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:



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.

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.


Correcting Illegal DOJ Activity

US AG Jeff Sessions has ended the practice of DOJ slush funding, for now. Will we take time to look at the real problem so we can ensure a permanent solution?

During the Obama Administration apparently it was the practice of the DOJ to make corporations under indictment by the DOJ to pay millions of dollars to non-related non-profit organizations as part of their settlements with the DOJ. These non-profits were not victims, they were not even related parties to the cases. The DOJ was engaging in a “forced charity” (otherwise known as extortion) of their choosing. Were they enriching their friends? What do you think? (Sarcasm)

This practice is blatantly unethical and illegal!

Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Jeff Sessions sent a memo to his offices telling prosecutors they are no longer allowed to do this. Good thing, right? Perhaps in the short term, but in the long run, what is the big picture?


The DOJ engaged in this practice for at least 8 years, unchecked. How were they able to conduct illegal and unethical settlements?!?

Because YOUR Congressman did NOTHING about it. Your Congressman is the essential check and balance on the executive branch.

Article 2 sec 4 of the US Constitution REQUIRES that Congress impeach all civil officers engaged in illegal activity. Your Congressman had a legal, Constitutional, and ethical responsibility to stop this.

Out of 535 people, why didn’t one single politician say a single word about this to the public during over 8 years of illegal operation of the DOJ? Why isn’t anyone in Congress talking about impeachment? Perhaps they were enriching their friends, too? What do you think?

So blame Obama, blame Holder all you like. The absolute Truth is it was and still is the ultimate responsibility and duty of YOUR Congressman to do something about it.

I am not talking about passing a new law? Why do we have to have a new piece of legislation to declare that government agents and agencies cannot engage in activity that is ALREADY ILLEGAL for civilians?!!?

Who is being impeached?  Any judge that signed these settlements must be impeached.  Any federal attorney requesting these settlements must be impeached.

Who is being prosecuted for these crimes?  Which federal prosecutor is being disbarred for these unethical and illegal activities?

YOUR Congressman MUST start criminal prosecution and impeachment of every federal prosecutor and judge that engaged in this activity. Law, ethics, and the Constitution demand it.

If either Congress or Jeff Sessions refuse to enact real consequences for this illegal activity, they are not only condoning it, they are ensuring that this practice will begin again, once there is a new AG in office.

Silence to Lies Equals Spreading of Lies – #ActionAlert

A student at James Madison Memorial High School has started a petition to change the name of her school because the name James Madison makes her “feel more than unsafe” because, she says, Madison “enslaved her people.”

DO NOT blame this student.  She is the unfortunate product of her education system.  Although this can make us angry, let us not focus upon blame and instead become part of the solution!

Changing the course of education in America can happen with just one email!  Please JOIN ME in sending the following email to the principal of James Madison Memorial High School and encourage him to do what he must to reestablish #Truth and history in his classroom.

All you need to do is copy and paste the following letter into your email to Principal Jay Affeldt-

It won’t cost you a dime to aid in this effort; it won’t even take much time.  But what is it costing our future if we remain silent to this ignorance?  Silence in the face of lies, is the same as repeating those lies.

(read the article about this

Principal Jay Affeldt,

You have a great opportunity to help your nation by adding a much-needed positive influence in the discussion of race in America, if you simply inject truth into the discussion and insist that your teachers do the same. Encouraging your teachers to teach accurate history and equipping them to do so could go far in promoting reason, compassion and peace. The distortion of and hiding of true history does nothing but add to the hate and ignorance permeating this discussion.

Finding first source history takes less than 30 seconds in this internet age – it is unfortunate that your history teacher(s) apparently have been unable to avail themselves of the unprecedented access to information in our day. Or perhaps your students are simply not assimilating the information. Whatever the case, you have a teachable moment, why not seize upon it?

The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Notes on the Constitutional Conventions and the personal correspondences of America’s framers are readily available and rich resources of America’s foundational history. The founders of our republic wrote countless reams on their actions, their reasoning, their hopes and fears because they knew that a detailed record of our founding would be absolutely imperative for future generations. There is very little that cannot be gleaned about their positions on most topics. Like the rest of us some of them evolved in their views as they aged or gained more information. Some betrayed principles they had once firmly stood for; they were mere mortals. It is not the men that this nation was founded upon but the principles that have proven themselves timeless and beneficial for all mankind and the preservation of liberty that underpin this republic. Here is a glimpse at the thoughts of James Madison, whom your students vilifying as an oppressor rather than a champion of freedom who laid the groundwork for the liberty we enjoy today.

The one item that took center stage in our founders’ purposes was the preservation and expansion of liberty for all. Slavery was a topic hotly debated, and it was despised by many. Several provisions were made in an attempt to compromise for the sake of establishing the republic (so that it could survive and not be immediately reconquered) while at the same time diminishing the influence of slaveholding sates (yet necessarily recognizing their sovereignty). All of this was a precarious and monumental task, and although some provisions did not work as hoped, many were optimistic that the despised trade would cease.

“[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”– James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787

This is why a twenty year sunset period was set for the importation of slaves. Many of our founders along with Madison knew that they could not plow new fields overnight, yet they hoped that the practice of slavery would be choked out in time. Madison for his own part preferred that the international importation of slaves be immediately ended:

“It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!”

— James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 42

They knew that rooting out the deeply entrenched cultural phenomenon of slavery would be a monumental task but they knew that it must be done and that it was a task worth accomplishing.

[I]f slavery, as a national evil, is to be abolished, and it be just that it be done at the national expense, the amount of the expense is not a paramount consideration.

— James Madison, Letter to Robert J. Evans

While the political implementation was difficult and not all of it came to the beneficial end in the manner Mr. Madison had hoped, his intentions are clear.  The villification of such a man must rest upon a complete ignorance and distortion of history. THe cultural context was complex, the task of forging a new nation was monumental, the players were diverse in their views and opinions, but to characterize the constitutional conventions as full of greedy, conniving men, James Madison among them, bent on enslaving a people could not be further from the truth.

Here are just a few more quotes from Madison that reveal his heart toward this issue:

“We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” -James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787

American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in defiance of those of their own country. The same just and benevolent motives which produced interdiction in force against this criminal conduct will doubtless be felt by Congress in devising further means of suppressing the evil.  -James Madison, State of the Union,1810

Outlets for the freed blacks are alone wanted for the erasure of the blot from our Republican character.  -James Madison, Letter to General La Fayette, February 1, 1830.

Principal Affeldt, we are ready to support you in your efforts to restore truth and history back into your curriculum.  Constitutional Attorney and historian KrisAnne Hall is more than willing to teach this education to an assembly of your students at no cost to the school.  You may contact her at  Here is an article she wrote about How The Constitution Ended Slavery to help you in your understanding:

James Madison declared before the House of Representatives in 1789: “It is to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a country filled with slaves.”

It is my hope that we can save our future generations from the ignorance and build an even better American than one Madison envisioned.  Thank you for your service to the future generations of America.  I also thank you in advance for your re-dedication to truth and history.



Bathrooms and Basketball


North Carolina repealed their #BathroomBill primarily due to an ultimatum given by the NCAA. The NCAA threatened the State or North Carolina, either directly or indirectly to eliminate the University of North Carolina’s basketball team from NCAA Basketball Championship Final Four.

This made me start to wonder, why would the NCAA care? Are they being “social super heroes” or is there some other reason.

My first thought was that the NCAA must be subject to Title IX federal regulations. If that were the case, the NCAA’s corporate bullying of North Carolina would be to keep federal funding. However, on Feb 23, 1999 (NCAA v Smith 525 U.S. 459) the supreme Court opined that although the NCAA receives the a large portion of its funding from colleges that are funded by federal dollars, NCAA was not funded “either directly or indirectly by tax dollars.” (Yeah, that’s judicial logic for ya.) Therefore, SCOTUS said, the NCAA is not subjet to Title IX.

Time to dig further.

What I found out was that the NCAA is a non-profit 501c3 organization. Donations to the NCAA are tax deductible. And there is your reason for all the fuss. They are not socially concerned, they are financially enslaved.

If the NCAA “allowed” their sponsored events to happen in a State that was opposing the federal bathroom mandate, their tax exempt status could be in jeopardy. The NCAA already had one close call with the federal judiciary, I’m sure they learned their lesson well; don’t cross the feds.

Here is the real kick in the pants: The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar operation. They get over $10 billion (yes that is billion) from networks to broadcast just the NCAA tournament every year. That doesn’t count the fees they collect from colleges, broadcasting fees for regular season games, and the donations from private corporations and individuals. Consider now, that the NCAA also gets over $100 million in tax breaks every year, while boasting an $80.5 million dollar surplus (2014).

Read how insane the NCAA situation really is:

I wonder if the NCAA enjoys being a federal slave? I guess being a true subject of government pays well these days. A quote from Samuel Adams comes to mind…

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

This is a perfect example of the tangled web we weave when the feds use tax dollars to fund or subsidize organizations. This is why years of experience drove the designers of our Constitutional Republic to create a federal government with “few and defined” powers.

The moral of this whole story? This is what you get when the federal government is allowed to do not what is it not authorized to do, but eventually even what it is prohibited from doing.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid…that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton Fed 78

It’s not about bathrooms or basketball. It’s about an unlimited overbearing federal government. Look at James Madison’s warnings:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

In the desire for free stuff, America has been transmuted into Oligarchy and its people have been reduced to tributary slaves.

#Point2Ponder: Honor For Aye

March 5, 1770 Crispus Attucks, a Freed Slave, dies so our children could be free.
Crispus Attucks was a freeman who became a whaler with the merchant marines.  His ship was docked in the Boston Harbor on March 5, 1770. That day, there was a loud ringing of bells.  Mr. Attucks thought there to was a fire. He ran out of his ship to put out the fire, only to find that the bells were calling to Patriots to fight against the government who had picked up arms against their own people. Without a single thought of his own safety, Mr. Attucks ran back into the ship and got 55 of his shipmates to join him in the battle for Liberty. Mr. Attucks knew he had to fight for Liberty. Since he used to be a slave, he knew that Liberty was the most important thing. The King’s soldiers were waiting for them and Mr. Attucks was shot and killed.  This is the history of the Boston Massacre.
Here is a poem written about Crispus Attucks in his day:
And honor to Crispus Attucks, who was leader and voice that day;
The first to defy, and the first to die, with Maverick. Carr, and Gray.
Call it riot or revolution, his hand first clenched at the crown;
His feet were the first in perilous place to pull the king’s flag down;
His breast was the first one rent apart that liberty’s stream might flow;
For our freedom now and forever, his head was the first laid low.
Call it riot or revolution, or mob or crowd, as you may,
Such deaths have been seed of nations, such lives shall be honored for aye.
Mr. Attucks was not the only hero that was a freed slave, many freed slaves formed the Bucks of America, a militia from the state of Massachusetts. George Middleton was a freeman and a former African. He volunteered to be a leader in the fight for Liberty. Mr. Middleton was given the rank of Colonel in his army called the Bucks of America. He continued the fight for Liberty after the Revolutionary War by forming the African Benevolent Society in 1796, that provided assistance to widows and orphans from the war for Independence.
There were actually battalions of freed slaves who fought in our war for independence from Great Britain.  The States had a provision that if a slave wanted to fight for Liberty, he would be a freeman forever.  Who better to know the value of Liberty than one who had been enslaved?
Our modern, progressive education system, however, would rather write these men out of the history books than teach of their sacrifice and bravery.  They do this so they can teach our children that the Constitution was a document of oppression and that minorities had no role in the winning of our Independence.  This is the worst form of bigotry; denying these men their honor due to promote lies and control minds.  Most Americans have never even heard the names Crispus Attucks, George Middleton, Peter Salem, or Ned Hector.  This corrupt education system and their progressive agenda ensures that our future will never know these former slaves who gave their only free breath so we could live in Liberty today.  That should be offensive to our souls, that should cause outrage in our education system, and that should make us weep.
Let’s correct this gross injustice done the the memory of Mr. Attucks and these brave Patriots. Let’s teach the TRUTH!
This historical excerpt is from my book: Essential Stories for Junior Patriots.  This book will teach of these heroic patriots and many more that our school books purposely ignore.

Joe Biden is Confused About Freedom of Press

Benjamin Franklin wrote as Silence Dogood this warning:
“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.”
There is a trap set, however when we link essential freedoms to the positions of certain people.  Freedom of speech, freedom of press are essential freedoms. Journalists and news personalities are people, not Liberties.  A journalist has a “freeness of speech” he is NOT freedom of speech itself.  Just because someone is in the news industry doesn’t mean that they are to be sheilded from criticism and that they are above reproach. When we confuse Liberty with personality we give power to tyrants.
A quote, probably not by Voltaire, repeats Franklin’s warning, but from a different perspective:
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
With all this in mind, take into account recent statements of Joe Biden protesting the criticism of media;
“Some of you press guys are lousy just like some senators are lousy, doctors are lousy, lawyers are lousy. But it doesn’t matter. We should never challenge the basic truth that an independent and free press is the fundamental element in functions of our democracy.”
Joe is conflating issues.  Criticizing a bad doctor doesn’t destroy the practice of medicine, it improves it.    The same can be said about the media.  Criticizing a lousy journalist is not destroying free speech, it is exercising it.  Criticizing a lousy journalist is not only the exercising of free speech it is the preservation of truth.
Joe’s statements prove the accuracy of both warnings.  Joe’s misplaced defense of lousy journalism proves that our media has become worthy of cricism, a criticism necessary for the preservation of free speech.  It also proves that those who would be our masters, those who assault our fundamental principles, those who would overthrow our Liberty are actually  promoting these bad journalist to achieve their goals, or perhaps these are the goals of the journalists themselves.
Truth be told, if we protect lousy journalists from criticism we are actually encouraging people to destroy the Liberty that is supposed to protect all speech.   How sad that some have become so blinded by their own political interests that they “precipitously madden on to their own destruction.”

Is America Going to War With Iran?

Today’s #Point2Ponder:

At #LibertyFirst we have been talking a lot over the past 2 weeks about Separation of Powers and how Congress keeps pushing its Constitutional responsibilities and obligations off on the Executive Branch. Here we go again.

The Constitution vests the power of the military in Congress, which includes raising troops, funding military actions, and declaring war. The only time, #ConstitutionallySpeaking, the President has control over the military is after a formal declaration of war.

In HJ Resolution 10, Congress is “giving permission” to the President to use military force in Iran. “Giving permission” is a violation of separation of powers and a shirking of responsibility by Congress. Congress must declare war before the President can control the troops, unless it is of immediate and unexpected necessity, and then only for a limited period of time unless Congress declares war.  Giving permission in advance proves there is time to act and no immediate emergency exists.

Why was our Constitution written this way? The People are supposed to be in direct control of the US going to war, not the President. That only happens when Congress does the job the Constitution demands of them. There are reasons why the President is not supposed to have this power, reasons established as truth for over a milinium of history.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution said that Congress must be the body in control of war because history proves that executives will go to war on any occasion.

Fed #69 explains that this separation of power is necessary to prevent the president from becoming a king.

Listen to this podcast on presidential power

The House of Representatives seems dead set on making Kings.

Why would Congress refuse to fulfill their Constitutional responsibilitiesWhy would Congress refuse to fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities? Because it is just too easy to take advantage of an unknowing people and give power to the President that he shouldn’t have so every Congressman can place the blame on someone other than himself.

Wonder why it seems like America is constantly in one military action after another? It is because Congress continues to operate unconstitutionally and the executive is allowed to do what executives ALWAYS do, throught history, go to war.

Those who do not know thier history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Read HJ Resolution 10