

now here is our contact information now we will do a question and answer session this is what i want to know. rule number one you must come up to the front and speaking to the microphone to not take the microphone off the stand. rule number three you must've a question. you must get your question quickly.

i am rather bold and spoken person i am not afraid to say where's your question. if you want to debate me i am happy to do that after the class or you can schedule a whole new you sent in we can talk about your subject. so get to the questions quickly to get as many questions answered as possible and a limited period of time also afford me the latitude to say i don't know. i don't know everything and i am not running for office so i don't have to know everything. we will have 50 minutes of question and answer so,

lineup on the of microphone does that sound agreeable dryexx how can we be effective as local people of our county and state to do this effectively reaching the representatives. >> that is a very good question. not from my opinion but creating a constitutional republic. nobody will surrender their liberties when knowledge is diffuse and virtue in is defused but on the contrary wimpy bar become universally ignorant able sink under their own weight other du

become an effective champion for your rights and limited government? first get educated. so when you notice your rights are being usurped he must notice so you can be righteous and upset when that happens and get educated to educate your county commissioners your state government and get educated for those in need further education.

this is what we have to do to beat diligent of our rights but we cannot do that if we do not know what they are. to not answer out loud and to not cheat. there are five of liberty is in the first amendment. name all five. since we are here florida we have a supreme court justice the found out only 2% could name all five. if you do not know your rights have you know they are not already gone? that is what education is the first that.

>> should be have the constitutional amendment to have reaffirming period? >> and the question is do we need term limits for supreme court judges? federal judges and we do have term-limits in this call the good behavior. suggest this is on the federal bubble does not have lifetime of women's it is appointment on good behavior. that means we're to be watching the behavior the way we monitor a kindergarten class and the minutes a judge behaves

badly he is supposed to be removed. there is no time limits and do we have to wait 10 more years because to say they don't want to impede but then to have 10 years of guaranteed bad behavior the problem does not exist in the limits of the judicial appointment the problem is assessed with a useless congress refuses to engage with the unnecessary checks and balances. on my radio show i talk a lot about judicial abuse

those that own hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks in companies they here before then in the court room? why? you have supreme court justice k. again hugh was solicitor general to create the argument in favor of the affordable care act sitting on the bench determine whether the affordable care act is constitutional or not . that is a clear conflict of interest justice ginsburg for publicly k. not against the state law and then did not recuse herself when the state law came before the supreme court. not only that justice ginsburg sat in front of the

entire world with a reporter to say egypt should not use the was constitution as a model because it is not a reputable. it was written by racist misogynist hickman and could not be used as of model that they will defend without hesitation or mental reservation and in the circuit court because that is not relevant in the career and his bad behavior.

>> are you aware the confederacy of the state's? >> i am not aware. >> it is a step towards what you are talking about. >> i cannot speak on that at all. >> with that principle of state sovereignty to the issue of immigration is. >> a very good question and we have to first identify and that they are empowered to create congress a uniform

rule of naturalization. the president's obligation is to faithfully execute the law meaning it is the president's the uniform rule of naturalization. now what kind of document is the constitution? this agreement between the states in every state in the union has agreed to those terms which means every state in the union has agreed to create a uniform rule of naturalization which means if an immigrant does not follow those rules or comply with the law then day

are illegal. and then to have an obligation with the terms of the contract. and not nullification. and has been created under proper delegated authority? and those are actually violating the contractual agreements? in because that system can did determine refugee we have to address that as well.

so refugees status is not uniform rule in not a pathway to naturalization. and is that unconstitutionally established delegation? to refuse to except refugees because the hon delegated authority and therefore no and 48. but if they exercise power what do the states have? and i will give you an

update right before the state of texas to create the interstate compact that will secure our borders in reassert the state authority to refuse refugees. florida can sign and to this. this interstate contact and taking power from the federal government budget to ensure it is compliance with proper federal law. that is one other remedies that they could have.

into an ad one more point you know, every state that offers in state tuition to illegal aliens is violating federal law? she is unlawful according to a uniform law of naturalization and depending on the terms for every single violation what does that say about the state legislator? who were knowingly and willfully violating a federal law that should've checked -- subject them to 10 years in prison?

what does that say when we are prosecuting individuals for violating those laws? bill we allow our representatives. >> we have the authority but how can they be welcoming cities help can those city council in suits their authority and what can we do to stop it? in istanbul you are saying we have to get educated but in the meantime we need to

what is the path we have to follow to get this under control? this is the first that. we are suffering because we don't know. how many of you think that allows the threats to come into america to deny proper federal law and responsibility anything there are stay in local governments do that because they don't know better? , many do that because they have sacrificed, many people

that are doing this because they are wicked and evil and greedy? so hearing is the question at the end of the day. what is the motivation? one of our founders to say i have come to despise those guilts. sacrificing principle and malice and greed and power, folly, we have to become dedicated to the

principles that allow was selected the county commissioners looked at the state legislators and governors to say regardless of renovation that means you canada continue to support them but regardless of the political party politics. [applause] but they will never ever do what we want them to do it if we continually reaffirmed folly through reelection and

to destroy liberty. >> what do you think we should do about the government corporation structure and the second question would be about the oath of office with the constitution and the statutes. into defending government. >>. >> i will speak from a federal perspective because each and every state is different then we will address the of florida issue

because i may for arabian. that is different than any other state. the powers delegated to the federal government in this not the power to regulate within the state through federal grants and regulations picking winners and losers driving people out of business and creating a system in which liberty in those who sacrificed political gain. monsanto. i know how many people are aware but there are farmers

who were growing heirloom crops they word pooling in did fields corrupted their crops the farmers decided to sue monsanto to keep their seeds from corrupting their crops. the farmers did not prevail. monsanto for patent infringement because there's stealing panted property even worse congress has created regulations from lawsuits to protect pharmaceutical companies to

have immunity from lawsuits with their product the problem is the of lawless activity of congress. hugh and congress unites with corporations you are a fascist. and in florida what powers are reserved to the states quicks that would be to regulate business. but the problem is the creation of public-private associations when you have the government funding private industry to be a

matter of public endorsement . the airports are privately owned, airlines but yet your tax dollars are used to build them. the ada is the revenue pays that off the when the government can partner up then they pick the winners and losers. regulation of business does not stop crime i will give you in example with one trip to haiti restates with the family in their home in haiti they make empanadas is a pastry so i was teaching

my hostess had to make make go cream cheese empanada they had never had anything like that they thought it was amazing. she said let's go to the market to get a bunch of cream cheese and may go to make these to make a huge batch and go to the market and sell them the haitian people will love them we cannot make enough to last the whole day. i said if i had that idea and america and i went down

to the street corner to sell them i would be arrested. because in america if i want to sell to the public i have to get a permit from the government that must also get a permit to make them in my home then paid the government for the privilege to inspect my home to make sure i am creating the food did away compliant with the government's rules. and then if i sell it i have to put aside a portion to paid government for the privilege of selling what i have created. she said while. that is not the america that i thought it was. in haiti if they cow

produces too much milk you go to the street corner to sell it to your neighbor nobody dies from mad cow disease. they have a yearly festival would have a feast for you slaughter a cow. or a goat if the cow was too big your family cannot consume the miti walk to the end of history and hain't half of that offer of a tree limb and people come by you have a piece to sell it. people are not dropping dead from eagle life. -- e. coli the regulation does not end disease or sickness. for every legitimate really

get -- been regulation there's already a criminal statute that covers that behavior? we need to enforce the law on the people equally. why did we create government regulation? because business owners were wealthy and powerful were not being prosecuted for their criminal negligence for the injury and death of their people so instead of enforcing the law we will regulate them instead. has medical malpractice and did? corporate collusion ended? corporate abuse of the employees and did? know. what they do is make

politicians and lobbyists sat. once again it is back to education. howdy limit your government? to understand you cannot have liberty of the beverage is regulating what you make where you live or how you live with the ideas that you have then you are not free on any level. i think that answers the question. >> but i was speaking more of government corporations the state of florida as a corporation.

>> i don't get into that sort of thing. that is outside the text of the federal constitution. >> okay. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]