SCOTUS Right, Results Still Wrong

Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center, a ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri, wanted to replace the surface of their playground with recycled tires.  The church submitted its application to participate in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ grant program for State funded recycled tires for playgrounds.  The Missouri Constitution, under Article 1 sec 7 prohibits using tax payer funds “in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.”  Pursuant to this provision of the Missouri Constitution, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied Trinity Lutheran’s application for tax payer dollars.  Trinity Lutheran Church sued the State of Missouri in federal court and the supreme Court gave their opinion this week in favor of Trinity Lutheran, forcing the State of Missouri to allow the church to participate in the tax payer grant program.  This case deals with the principle of Separation of Church and State and because America has taught an errant understanding of this principle for so long, the supreme Court got this case right, but Trinity Lutheran got it all wrong.

Government Cannot Discriminate Against a Church Any More Than It Can Discriminate in Favor of One.

The supreme Court’s logic on Trinity Lutheran’s suit is nearly spot on (although their application of jurisdiction is misplaced).  Laws cannot discriminate and deny one person or organization a benefit that is offered to the public solely because that person or organization is a minister or a church.   Equal protection under the law demands the government can no more discriminate against a church than it can discriminate in favor of one.  Missouri must treat all grant applicants equally.   The error is Trinity Lutheran seeking the very intrusion of government into its affairs.  History proves this will destroy not only the liberties of their own church, but if the practice is adopted by other churches, will be the destruction religious liberty.

Trinity Should Have Considered the True Meaning of Separation of Church and State Before Asking for Government Grant Money

Although the Trinity Lutheran case is not a legal issue of Separation of Church and State, it should have been something considered by Trinity before even requesting the grant from the State.  The principle of Separation of Church and State demands that the government should not have undo influence over the operation of the Church, which is exactly what Trinity has invited.

Here is the history behind this essential principle:

The supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S., took the phrase “separation of church and State” from a letter Thomas Jefferson, wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.  The Danbury Baptists were concerned with their new president’s dedication to the principle of no government interference in the governance of the church.  The Danbury Baptists congratulated Jefferson on his election, then pressed Jefferson for assurance that his previous stand for religious liberty had not altered upon gaining office.  Jefferson responded in 1802 with a very humble and somber promise:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Prior to his election, Jefferson, along with James Madison, took a very strong stand against a piece of legislation titled, “A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.”  This bill was to collect a property tax from the people to pay teachers to teach the Christian Religion.  Jefferson was vehemently opposed to this legislation, calling it “sinful and tyrannical.”   Jefferson’s assessment of this bill was rooted in over 700 years of history and experience that shows that government should not take public funds to support religious practice and teaching.   Jefferson knew that if the government was supplying funds to the church, it would result in the tyranny over government over the free conscience of the people; a church funded by government is a church ruled by government.  The Danbury Baptists shared this historical understanding with Jefferson, also opposing this piece of legislation.  They remarked, “…should the legislature assume the right of taxing the people for the support of the gospel it will be destructive to religious liberty… those whom the (government) employs in its Service, it has a right to regulate and dictate to; it may judge and determine who shall preach; when and where they shall preach.”

The resulting axiomatic truth:  When tax dollars fund the operation of a church, the church is then subject to government regulations and its demands as a consequence of taking public funds.  The result, for centuries, has always been detrimental to church autonomy and to religious liberty.  Contrary to modern belief, Separation of Church and State is not a protection (or a weapon) for government, it is a protection for the freedom and autonomy of the church.

Ironically, Trinity Lutheran has just sued the State of Missouri for the opportunity to be regulated and dictated to by the State.  Trinity’s win in the supreme Court is actually a loss of liberty for the congregation of that church.  If other churches take this precedent into action, history will be ignored and government will gradually gain rule over the church and become an evil and oppressive government once again.

The text of our 1st Amendment and the clauses that mirror these principles in State Constitutions are the product of this history.  Government influencing the church has always led to horrific events that history rarely wants to admit: laws requiring permits to teach, inquisitions, torture, and executions based upon government’s control of the church are the history of the struggle for religious liberty in American and abroad.  These prohibitions were put into place on the national and State levels to protect the liberty of the church, not to protect the integrity of government.  There is a greater duty to the church to keep government out of their business than there is to the court to keep church and government separated.  Government money always comes with government regulations.  Churches should learn to trust God for their needs instead of running to government to become their provider and ultimately their ruler.  Trinity was wrong to ever ask for that money and they have established a precedent, that if copied by other churches ignorant of their duty, will result in Jefferson’s fear;

“…to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy (sic) at once destroys all religious liberty…” Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

For a deeper understanding of Separation of Church and State in Context visit this article:

Healthcare Dissected

As the political drama over federally mandated and funded healthcare drags on and on, citizens are left scratching their collective heads wondering why there seems to be little political energy or consensus even among Republicans to do what they promised.  They promised to repeal this massive piece of legislation that reportedly gobbled up one sixth of the nation’s economy, pushed many premiums to record levels and removed personal choice from patients as never before; none of which the federal government has any enumerated authority to do since this is an issue reserved to the States to solve.  Why can’t they seem to move in a Constitutional direction? Because federal control of healthcare has been a hobby and goal of the federal government and both political parties for a long, long time. Consider the following verifiable historical nuggets:

1974 Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan proposed by Republican Richard Nixon that every employer would be mandated to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan.

1975 Democrat Paul Rogers declared: “Today the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment begins its consideration of national health insurance–a concept which was articulated more than 25 years ago by President Truman …

1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA/ COBRA passed under Republican Ronald Reagan mandated hospitals provide emergency care for all, including illegals.

1989 Stuart Butler of the Republican think tank, The Heritage Foundation, proposed a plan he called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans” Stuart Butler’s plan included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance” Butler use the justification of seatbelt laws and car insurance.

1992 The Jackson Hole Group  led by Paul Ellwood, Alain Enthoven, and Lynn Etheredge created a policy proposal (Managed Competition) which included an employer mandate and subsidies.

1991, Mark Pauly and Patricia Danzon, of Wharton School and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania; Paul Felstein, University of California, Irvine, Graduate School of Management; and attorney John Hoff created a proposal for Republican George H.W. Bush called A Plan for Reasonable National Health Insurance that included an individual mandate.

1993 Democrat Bill Clinton combined the Jackson Hole Group’s managed competition with Canada’s single payer system in his Universal Healthcare proposal.

1993 Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (HEART) was introduced in the Senate by Republican John Chafee and co-sponsored by 19 Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Pete Domenici, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. The HEART Act proposed subsidies and an individual mandate.

1993 Republican Phil Gramm proposes Medical Savings Accounts to fight against the idea of mandates.

1993-2011 Republican Newt Gingrich supports individual mandates. “I’ve said consistently that we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance, or you post a bond, or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.” Gingrich, May 2011 “Meet the Press.”

1994 Republicans Don Nickles and Cliff Stearns Consumer Choice Health Security Act mandating a federally defined minimum level of health insurance coverage, with 24 Republican co-sponsors including Newt Gingrich.

2006 Republican Governor Mitt Romney with Heritage Foundation Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies  Robert Moffit and Heritage Senior Fellow Ed Haislmaier develop RomneyCare which included individual and employer mandates.

2008 Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama denounces mandates.

June 2009 “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates,” Republican Chuck Grassley

2009 Romney health-care advisers and experts, Johnathan Gruber, Jon Kingsdale, John McDonough frequent the White House to help develop Obamacare.

2010 ACA passes, Exempt from the health insurance law: president and family, Congress and families, justice dep and families, Supreme Court and families, federal judges and families, 1,200 corporations and unions.

March 2010 Johnathan Gruber tell the Boston Globe “Obamacare would never have passed had Romney not made the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.”

Why does it seem that we are stuck with the federal government in our health choices for the foreseeable future? Why do we get so many excuses?  Remember the multiple votes to repeal Obamacare when the GOP knew there was no shot at it succeeding? Where’s the fire now that there is a shot at it succeeding? It almost makes you think those votes were just a show.  It almost makes you think that the game is politics and this is how it’s played:  Oppose it when you can’t stop it, don’t stop it when you can.  Talk tough, but play it safe and keep your job (a.k.a. pension, luxury, benefits, celebrity status, power…).

Now that repealing Obamacare is a real, viable possibility, where are all those Republicans who were singing the songs of gloom and doom in 2010?  Where are all the Republicans in Congress who said, “Never Obamacare!”  Why does it look so much like they are fighting each other, yet they always end up at the same end goal? Why does it seem that we are stuck with some form of Obamacare no matter what? Well…judging from their history, because both parties to one degree or another have always wanted Obamacare.

See who voted against Obamacare in 2010 and compare with their position on repeal today.

Read this article:



Votes, Guns, Hate & Crosses

Today we address four very important Liberty topics so that we can become more informed and therefore more active.  Often times we endeavor to do the right things, but end up doing them in the wrong way because we lack proper foundation in Liberty and government.  This is a correction for us as much as for our politicians.

Alternatively you can listen to the “Votes, Guns, Hate & Crosses” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

Official Statement Regarding Federal Hypocrisy in Oregon

Over the next few weeks an organized national event called the “Rainbow Family” gathering is expected to bring thousands of people to the Malheur National Forest in Eastern Oregon.  You will remeber this to be the exact location of the rancher protest last year.  The organizers of the Rainbow Family gathering have obtained no permit for their event and, according to Capitol Press, are already have an impact on the environment of the Preserve.
The Rainbow Family Gathering in Oregon should make federal government hypocrisy undeniably evident.  Many who are angry at this double standard are saying that there is no difference between this event and the rancher protest that occurred last year.  However, there is one big difference, and it’s this difference that is the reason for the federal government’s double standard.
The rancher protest was a direct and vocal protest against unconstitutional activity of the federal government and their agents.  The Rainbow Family gathering is not.  The ranchers were engaged in the fundamental expressions of freedom of speech, protest, and redress of grievances that government exists to protect.  The Rainbow Family Gathering is having an organized picnic.
The federal government’s choice to continually placate some groups compared to the violent and punishing reaction that ensues in regard to anyone who challenges them, should make it clear to the American people that the federal government is sending a  message; do not challenge us, do not question us, and if you do we will destroy you.
The Rainbow Family Gathering can stab eachother, they can destroy property, they can tap into and possibly contaminate natural resources and federal agents will “protect” their gathering.  Why? Because they are not a challenge to federal authority.  It appears as if the federal government is picking sides in the liberal/conservative battle, when in reality they are simply rewarding the position that does not challenge them.
That is why the federal Forrestry agents never tried to “bring the ranchers a permit” for their protest as Mr. Nehl, deputy Forest Service supervisor on the Malheur Preserve, is doing for the Rainbow Family.  It is why local and federal governments are not demanding that armed federal agents move in and extract the Rainbow Family.
The First Amendment was codified to prevent the federal government from punishing protests.  History and human nature both prove that when government can determine what are acceptable and unacceptable gatherings then there is no freedom of speech, no freedom to peacefully assemble, and no way to redress grievances.
It is the Liberty embodied within the principle of equal rights and equal application of law that makes a government a just one.  When governments and their agents are allowed to punish opposition we no longer have a just government.
What may be even a more disturbing testimony is the evident bias of the media in favor of the federal government’s choice of double standard.  The very industry that exists because of the essential freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition have reduced themselves to condition of tributary slaves and have become mercenaries for a lawless government.
Let us hope and pray that no federal agents are sent into the Rainbow Family gathering to act as provocateurs to incite violence.  Let us hope and pray that no one is lured out of the Rainbow Family gathering so that federal agents can have them executed.  Let us hope and pray that the next group ranchers that choose to protest unconstitutional federal authority will be met with the same kindness and latitude served upon the Rainbow Family gathering.

Disenfranchising The Voters

On Wednesday the Oregon House passed legislation (HB 2927) that would make Oregon award its Electoral College votes only to presidential candidates who win the national popular vote. According to National Popular Vote, this kind of legislation has already been passed by 11 States, (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).

To be clear, Oregon and these other 11 States are not abolishing the Electoral College but altering it. Article 2 section 2 clauses 2 and 3 and the Twelfth Amendment of the US Constitution require States to establish electors that will choose the president and vice president of the United States.  These States are not eliminating their electoral college, they are eliminating the voice of their citizens and eliminating the legitimacy and relevance of their State’s involvement in the political process. In short, disenfranchising the vote of an entire State.

The process of the electoral college was established for a specific reason.  Because we have failed, for generations, to teach an accurate application of the Constitution, many people like Oregon Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer believe that the electoral college is “flawed and outdated.”  Rep. Keny-Guyer told Oregon Live, “The Electoral College does not fit the ‘We The People’ and ‘One person, one vote’ style of government.  Rep. Keny-Guyer and those who believe as she does simply do not understand why the electoral college was established and how that process protects her individual liberty and the sovereignty of her State.  She also doesn’t understand that neither Oregon nor America are democracies, but instead are Constitutional Republics. The incessant push toward being ruled by majority opinion is supposed to be antithetical to the American character, unfortunately the dearth of real education in America has created an equal scarcity of understanding about America’s fundamental principles.

The process of the electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected to be president of these United States would accurately represent the union as a whole, not favoring certain States while ignoring others.  The office of president, contrary to popular belief, was never designed to be a representative of individual citizens, but rather a representative of the collective interests of the States.  A survey of the powers delegated to the president via Article 2 of the Constitution makes the role of the president quite clear.  He is not the “leader of America,” he is the leader of the military upon declaration of war by Congress.  He is part of the treaty process that makes contractual agreements with foreign governments and the States.  Most everything that the president is to do, he does only with the consent of the Senate (the voice of the States).   Together, the President and the Senate ensure that each State’s interests are represented equally in matters of war, peace, and foreign commerce.  The office of the president was established to be the voice to foreign countries on behalf of the collective States.  Because he is the representative of the States, the electors of the State are to choose their president based upon the person they believe will best represent the principles and interests of their State.

There is no power delegated by the Constitution to the president that authorizes him to directly affect the lives of the people.  The only power held by the president to touch lives individually would be that of the power to grant reprieves or pardons for federal crimes and that was established to be a check and balance upon the judiciary, not a system of personal favors to individuals.  Because the president’s role in government is to be an ambassador on behalf of the States, the States must choose their representative.  The popular vote for president that takes place within the State ensures that the principles and the interests of the people of that State guide and direct the electors in their choice of president.  These subtle distinctions are hard for Americans to grasp since we perceive our nation to be a unitary whole where the states provide support to the central government that directs them. We have forgotten that our republic is a collection of independent sovereign States who created D.C. to represent their interests.

However, the national popular vote movement takes us even farther away from our Constitutional structure by further removing the independence of the States, and eliminating the voice of the people within those states.  This legislation proposes that once a popular vote is complete across the nation, each elector of the State must choose the person elected by popular vote regardless of the collective choice of his fellow State citizens.  This legislation mandates that each State submit to the popular choice, regardless of whether that candidate best represents the interests and principles of the people of that State.  Through popular vote, the individual States would become completely irrelevant in the processes of the federal government.  The president would no longer be required to ensure all States’ interests were represented in matters of foreign affairs.  The president’s only concern, throughout the entire four years of his terms, would be to make sure the select few States, with the greatest voting population, were happy and pleased with the execution of his power.  It would be like Georgia surrendering all its voice to New York and legislating themselves out of the political process or like Connecticut asking Texas to decide what is in the best interest of Connecticut.

Future presidents could then ignore all but a few states. All treaties could be focused upon the prosperity and growth of a select few States, at best ignoring the rest, at worst requiring the lesser populated States to enrich the other States via treaties and regulations.  All wars could be conducted in the interest of a few States and all peace could be negotiated to benefit the few over the whole.  Cabinet members and supreme Court justices could be chosen from persons of those few States because there would be no reason to make an equitable search.  Every State that did not hold the majority voting population could be relegated to being a spectator in the entire political process.

Charles Cotesworth Pickney, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, summed up what was not only the popular belief of the delegates, but would also become the controlling belief in establishing Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution.  He classified a national popular vote of the president to be “liable to the most obvious & striking objections.”  He said if the people were to elect the president by popular vote, “They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”

Not only will the States be silenced in their political affairs nationally and in foreign negotiations, the national popular vote would ensure that the people themselves would be silenced.  What would be the point in voting if you didn’t live in New York, Texas, California, or Florida, where the majority of the voting population resides?  Every presidential election would be chosen by these few States and these few States would grow and maintain their voting power, because the national popular vote system would ensure the enrichment of these States over every other State.  A national popular vote, is in fact an oxymoron, as it would only reflect the voice of the majority, denying every person in their State a voice in the presidential election.

Those who cry for a national popular vote, do so out of ignorance, yet maddening on to their own destruction.  Oregon and States like her will not achieve a greater voice with the elimination of the Constitutional process of the electoral college, they will ensure their political irrelevance from this day forward.


Political Prostitutes Establishing Their Brothel

Finally! A powerful federal politician CONFESSES what I have been trying to teach for the last 3 years. And you won’t believe the implications of what he really has to say!

Alternatively  you can listen to “Political Prostitutes Establishing their Brothel’ on YouTube

The Key to Government Control not Gun Control

Take back the narrative and solve real problems.  Real problems won’t be solved by gun control.  The real problems in America will only be solved by government control.

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

Our Federal Government Should Be Prosecuted

Today I lay out the laws and the facts that PROVE that if the government were a private citizen, they would be criminally prosecuted, fined and imprisoned up to 10 years. How do our State and Federal representatives get away with such blatant lawlessness? Perhaps because we, the citizens, do not know the law? NO MORE EXCUSES! Time to put an end to lawless legislation and criminal representation, REGARDLESS of the political party.

Alternatively you can listen to this edition of “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube

Privatizing Air Traffic Control: Constitutionally Speaking

The Trump administration would like to privatize air traffic control, taking it from FAA control. That is exactly what should happen, but is that what will happen?

The question we should be asking is, if the FAA loses its maintenance of air traffic, will that be equal to privatization? Unfortunately, I believe the answer will be no.

We must remember there is absolutely no authority for the federal government to regulate domestic flights. The assertion of necessity due to international flights or national security is a false assertion and does not create a domestic regulatory authority. The FAA should not exist as it does and it certainly has no constitutional authority to regulate our air traffic. Therefore, privatizing is exactly what should happen.

Also, we need to recognize the FAA will still exist and will still be exerting a great deal of control over the operation of any private entity taking over that roll. Additionally, most airports are not really private entities. Most airports are Public-Private Partnerships (P3’s) which are a hybrid of government agency and private business. Finally, the current plan to privatize air traffic control specifically designs the new non-profit corporations as Public-Private Partnerships.

Public-private partnerships (P3’s) equate to an unholy marriage of government and private corporations. They are private corporations, operating with a private board of directors like all corporations, making money like a private corporation, but carry the power, force, and often the funding of government. Your tax dollars often fund them, the authority of government empowers them, but you have no control over them. It is a semi-governmental bureaucracy that makes money like a private business but is funded in part or in whole by the government; proposes and enforces government regulations upon the people with the power of government, but the people elected no one holding this authority and share in none of the money collected.

The proposed plan for the new air traffic corporations establishes that the air traffic corporations will be sustained completely by “user fees” instead of taxes. However, tax dollars will be used to establish the corporations until the fees are in place and the transition and start up are complete. Government will also continue to control the operation of air traffic through rules and regulations by the FAA.

The United Airlines scandal provided us with the perfect example of how these P3’s can go all wrong. The doctor who was forcefully and abusively removed from the plane for refusing to give up his seat to airline employees, was not removed from the plane by airline employees. He was removed from the plane by government employees.

Under normal legal conditions, the airline would have to go through legal contract dispute resolution with the passenger. Government employees cannot enforce a private contract agreement using the power of government unless there has been fulfilment of civil due process and a court order. How then, could government employees inject themselves into this civil dispute? Because airports are not private entities, they are this P3 public-private hybrid. This is the same relationship and power a public-private air traffic corporation would hold.

Since These air traffic corporations are being specifically designed as P3’s, it would be improper to classify this proposed move as “privatization.”
The airline industry as a whole needs to be completely privatized. But that’s not what is happening here.