Skip to main content

tv   Sovereign Duty  CSPAN  March 26, 2017 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT

4:00 pm
the first thing out of my mouth the soldiers are any soldiersment in brother-in-law said, they're okay. and then i said, am apparel paralyzed? and i asked and he side, no. and side am apparellized? he said, you don't have them anymore. >> i'm like, what is this going assassin pay my taxes taxes ande care of my family. [applause] >> i'm jc kris hall and krisan
4:01 pm
is my wife. you all know her about the is a native of st. louis, missouri. she got her bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from black burn college in illinois. join the united states army, trained as a russian length wist linguist intelligence and worked for the state attorney's office as a prosecutor after graduating from the university of florida, college of law. she went to work at a constitutional law firm defending religious liberty. and came back to state attorney's office and worked under the honorable skip jarvis,
4:02 pm
and was 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 since. >> since the providential launching. the says a radio show in addition to that s-h-h-h which she does six days a week. one is broadcast as a television show on the christian division network, lifestyle channel. and many more things. she has been a plumber, an emt, a biochemist, a paralegal and an attorney. the labels she carries most proudly would be mother, wife, christian, and patriots. [applause]
4:03 pm
the showing -- slowing again on her rayow, liberty over security, principle over party, and throughout over your favorite personality. she takes a lot of flak because she happens to be of the belief we should protect, defend, and abide constitutional principles no matter who is in office or which party is in power. please welcome, krisanne hall. [applause] >> report. here we good. can you hear me now? okay. i'm very excited to be here. it's always just warming to my heart to be at home. you can imagine teaching 265 events and 22 states eave year. we don't see our home very often. but we are blessed nonetheless
4:04 pm
and we are happy to be here. right now, there's a 77-year-old man, a veteran who served our country, in federal prison right now in colorado, because he built a stock pond on his land with the permission of his state, with the direction of the army corps of engineers, but 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 exempts stock ponds from their
4:05 pm
jurisdiction. we have an amish farmer in federal prison because he made a sav out of chickweed and shared it with his friends and family members. we have a u.s. -- 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 sheep. we have political prisoners in
4:06 pm
oregon and utah, nevada, because they took the bold and audacious step of 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, do we not? >> yes. >> as i travel and i teach, it is almost unanimous the response i get when i ask. do you think the federal government is still out of control? and i teach varying groups with different ideologies, different political spectrums, and for different reasons, everybody has an idea that the federal
4:07 pm
government is out of control. and then the most asked question i get, what to 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 dent have to re-invent the wheel. we don't have to find the solution. because the same solutions that existed in 1789 ex-when we recall identified the constitution, are the same solutions that exist today. our how do debet in the government under control? the solution is the states must fulfill their obligation as a proper check and balance. look at what thomas jefferson said. if states look if a apathy on
4:08 pm
their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, he is talking about washington, dc. when he is talking about this gulf which is to swallow all he is talking about everything being consolidated from big to little in washington, dc. your environment being controlled by washington, dc. your right to keep and bear arms, your land, your food, your medicine, everything being controlled. has -- by washington, dc has become the gulf which is to swallow all. and look what he says. we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron. when the government is out of control, the society is reduced
4:09 pm
to chaos. when the checks and balances are not functioning, then the only thing that can control chaos is a rod of iron. our framers, gave us the greatest gift, the opportunity to self-govern. and or greatest condemnation today is our refusal to self-govern. everything is in place. we just simply must be dedicated to exercising our checks and balances. how does the state have the right to check the federal government? well, that's what we're going to
4:10 pm
go through today. 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 feel notifies be a teacher of the information today. i'm more of a facilitator, facilitating the lesson that has been before us since we ratified 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 dots to get back in the right direction and
4:11 pm
get back to basic things, and eni mean basic, i mean abc and 123 and just that simple principle of understanding that the states came first, establishes a very important understanding of who is in charge. i want to look first how the states came. we don't teach this history quite accurately in our schools so it's a necessity to re-stosch the breath. we game independent from grate britain with the sign offering the declaration of independence on july 4, 1776. that's not true. we game independent from great britain with the ratification of the lee resolution on july 2, 1776.
4:12 pm
the lee resident luigs -- resolution, three-step process from declaring independence from great britain, brought forward by a delegate from the state of virginia by a man named richmond henry lee. he proposed the lee resident luigs to the continental congress on un7, 1776, and on july 2 figure the lee resolution was brought to the continental congress, debated, voted, and ratified into law. our independence from great britain was not a random act by a bunch of rogue elite slave-owners who wanted to separate from their government so they can have the power to oppress everybody. it was a legislative act by duly elected legislative body, and just as legally binding as
4:13 pm
anything that our congress does today that is constitutional. as a matter of fact, this was such a huge day that john adams would write home to his wife, abigail, on july 3rd and say, july 2nd will be an epic day where americans will celebrate their independence forever. do you in the it wasn't until the mid-1800s that we started celebrating our independence on july 4th? so knowing this, that our state, not by opinion or interpretation but by legal fact, by historical fact, became independent states on july 2, then we must admit that the states existed prior to everything. right? prior to the declaration of
4:14 pm
independence even, by two days. the declaration of independence was not actually fully signed on july 4th. july 4th is when the declaration of independence was published to the general public. it had only been signed by john hancock. it wouldn't be signed by the rest of the representatives of the states until the end of august. but now we have to understand, on july 2nd, is there a federal government? no, because we have just thrown it off. on july 4th there is no federal government either. there is just the states. now, our first federal government is formed through the articles of confederation. but there's a problem. and the problem isn't probably what you have been taught. you see popular teaching,
4:15 pm
teaches that the articles of confederation failed because we created a federal government too small. do you know the implying indication? that the -- the implication, the nest federal government was much bigger and more powerful and that simple my is not true. when you look the debates and you look the history, you see that the largest driving force to the reconsideration of the articles of confederation, had to do with an authority that was actually delegate teed the federal -- delegated to the federal golf. it's not the article of confederation created a federal government that was too small. they crated a federal government had than insufficient guidance on how to do what they were supposed to do. so, like governments, without proper guidance and proper checks, they'll do things they're not supposed to do. which they were.
4:16 pm
but they were also doing the things they were supposed to do but not dog them properly. -- not doing them properly. for example, one of the biggest points of contention with the articles of confederation had to do with treaties. treaties is a power delegated to the federal government. only under the articles of confederation the federal government was making ininequitable treats in which one state or a set of states had to foot the whole bill and then a completely different state or completely different set of states got all the benefit. now, the states who were being required to pay for the expenses of the treaty were obviously in opposition. are you kidding me? that's not why we joined this union. so we can transfer our prosperity to another state?
4:17 pm
that's not what general welfare means. and they were refusing, righteously so, refusing to comply with the treaties. now, the states who were supposed to get all the benefit are now mad the states who won't pay the bill. but we have at even bigger problem. because a treaty is a contract with a foreign government. a foregovernment, mind you, that has no idea how we're supposed to be working so they have no idea that the federal government has made an unlawful treaty. all they've see i they made a contract with the united states and united states is noted holding up their end of the bargain. so we're lit'llly on the ohm of war between the states and on the verge of war with foreign countries countries and we just got started. so, congress is like, look, this is not going to work.
4:18 pm
we have to pull together a new delegation, 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 north what we operate under now, right? what we operate under now is called the constitution, and the constitution is actually 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're going to launch later thea the nature of the constitution is that it is a contractual agreement between the states. you can't have two competing contracts. if you're going to have a new contract, you have to get rid of the old contract. and that's exactly what has happened.
4:19 pm
now, when we get rid of the articles of confederation, what happens to the central government that it created? it's gone, too. right? so right now, prior to the ratification of our current constitution, there is no federal government. there is only the state. we also know that to be true from black in history. how many remember from the history class, or your civics class, that there was a very precarious moment prior to the ratifying indication of the current -- ratification of the current constitution where we did not have enough states to ratify. how many 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,
4:20 pm
and we will have no means to operate as a unit. doesn't they fact pretty much tell us there is no central government anymore? we have over 13 years where the only consistent government that exists without interruption is the states. 13 years. 13 years before the federal government. the states came first. in order to under the role of the state, 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.
4:21 pm
and we find the definition of the word "state" in the last paragraph of the declaration of independence. a state is not a colony. now, this last paragraph of the declaration of independence actually comes from the first paragraph of the lee resolution. and it says: we, therefore, the representatives of the unites states of america, in general congress assembled, peacing to -- appeal ago the supreme judge of the world do in the name and by the tort of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare -- we didn't become independent on july 4th. we published and declared what we had done two days prior. that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free. we have just discovered what we are not. a state is not a colony.
4:22 pm
there must be a distinction, right? because if there is no distinction between a colony and a state, there's no point in making that statement. it's a redone -- re done dan si. what's the difference between a line and a state? 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 our manage your resources. you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can create some laws, before you can regulate your businesses and even before you can educate your people, if you are colony. anybody feeling a. bit like a colonial -- colony out there? here's the good news. we are not colonies. we are free and independent
4:23 pm
states. knowing what a state is not is not as as good as knowing what it is. so we're we now it is not a colony, so what is it? continuing now with the declaration of independence, we know that they, these free and independent states, are absolved from allegiance to the crown and all allegiance between them and the what? state of what? state of great britain. that word state is nose synonymous with new hampshire, rhode island, o virginia. that word is synonymous with great britain, france, and germany. we made 13 free andindependent sovereign governments.
4:24 pm
now, that's beautiful, isn't it? that's a great explanation. but we can go even further because the declaration of independence not only tells us what the state is, but tells us the power that each and every state holds. the people through the authority of the people, have delegated this power to each free and independent state. they have full power to levy war, to conclude peace, contract alliances, and do all other acts and things which independent states, like great britain, fans, -- france or germany may of right do. and this is the power your state holds today. someone might try to explain that's away and simply say, if
4:25 pm
your state is not one of the first 13, then this does not apply to you. problem is that's not historically accurate, not politically accurate, not legally accurate or constitutionally accurate. that's a dock trip called the equal footing doctrine which says every state that enters the union, enters on the same footing as the first 13. and there's your footprint. full power to levy war, conclude people, contract alliances, establish commerce and do all things that each and every sovereign and independent government on the planet has the right to do. someone might try to say, well, that may be who you were when you formed the state, but when you entered the union, you surrendered your power. that's ridiculous. but it's also historically inaccurate, legally enam
4:26 pm
accurate, politically inaccurate and constitutionally inaccurate. what does the constitution say about power? the tenth amendment says the power is not delegated. it doesn't say the power is not surrendered. it says the power is not delegated. let me ask you a question, are the words delegate and surrender synonymous? absolutely not. give yourselves a hand. you now know more than the supreme court of the united states. >> i have written opinion bid justice antonin scalia declare that the states have century -- surrendered power state and nose of the happened. have you ever heard of a sovereign government by in the name of germany?
4:27 pm
some of you don't know germany. okay? didn't germany join in the european union? let's all fly over the germany, hold a big town hall meeting and explain to the german people that because thearound the eu, germany is no longer a sovereign government. how do you think the germans will take that little piece of news? so why do floridians? our states were created with a greater sovereignty than germany could ever imagine. our states were created under the principle that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. germany was createdder in the principle that kings delegate rights.
4:28 pm
were created with a greater sovereignty and yet, somehow, we accept 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 is an agreement between legally sovereign governments. that's how you distinguish a compact from a contract. a contract is an agreement between legally sovereign people and i mean you have achieved the age of legal consent. can your 15-year-old crete a legal lie bending contract? no, your 15 years is still subject to his parents but a
4:29 pm
compact is what your constitution is. we know that bates that's what they drafter of the constitutions call it and a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign states. what the stuck tour of the compact? how does it work? the states are the parties to the compact. think about this. the compact is a legally binding agreement between sovereign girlfriends, going back to what we already learned, connecting the dots, what were the only legally sovereign governments that exited prior to the ratification of our constitution? the states. since we know that the states are -- that the constitution is a compact and a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign governments then we must admit that the states are
4:30 pm
the parties to the compact. because they're 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 exist prior to the ratification of the constitution? no, the federal government existed once the constitution became a legally binding contract. now, someone might try to tell you that i'm bending or misapplying the truth exacter that the constitution is an agreement between the people and the federal government. that is not true. and you can prove that with one simple fact. was the constitution ratified by popular vote of the people? >> no. >> no. how was the constitution ratified?
4:31 pm
through the states. the representatives of the people put through their state. someone might try to tell you that the constitution is an agreement between the states and the federal government. there are people that i endearingly refer to in our society to it as federal supremacists. people that try to explain that the federal government is superior to the state in all cases or in the very least is coequal with the states. and those coequal -- that coequal position they will try to support by saying that the constitution is an agreement between the states and the federal government. that as a term polar -- you cannot be a party to the contract if you are the product of the contract.
4:32 pm
we cannot sign the contract into legal being if you do not exist until the contract is signed. and the only sovereign government that existed, who could be the parties of the compact, are the states. the central government is the product. knowing that the states are the parties and the central government is the product, then we must know that the states are the creators of the central government. right? if the states created the constitution, which created the central government, then the states created the central government, and when they created the central government, they created a limited central government. they enumerated it specific power, and then they did the most important thing to do, they reserved all other powers to themselves. the power us notice delegated to the united states.
4:33 pm
are reserve toward the state and people respectively. now, we need to ask, what power is delegated? because if we're going to keep the federal government in its designated power structure, as required by the constitution, then we have to know what power has been delegated. i think we also need to know what is delegated. what does that term mean? let's look at it. we don't have to have the supreme court give us their ultimate opinion on the powers delegated to the federal government. we don't have to interpret anything because james madison, the father of our constitution, wrote it down. it n document we call federalist 45 he says the powers delegated. there's that word again.
4:34 pm
this is a very, very important word. when understanding the right and the duty of the states and their power over the federal government. the powers delegated by the proposed to constitution to federal government are few and defined. we put them in a box. he said those that remain in the states are numerous and indefinite. now mat disson does not leave the definitions at that. he gets specific. he says the former, meaning the powers delegated to the federal government, will be exercised principally on external objects. that's how our framers redder to foreign affairs -- referred to foreign affairs and then named those powers as war, peace, negotiations, foreign commerce.
4:35 pm
he says the power to tax will come from these four delegated powers. not education. not environment. not welfare. the power to tax was to be reserved to these war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. this list of powers should look familiar to you. didn't we just see this power resting somewhere else a few minutes ago? where was that? with the states. remember, the declaration of independence says the states possess full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and do all other acts and things which independent states -- great britain, france, germany -- we have rights to. let's look at this. the federal government has been delegated that power.
4:36 pm
if someone has delegated war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce to the federal government, who has delegated that near federal government? the states. that's why this word is so important. now, let's look at the the definition of the word "delegate." a temporary trust of responsibility or authority by a higher power to a lower power. wow. we have just established by fact, by history, by constitution, that the states delegated power to the federal government. that means that the states are the higher power and the federal government is lower power. not only this. this is the distinction between delegate and surrender. to delegate is a temporary trust.
4:37 pm
it's like an employer with an employee. if i own a business and i hire someone, and i say to them, want you to do this job for me, what if they do the job wrong? do i have to -- as the employer die have to keep allowing them to do the job wrong? no, because i never surrendered the power. delegated it to my employee, and once the employee fails to operate in that authority or responsibility the way the higher power dictated, it's within the rightful thought of the higher power to pull that power from the lower power. fire can -- firing them. or in the alternative, saying you'll do it the way we want you to do it or you will be fired.
4:38 pm
so what power has been reserved? war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce, foreign affairs being delegate teed the federal government. by the states. to the federal government. what powers have been reserved? well, guess what? we don't have to guess. we don't have to file a lawsuit and take it to the supreme court for them to announce to us the powers that are reserved to the states because james madison, the father of the constitution, has already told us and through the ratification of the constitution, the states have declared madison to be correct. he says, continuing in federalist 45, the power is what? reserved. to the several states. that word "several" there doesn't mean a few. it means separate and independent. will extend to all.
4:39 pm
what does "all "mean? all. i think we -- it sort of begs the question of clarity. we know way have a got that like tree define the meaning of the word "is." if we agree "all" still means all, extends to all the object inside which in the ordinary course of affairs, all the objects in the ordinary course of affairs concerns the lives, liberties, properties of the people, the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state. what about the epa and the fda and bureau of land management? oops. property of the people. right? what about the department of education, hhs, usda, the fda?
4:40 pm
lives of the people. what about the fbi, the dhs? the sce, the faa, the atf, the department of energy. the list grows, right? what are those things. the internal order improvement and prosperity of the state, the lives of the people, the properties of the people. and the father of the constitution says, these are not powers dem gaited to -- delegated to the federal government. they are powers reserved to the states. why is power reserved? so that the states can retain the integrity of the constitution and maintain the federal government in itself limited and few and defined
4:41 pm
authority. look at this. in 1830, we were experiencing many of the things that we are experiencing today. a federal government coming outside of its few and defined box, states trying to push it back in, some people thinking that the federal government should do these things, some people thinking that the federal government should not do these things. it's a period of history called the great debate of 1830. and in this great debate, john calhoun is going to try to help us understand the power of the word "reserved." he says, the doctrine which denies to the states the right of protecting their reserved power -- that's a pretty bold statement, declaring the states have a right to do something. why would they have a right to
4:42 pm
protect their reserved power? because they're reserved. let look the word "reserved. " it means to exercise dominion over a thing to the exclusion of all others. think about this. if there's a chair on this stage and on that chair is a sign that says, reserved to krisanne hall. if someone else sits in chair what die have the right to do? kick them out, right? if the chair says, reserve to krisanne hall and i don't have the right to kick them out, is the chair reserved? no. by establishing through form and function, that the state's powers are reserved, the people in creating the states and the states in ratifying the constitution declared that these
4:43 pm
powers are the property of the state to exercise dominion over that property to the discussion exclusion of everybody else, to include the federal government. there's a very important consequence of denying the power of reserve. and calhoun says, if the states do not have the right to protect their reserved power, then what you are actually declaring is that it is the federal government who has the right to determine finally and exclusively the limit of its own power. and if the federal government can determine the limits of its own power, then what is the limits of the federal government's power? there is none.
4:44 pm
their own bill and a government limit only by its will is not a constitutional republic. it is a totalitarian kingdom. let's think about this. going back and connecting our building blocks. the constitution is what kind of document? it is a compact, and a compact is what? an agreement between sovereign governments. the constitution is a compact between the sovereign states. but the states must submit to everything that the federal government says, without question, are the states sovereign? no. -and if the states are not sovereign, can they create a legally binding contract? no.
4:45 pm
so, if the states are not sovereign, if they can not protect their reserved property, if the federal government can dictate to the states how it operates, then the states are not sovereign, the constitution is not a legally binding document, we are not a constitutional republic, we are 50 colonies in a federal kingdom. but here's the good news. the states are sovereign. the constitution is a legally binding contract. and nothing has changed. [applause] >> the only thing that really needs to happen is we have to change the way we think about government, the way we want government to operate, and be have to change how our states
4:46 pm
operate within the republic. because if the states simply acquiesce, then we are not a republic anymore. we are kingdom. what happens when the federal government use undelegated power? thomas jefferson explained what happens. he says, when the general government assumes undelegated power, its acts are unauthor take it, void and of no force. let's look at that for just a second but what jefferson is saying is that when the federal government uses power outside of the constitution, it is stealing that power from the states. howes he saying that? let look.
4:47 pm
what is your name, sir? gary. okay, so, for this analogy we're going to pretend i just stolen gary's car. do i have the authority to drive gary's car? no, i do not. do i have the authority to sell gary's car? no, i do not. because my power over gary's car was not legally delegated. it is an undelegated power. that means any act i exercise over gary's car is unauthoritative, void and of no force. i've stolen so it i do not have legal possession his car. does gary have to sue me to get his car back in no. he simply provide this title, deed though, local officials and they have to return the car to him as the rightful legal owner of that property.
4:48 pm
jefferson is explaining to us that when the federal government uses power outside the constitution, it is stealing power from the states because the power has been reserved to the states. it is their rightful, legal property, and the federal government is using their property without proper legal delegation. do the states have to sue the federal government to get their power back? absolutely not. they simply have to provide the title deed to their power. what is the title deed to their power? the constitution. do you know the states suing the federal government to get their power back is not only unnecessary, it is ridiculous and dangerous. the state suing the federal government to get their power
4:49 pm
back is like gary suing me to get his car back, showing up in court, and finding out that the judge and the jury are all my family members. right? because the states are suing the federal government where? in federal court. where the judges are appointed by? the federal government. that is a stacked court. and given the progression of our federal courts today, do we have any reasonable expectation that our courts will side against federal power in favor of the states and the constitution? not only that, it's dangerous. if the states are left with the only recourse of suing the federal government, what happens when the federal government
4:50 pm
says, nope, it's ours. then we are either reduced to being contributory peninsulas to an oligarch can i of nine kings and queens or left with a rod of iron. why must the state check federal power? because it is the peaceful, rightful remedy and it is their duty to do so. in 1799, we're experience similar circumstances of today, federal government coming out of its few and defined box, the states trying to enforce the constitutional contract, and keeping them in their few and defined box. and in theirs period of time, we -- in this period of time we have the legislators of the
4:51 pm
state of virginia giving in a general asimply -- assembly to the people saying, look, we have a job and a duty that is above everything else. the number one job description of your state and local government is not economic improvement. the number one responsibility of your state and local government is not business regulations, education, or security. the number one responsibility of your state and local government is as these legislators in 1799 declared, to be the guardians of the states sovereignty. they have taken a solemn oath issue do swear i will court and defendant the constitution of the united states, because, remember, we previously
4:52 pm
established that if the states are not sovereign and independent, they cannot make a legally binding contract, and if they can mott a legally binding contract, then the constitution is dissolved and the union does not exist there is no republic. it is the obligation of the state and local governments under their oath to maintain the sovereigntive of the state us what its the greatest attack on the sovereignty of the state? federal encroachment. every dollar that your state and local government takes from the federal government, any dollar, one dollar from the federal government to your state and local government, ends their sovereignty. right? because who pays the piper dictates the tune. and then the states and the local governments must operate according to the dictate of the
4:53 pm
federal government in order to keep the funding. before long you ahave population of people who think they cannot even survive without federal money. the creation dictating over the creator. that's an an serration. how do we see these federal encroachments in they say these federal encroachments may come to you clothed with the pretext of necessity. because you know we must have national health care, right? of the ours can he must have national health care. if we don't we're all going to die. i got bad news for you, we're all going going to die. but when in the federal government is funding health care, the only thing that will be established through national health care is that the federal
4:54 pm
government will decide when, where and how you die. they said not only will it be clothed with the pretext of next necessity but with disguised be art offed expedience si becausee have to pass the bill before we can read the bill. there's nothing new under the sun. human nature never changes. and the same tools of government, the same reactions of people existed in 1799 existed it to anded to the who do not know their history are doomed to reit mistakes. what their consequences of the federal encroachments? they said that they will expose us to established precedence of all the consequences consequencd purr, because you see, the lion
4:55 pm
with his head out of the cage is his whole body and when you lead the lion out of the cage, you shouldn't be surprised when he bites your head off. that is why we put them in a few and defined box. what must the state do, the father of our constitution, james madison tells us what the state must do. in the case of del great, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted, what? the states have the right to interpose. madison said the states have a right to step in between the federal government's exercise of power to defend the rights and the liberties of the people. why do they have the trying to do that? because the power is reserved. have the have a right to keep the federal government off their power because the power has been reserved to them.
4:56 pm
notice that madison says they not only have the right, they are duty-bound to interpose. can we all agree the dutyis greater than a right? why are our states dutiy, bound? we hold these truthed two self-evident that all many are career cateed equal and endoweled i with certain inailable rights and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just power front the consent over the government. there's only one reason government exists, only one reason the authority of the people created the free and independent states and that was to secure our rights. and if the states are not stepping between the federal government and limiting it to its few and defined powers, then they are failing to accomplish
4:57 pm
the single purpose for their existence. and that's why they have a duty. how does a state interpose? thomas jefferson explained the process of interposition. when the several states who formed the constitution, being what? sovereign and independent. have the unquestionable right to judge the infractions because they're the creators of the contract. the parties to the contract. that a nullification by those sovereignties who are the sovereignties? the states. -- is the rightful remedy. what is nullification? what is a sovereign state? a sovereign state is the right of the states to exercise their reserved powers to protect their reserved powers. a sovereign state is not the rejection of all government and
4:58 pm
the commission of violence against government officials. nullification is not a state refusing to comply with all federal government. nullification is the states saying you stole my car. and i'm not letting you drive it anymore. i'm taking the keys back. and i simply will not comply with stolen authority. that's what nullification is. now, if we're going to be a little bit more accurate about our analogy with gary's car, let's assume now that gary has gone on vacation for three weeks to the bahamas. or he has been in a miami for the last 1d a coma for the last 150 years. the day gary guess on vacation i steal his car. he doesn't know his car is stolen.
4:59 pm
he is living it up in bahamas but for three solid weeks i drive around in gary's car. everybody that sees me drive gary's car assumes that i have the legal authority to do so. why? because nobody is objecting. gary comps home from vacation, realize i have stolen his car, he steps up and says, you stole my car. i am taking my car back because i have the rightful legal authority do so. just because to the federal government has been exercising stolen power within your state for the last 100 years does not change that stolen authority into a legal authority. ...
5:00 pm
has the job of the supreme court and that the circuit court to announce the constitution. i'm sorry, wi am sorry, we annon 1789. but an interpretation of the authority of the supreme court. can the court determine its own authority.
5:01 pm
it's the ultimate authority to the court. it's a power base secure for themselves through a series of their own opinions. wouldn't you like to live in that kind of universe you can just write your own power? look at what madison says in 1700. it's the decisions of the judiciary to be raised about the sovereign parties in the constitution who are the sovereign parties of the constitution? so let's say it like that. if the decisions are raised about the authority, dangerous powers not delegated may not only be executed by other departments, but the judicial department also may exercise or dangerous powers beyond the grant of the constitution. consequentially, the ultimate rights of the party to the
5:02 pm
constitution who are the ultimate right of the state to choose whether the compact has been violated must extend by one delegated authority as well as by another. by the judiciary as well as the executive or legislative. number two, the states created a federal government. when the states created the federal government, they created three, the legislative, executive and judiciary. even the judiciary power exercised this power that has been promulgated by the states which means the states are the higher power and the federal government is the judiciary, the
5:03 pm
supreme court is the smaller power. and if it is part of the whole tend to find the power of the whole, then what is the limit to the whole power? is unlimited only by its will. federal supremacist friends will try to assert that medicine has changed his mind several times about nullification. here's the problem. every one of those examples of medicine flip-flopping is an example where madison is talking about nullification from a different context. madison is speaking to the house of representatives for the bill of rights.
5:04 pm
he's trying to assert that the bill of rights will be inserted into the constitution because the court will be in a unique position. there was an argument if we put in the constitution a bill of rights that they would use them against us. someone in government as hamilton described would simply allege that through the list, we have created an authority government to regulate our rights. since it's not on the list, we must want the federal government to regulate it and if it is on the list of rights, how do we know what it is? so we will define the rights for you so that we do no not usurp r infringe upon your rights.
5:05 pm
madison said block, we can have a bill of rights and the federal government will not abuse those rights and the lives of legislative or executive powers will not abuse those rights because the judiciary will be in work against every legislative or executive. do you see the states in that list? the check of the judiciary is aa check on the legislative and executive are not on the power of the state. but madison doesn't end here because the very next statement establishes what we have already established. besides the security of the court limiting the executive and legislative branches, there's a great probability that they will be enforced because the state
5:06 pm
legislators will watch the operations of the government. why will the state legislators be jealously and closely watching the operations of the federal government? because they have a duty to preserve the reserve of power. the state legislators will be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than every other power on earth can do and the greatest opponent to the federal government admits the state legislators to be the guardians of the people's liberty. your state and local governments are supposed to be the greatest opponents to the federal government, not her best friends, coworkers on the table. it's their duty to limit the government's power to the defined so that we can have our
5:07 pm
liberty guarded. look at what jefferson says in 1812. the great object of my fear is the federal judiciary acting with an alarming advance gaining ground step-by-step handholding what if games is engulfing and the jobs that beat them. it's talking about the precedent of the court writing their own power and then compounding power upon power until they engulf a all. we will be functioning as an oligarchy of kings and queens and not as a constitutional republic. i just want to ask this question.
5:08 pm
why should we have this in the supreme court to be the defenders of our liberty? how can we ge get into history s is a supreme court that said he cannot be a citizen of the united states because he is a black man. dred scott, this i isn't edition that declared dred scott to be property. it was the supreme court. it's okay to indefinitely detain japanese-americans, men, women and children because it is necessary for us to feel safe. does this sound like a guardian of your liberty? know it sounds like a guardian
5:09 pm
of power and that is why they were never delegated this authority. there is a supremacy clause that prohibits the rightful remedy because the federal supremacist friends would save a supremacy clause says federal law trumps state law. is that what it says? how about we listen to alexander hamilton instead of the supreme court justice or federal court judge. hamilton says no one in the constitution can be valid. that's exactly what the supremacy clause says by the way. article six declares the constitution and the role of the united states shall be made in pursuing thereof shall be the supreme law of the land.
5:10 pm
the constitution is the wall of the land and nothing else has to happen. therefore it is supreme. however, it is created by congress in may i also submit the regulations made by the agencies. only the supreme law of the land when they are made in person into the constitution. not every law is supreme. only those that fit under the constitution. you can't have a federal law and constitutional geek will voting because then the constitution isn't supreme anymore and if the constitution isn't supreme, where does the congress get their authority? hamilton said it can't be valid and its is the federal government is creating the wall that isn't consistent in the
5:11 pm
constitution, they are no law at all. there is no law that has a legal effect. someone will tell you they can look for that all day and you will never find it. therefore the nullification is not constitutional. let's look at the constitution. the tenth amendment, the power is not delegated to the united states by the constitution or by the state reserved. if the nullification is not in the constitution, then what does that tell us?
5:12 pm
if it isn't a power that is delegated, then it is what? it is reserved to the states. so not being in the constitution establishes that is a power reserved to the states and it is their duty to do so. what does the supreme court said today? you all know this guy, right? the federal supremacist friends don't talk about this opinion. and you won't see this in the media. this is justice roberts majority opinion in the first affordable care act decision. i will read to you what he says. we look to the states to defend their prerogative by adopting
5:13 pm
the simple not yielding when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. that is the chief justice of the united states in the majority opinion telling the states you need to nullify. this should eliminate every doubt and our federal supremacist mindset he says the states are separate and independent sovereign and they have to act like it. is it about time that we start acting like it? is the state's rightful remedy lawful? some will say they can't nullify the federal law. how will we know what is and
5:14 pm
what is not lawful for the states to just come play with whatever and however they choose. they don't like the law therefore they will not follow that. no one will know what is not. so, here is the problem. what controls the federal government? the states because nullification isn't the states acting unlawful. it's the states enforcing the supreme law of the land when the federal government is acting unlawful. they are not allowed to disregard any federal law that they have a duty to disregard federal law that is not constitutionally established. we have to understand that the
5:15 pm
states have a duty to limit its creation because here's the consequence. if the federal government is not defined by the constitution, then why do we have one? what is the purpose of the constitution if the federal government can make whatever it wants and if they are not limited in their power by the constitution what is the limit of the federal government's power to be only limit to the power is a proper check and balance, when the states till its creation you can only do what we delegated you to do, and anything beyond that is null and void. so how do we start?
5:16 pm
remember what jefferson said. it will render powerless .txt provided one government over another but one branch over another. what is the government is supposed to be checking over the other government? the states over the federal government, and he even goes on to say if the state to declare and look with apathy to say the government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the character states must take control. because if the states refused to take control, then our states are simply declaring that they
5:17 pm
are not states, they are colonies and we are not free, we are subjects. then i ask why do we even need to state government if that is how they are going to operate if they were created as independent sovereign governments. if they act like colonies, why do we have them at all? if they are going to defend the constitution and our liberties, we need state and local legislations asserting the state reserve power. the state and local legislation denying the unauthorized federal power. in the meantime, we need a local official standing in defense of the rights and liberties of the people saying until w staying ue legislation, we will not comply because you have no authority over these matters. they are reserved and your power is small and void.
5:18 pm
states have a rightful remedy and it is not an invention or interpretation, it's not a new idea. it was established being a contract and it remains because the states are separate and independent, sovereign and it is their duty because we created them to protect the rights and liberties and that is what we the people must strive for. [applause]
5:19 pm
if you enjoyed this presentation, it comes from that book sovereign duty. how many of you liked the quot quotes? this book teaches not just what foripod tonight, teaches about e nature of the constitution and has a lesson on the right to keep and bear arms and fight to be secure in your property. it has a lesson on article five conventions and a lesson on nullification specifically. in this book come every quote and documents cited, i give you my original source in the back of the book. i give you all my research because i believe we have to stop believing in people and what they say simply because they hold a microphone, stand on stage, they are on the news or they call themselves professor
5:20 pm
or judge. we need to start questioning and finding the original source of truth so we can be the defenders of our liberties. i don't want you to believe a word i told you. i want you to know it to be true so i am giving you my research so you can test me so i am confident in my conclusion in a few test me then will be the experts and then we will have a boldness to stand before our legislators, sheriffs and local governments and say you must defend our liberty and we will not comply. [applause]
5:21 pm
here is my contact information in case you need to write them down. three of rule number one, you must come up to the front and speak into the microphone. number two, do not take the microphone off the stand. you must have a question and you must get to the question quick quickly. most of you know me, i am a rather bold spoke i spoken persd i'm not afraid to say i'm sorry, where is your question. if you want to debate me on an issue i'm happy to do that after
5:22 pm
or you can schedule any new events and we can talk about your particular subject so let's make sure we get to the questions quickly. i'm not running for office and they don't need you to think that i know everything about anything. [laughter] so we will do 15 minutes of question and answer. then we will go.
5:23 pm
>> the question is how can we be affected as the local people of our county and of our state. >> i would like to answer it like i answer all of those. samuel adams said it will be easily subdued and the virtue is preserved but on the contrary it will be universally ignorant and they will sink under their own weight.
5:24 pm
you must your self first get educated. so you will notice when the rights are being usurped. and you must get educated so you can educate your county commissioners, city councilman, sheriffs, state government so that you won't elect people to t need a further education. we must be vigilant of our rights but we cannot do that if we don't know what they are.
5:25 pm
do not answer out loud worksheet with your calculator or pocket constitution. there are five liberties in the first amendment. to your self, name all five. we have a supreme court justice fred lewis but took a poll and found out only 2% of people could name all five. but here is my question. if you don't know what you're rights or how do you know they are not already gone and that is why education is always the first step. yes sir. >> my name is frank powers. do you think we should have an amendment that would limit the terms of the federal judges excluding the supreme court or have a reaffirming period like we do in florida.
5:26 pm
>> did everybody here the question? do we need term limits for supreme court judges? >> we have term limits for federal judges. it's called good behavior. they have appointments on good behavior. do you know what that means it means we are watching the behavior of our justices the way we monitor a kindergarten class and the minute a judge behaves badly, he's supposed to be removed.
5:27 pm
if we identify a judge acting and bad behavior do we have to wait ten more years for him to go away? that might be what happens. then we will have ten years of guaranteed bad behavior. the promise doesn't exist in the appointment of it exists in the congress that engages in the necessary check and balance. how many of you listen to my radio show? i've been talking a lot about judicial abuse. you know we have justices right now that own hundreds of thousands of stock and their
5:28 pm
wives owned stock in companies that are parties to the discussion in the court rooms. a supreme court justice who was solicitor general and created the argument in favor of the affordable care sitting on the bench to determine whether the affordable care act is constitutional or not. that is a conflict of interest. yet justice ginsburg who came out against the state law and didn't recuse herself linking to the state court and not only that but justice ginsburg saturday for the entire world with an interview with an egyptian reporter and said egypt should and use the u.s. constitution as a model because
5:29 pm
it is not reputable. it was written by a bunch of racist misogynistic men and couldn't be used as a model today. our supreme court justice has taken an oath with able support and defend the constitution of the united states without hesitation or mental reservati reservation. what justice ginsburg did was bad behavior. we have justices in the circuit court in oregon but refuse to allow vendors to read the first amendment because the constitution isn't relevant in the courtroom. that is bad behavior. we need to exercise the authorities that we have and the only way that will happen is when we know what they are and demand they have been. yes ma'am.
5:30 pm
>> are you aware of the confederacy of the state movement that started? >> i am not aware. >> it is on the internet as a step towards what you were talking about. >> i can't speak on that, i'm not familiar with it. >> how do we apply the principle of state sovereignty to the issue of immigration? >> that is a very good question. we have to first identify the delegated authority over immigration. the delegated authority over immigration is they are empowered to create congress. congress is empowered to create a uniform rule of naturalizati naturalization.
5:31 pm
the president's obligation is to faithfully execute meaning it is the obligation to execute the uniform rule of naturalization. what kind of document is the constitution? it is a compact agreement between the states come a contract between the states and every state in the union has agreed to the terms of that contract which means every state in the union has agreed that it is to the federal government to create the uniform rule that means i that an anagram does not follow those rules or cannot comply with those laws then that emigrant is illegal and the
5:32 pm
state has an obligation to abide by the terms of the contract, and that is my sanctuary city that is not a notification. sanctuary cities are nullifying the law that has been constitutionally created under the proper delegated authority. those states are actually violating their contractual agreements. now because they have become muddied with the term refugee we also have to address this as well a uniform rule of naturalization, that is what it is supposed to be however the refugee status is not a uniform rule.
5:33 pm
that's why the state and the governors have the authority to refuse to to accept the refugees because it is an un- delegated authority therefore it is no way to void. when the federal government is exercising power outside of the constitution, what do the states have? the duty to do so. let me give you a little update. right now before the state of texas is a senate bill that would create an interstate
5:34 pm
contract that will secure the borders and reassert the states authority to refuse refugees in their borders. senate bill 512 in texas. florida can sign into this interstate compact that is not superseding federal authority and does not taking power from the federal government. the compact is ensuring that the state is in compliance with proper federal law and that is one of the remedies we can have, asserting our authority. we have an obligation. if i could just add one more point. do you know every state that offers in-state tuition to
5:35 pm
illegal aliens is violating federal law. it is unlawful to hide the harbor, high air or house an illegal alien. subject depending on the terms to up to ten years in prison for every single violation. what does that say about our state legislators who are knowingly and willfully violating a federal law that showed subject them to ten years in prison for each violation? and what does it say when we are prosecuting individuals for violating that crying or those
5:36 pm
laws, but we allow our representatives in government to violate the law with no consequence. >> can i ask one more question? to go along with my first question, and thank you for my answer, okay. we have the authority because we are in a contract, but how can jacksonville, gainesville and tampa welcome to citie the citio muslim refugees without the general public knowing about it, how can the city councils exhibited their authority coming and what can we do to stop it? i understand what you're saying and you're absolutel you are abe have to get educated. but in the meantime, we are all at risk, and we need to be able to do the right thing right now. we need to be able to say what is our task that we have to
5:37 pm
follow in order to get this under control? >> the first statement you said they are doing it without our knowledge, so that's the first step, education. remember, we are suffering these attacks on our liberty because we don't know. let me ask you this, how many of you think there are people in our state and local government allowing these threats to come to america and to come into your communities dee naim the property federal law and responsibility to protect the rights and liberties? how many of you think there are those in state and local government because they don't know any better? how many of you think there are people in state and local government who are doing that because they have sacrificed principle at the altar of pragmatism? >> how many of you think there are people who are doing this
5:38 pm
because they are evil, greedy and want power out of it? so, here's the question at the end of the day what is the difference in the motivation? james otis junior, one of the founders that fought for our liberty says i have come to despise those whose guilt, malice or folly has made them my fellow. guilt, sacrificing principle on the altar of pragmatism, malice, and need, power, folly, ignorance. once we are educated on what is happening, we have to become dedicated to the principle that will allow us to look at the county commissioners, look at the city councilman, the state legislators and the governor and
5:39 pm
say you are my so regardless of the motivation which means you cannot continue to support them regardless of the political party. [applause] >> that's why it is liberty over security, principle over party and the truth over personality. because the government will do a lot of things when we are not looking. but they will never do what we want them to do unless we make them do it. and if we continue to reaffirm the guilt, malice and folly then we are giving our consent for them to be immoral and to destroy our liberties.
5:40 pm
>> thank you for being here. what do you believe we should do abougive about all the governmet corporation structures? and my second question would be about the oath of office. in the florida constitution, in the statute as two different boats, and one of them pledges that they will support and defend the government. so two questions, thank you. >> i will speak to you from a federal perspective because each and every state is different. and then we will address the florida issue just because i am a floridian and i understand how this works for you which is different for every other state. the powers delegated to the federal government are
5:41 pm
enumerated. within that power isn't the power to regulate business within the state. what happens through federal grants, federal regulation, the federal government is picking winners and losers, driving people out of business if they don't have the right lobbyists and creating a system in which liberty and the rights of the people are sacrificed for their greed and political gain, case on point, when monsanto. there are farmers who are growing heirloom crops and the monsanto seeds were blowing into
5:42 pm
their field corrupting the crops. the farmers tried to sue them to keep their crops, proceeds from corrupting their crops. the farmers did not prevail, and monsanto filed a countersuit surveying the farmers for patent infringement because the seeds were flowing onto the property and they were stealing patented property. what is even worse is that congress has created regulations that protect the monsanto from lawsuits and protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits making them have immunity from lawsuits for their product. once again, the problem is not
5:43 pm
corporations. the problem is the activity in congress. and when congress unites with quotations, you are not a constitutional republic, you are a fascist society. the second question, in florida what powers are reserved to the states? while, the power reserved to the states would be to regulate business. the problem is the creation of public, private associations. that's when you have to government funding private industry because they have deemed it to be a matter of public enforcement, like an airport. airports are privately owned. your airlines are privately owned yet your tax dollars are
5:44 pm
used to build them. do you see a profit from that? the idea is th that tax revenue pays that off. that's when the government can partner up, then they are picking winners and losers aga again. and regulation of business doesn't stop any crime. it doesn't prevent any real harm to the people either. let me give you an example. we are missionaries to haiti. in one of the trips we stayed with a family in their home. i love to bake and so did the lady of the house. they make these things called empanadas that our pastrie are t are stuffed and fried. so, i was teaching my host just have to make mango cream cheese
5:45 pm
pat k. because we were making this stuff and writing it and putting sugar on it, they never had anything like that and thought that it was amazing. and she sent this to me. she said that i'm, she said, let's go to the market and get a bunch of cream cheese, a bunch of mango and all the things we need to mak make these and we wl make a batch and go to the market and sell them. they will love them and we will never be able to make enough even last the whole day. i said you know, if i have that idea in america and i made up my mango cream cheese and walked to the street corner and tried to sell them, i would be arrested because if i want to sell my name to the public eye mus i mua permit from the government to
5:46 pm
sell them then i must also get a permit to make them in my home and pay the federal government for the privilege of them inspecting my home to make sure i am creating them in a way that is compliant with the governance rules and then if i put up my stand and sell them i have to put aside a portion of the sweat of my brow and product of my labor to pay the government for the privilege of selling what i have created. and she said wow. she said that's not the america i thought that was. it's interesting if you have a cow and it produces too much milk you go to the street corner and sell it to your neighbor. there's nobody dying from mad cow disease.
5:47 pm
they have yearly festivals where thathe people have these big fes and you slaughter a cow which is a huge thing there were about. if your cow is too big for you, your family can't consume the meet, you walk to the end of your street and hang it off a fake treof atree limb and if pe, you hand off pieces and sell it. people are not dropping dead from e. coli. governmengovernment regulation t end disease or sickness. and just like the law doesn't stop crime, regulations don't either. do you know that for every legitimate regulation of a business, there is already a criminal statute that covers the behavior? we don't need to. what we need to do is enforce
5:48 pm
the law on people equally. do you know why we created government regulations? because business owners who were wealthy and powerful were not being prosecuted for their criminal negligence and the injuries and deaths of their people so instead of enforcing the law on these people, we will regulate them instead. has medical malpractice and that? has corporate pollution and that? has corporate abuse of employees in that? no because the laws do not stop to regulation. but what they do is make politicians and lobbyists fat so to answer your question is once again back to education.
5:49 pm
how do you limit your government? you understand you cannot have liberty and if the government is regulating what you make, where you live, how you live, and the ideas that you have, then you are not free on any level, state, local or federal, and i think that answers the question. [applause] >> this will be the last question. >> i was speaking more of the government corporations. >> i don't get into that sort of thing. that is outside of the federal constitution. >> thank you. [applause]
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
is to honor those i served with in vietnam. more people should know their stories, their dedication, courage and sacrifices they made
5:52 pm
in the war that few supported and even fewer thanked. the vietnam draftees did everything but country asked of them and more. i also wanted to describe a picture of life as an infantry rifleman and combat for weeks and months at a time you are seeking a legal enemy never knowing if someone is an enemy. they didn't wear uniforms. it's without a front line we were constantly cold, wet, hungry and tired. supplies would never arrive on time and we had to ration our food, ammo and water. we never had heating pads to wrap up warm-up the rations. every day was pretty much the same. up at the crack of dawn going for miles to the ninth time positions with about 85 pounds
5:53 pm
of gear declaring the areas to set up the ambush, stay up half the night on watch and there was many fighting in between. that is the life of a rifleman in combat. one of those was of the third platoon and i would like to read a passage from my book. a shot rang out, the men crouched seeking cover was a signal of five or six that "-open-double-quote our side and bellowing into a metallic roar as the bullets came down. the teams opened up in reply. a screen and the pattern of rain, i am hit. the familiar cry of stuff hitting the fan. take cover, i yelled.
5:54 pm
this is what i dreaded. i triggered off about 100 magazines towards the incoming fire. i looked back and saw a body between two bushes. they rushed in short -- is. they were the fire team leader collapsed next to me. i measured the distance around whom the impact spur drudging up mud and water. i had them on top of the ridge line. here, lieutenant, he handed me the handset. cover me, i yelled. they went past a.
5:55 pm
of a lay prone in the middle of the street. the machine guns were hammering away at the ridge line. the bullets were moving around mimicking the impact of the raindrops. when i reached him, the corpsman had his face smeared with mud. i turned him over and his chest to go face was covered in mud. he tried to say something but i couldn't make it out. a bullet smacked him with cold water. that was not in a cave that was a sniper. under my shoulder to stay low i pressed the pad over his wound to try to heal it with my bandage around his torso half of it began to pass between his shoulders. as soon as the bandage was tied off, i started pulling him out of the line of fire. and i'm headed out with a bulldozer hit my back knocking me down in the stream turning off my helmet.
5:56 pm
my rifle cartwheeled through the rain and i remember thinking i will be doing a lot of paperwork for losing that rifle. when i realized i could still move, i scrambled for cover. bullets were all over. my back felt as if someone had wielded it with a sledgehammer. blood was dripping yet my dream seemed to be functioning with clarity. we have been referred to the returning fire to the east by this hit in the back. it was an ambush. lieutenant, i yelled back till the company commander enemies to the north on the ridge line i shouted out new coordinates. fire everything we've got. they were still upstream not having moved when the bullets impacted. i took a deep breath and
5:57 pm
violated out. my lungs were pierced but still blog was pouring out and it was cold. i didn't feel like moving. why not just close my eyes and breast. then boots were pounding coming my way with the incoming sound of fire, someone was coming down the slope. then like a runner sliding for home it was over the stream. someone had to come after me incredibly brave and risky. i found this black jacket, let's go, let's go. my hand came back covered with blood and another face came back. i can't move, i yelled that he didn't respond. just lay there. we've got to get out of here, i
5:58 pm
said, i pulled him off and dragged him through the mud as the bullets hit the water around us. i was worried he might be dying and i realized now maybe i could save him. it seemed to take hours to crawl dragging the body by the arms up the bank into the foliage. once i was in cover i checked him out. he had been hit. i pressed my mouth to his and began cpr. finally i sat back. this marine was gone. why come after me, disappointed and called for it. he wasn't even in my platoon. he crouched down next to me with shaking hands and raindrops running down.
5:59 pm
we are pinned down and the company commander -- the shadowing artillery working the top of the ridge louder than i've ever heard it we stumbled on the regiment and i had to call in more. you are hit and bleeding bad. i got the first aid kit and stuffed the gauze into my bag. when i looked down again, his eyes were opened and seemed to be following me. you know this marine i asked my radio man, yes that is the third platoon. he only had a couple weeks to go but you better get a chopper and get yourself taken care of. i looked around at the dead and wounded along to redeem. they seem to be speaking that in a language that i had forgotten. why had he done it, sacrificed himself for a stranger. when his own return home had been so near but then someone came in.
6:00 pm
.. are we falling back lieutenant? i took a deep breath and tore my gaze. no corporal i said, help me get this tourniquet on. have third platoon consolidate the dead and wounded. we will take this hill so we can

103 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on