Krisane Hall shuts down cnn legal expert 2A

[middlefinger]

.

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck.

She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot.

She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.

KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today.

She presents the “genealogy” of the Constitution – the 700 year history and five foundational documents that are the very roots of American Liberty.


A few years ago she was involved a gun control forum. On the other end of the table was an liberal attorney who was a frequent CNN "expert." Time to apply a little spunk, wisdom, & logic to our responses.

[stainless]

I never saw that one before. Thanks.

Rep not available.

[Royinmontco]

I never saw that one before. Thanks.

Rep not available.

I got him for you.

[bigandy1966]

Hammer and tongs girl, POUND that knowledge into those thick skulled democrazies

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Everyone looks at me like I'm a conspiracy theorist when I bring up the drone thing...

[ett]

Everyone looks at me like I'm a conspiracy theorist when I bring up the drone thing...

NOT everyone. Only sheeple.

[middlefinger]

Everyone looks at me like I'm a conspiracy theorist when I bring up the drone thing...

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/e...soil-are-legal

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/tic...-politics.html

the letter

https://www.scribd.com/document/1430...letter-5-22-13

[fallenleader]

and the murmered rebuttal in the background was "for terrorists" (or similar, some time after she points out that they are incapable of following the rules of the debate and in turn laws in general.)
yet the government has broad definitions for terrorists including being patriotic or wearing blue jeans among other activities.
and they are free to redefine the classification as needed without oversight.

all they need do is control the information that gets to the public to ensure support and distract them with cake.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

and the murmered rebuttal in the background was "for terrorists" (or similar, some time after she points out that they are incapable of following the rules of the debate and in turn laws in general.)
yet the government has broad definitions for terrorists including being patriotic or wearing blue jeans among other activities.
and they are free to redefine the classification as needed without oversight.

all they need do is control the information that gets to the public to ensure support and distract them with cake.

I've yet to serve with a member of the national guard that did not meet the definition of a domestic terrorist.