Go to the “Store” to purchase a printed copy of Front Line Spring 2021.
To view the entire Spring 2021 Front Line Issue CLICK HERE
Imparting Truth, Inspiring Patriots
Bringing leaders together from across the nation
Make an investment in your freedom and the restoration of our country
Stay informed on education, property rights, environmental issues and more
Every single Democrat in the House of Representatives sponsored H.R. 1 – For the People Act of 2021. This bill will completely shatter America’s confidence in our election process. It oversteps constitutional limits by seeking to curtail the states’ rights in an attempt to federalize election procedures and permanently alter the power balance to favor one political party.
H.R. 1 undermines the First Amendment. H.R. 1 undoes key Supreme Court cases that protect elections as fundamental to free speech. It would allow the Federal Election Commission to track and catalogue more of what Americans are saying, register even very small political donations, and make public those who donate to different charitable and nonprofit organizations. The legislation will subject private citizens to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs, far broader than what was done in the IRS targeting scandal in 2013.
H.R. 1 yanks election authority away from the states. H.R. 1 reasserts the ability of the federal government to micromanage state elections through a process known as “preclearance.” Preclearance, which was previously overturned by the Supreme Court, requires states to get permission from the federal government for changes as small as modifying the hours of an election office or moving a voting location from a school gym to the library. Critically, none of these practices would undo any fraud or corruption. Rather, these same practices result in incorrect registrations and inaccurate voter data, while failing to address actual corrupt practices like ballot harvesting. Moreover, they are all designed to eliminate the federalism that keeps elections transparent, local, and fair.
H.R. 1 attacks individual voter integrity. America was founded on the principle of “one person, one vote.” H.R. 1 turns this on its head by weaponizing every aspect of the political regulatory system. The Federal Election Commission, which is currently a neutral body, would be given a 3-2 makeup, guaranteeing a partisan outcome with little accountability toward the actual votes which are cast. H.R. 1 also includes a 600 percent government match for political donations, and authorizes even more public dollars to campaigns. The bill also wants to make “Election Day” a new paid holiday for government workers, with additional paid vacation given to bureaucrats to oversee the polls. All of these changes are designed to distance the outcome of the election from those casting their votes.
H.R. 1 would implement the following changes:
• Forces states to implement mandatory voter registration, removing civic participation as a voluntary choice, and increasing chances for error.
• Mandates that states allow all felons to vote.
• Forces states to extend periods of early voting,.
• Mandates same-day voter registration, which encourages voter fraud.
• Limits the ability of states to cooperate to see who is registered in multiple states at the same time.
• Prohibits election observers from cooperating with election officials to file formal challenges to suspicious voter registrations.
• Criminalizes protected political speech by making it a crime to “discourage” someone from voting.
• Bars states from making their own laws about voting by mail.
• Prohibits chief election officials in each state from participating in federal election campaigns.
• Mandates free mailing of absentee ballots.
• Mandates that states adopt new redistricting commissions.
• 16 year olds will be allowed to vote while in school (guided by unionized teachers).
• No photo ID will be required.
• Criminalizes an individual if an elected official is told they will be” primaried” if they vote or do not vote for particular bills.
• Criminalization if you ask an individual voting if they are an American citizen.
• Ballot harvesting is allowed.
• States not allowed to clear individuals off their voting roles if they move out of state.
H.R. 1 would cause sweeping and irrevocable damage to the free speech, privacy, and voting integrity that are central components to free and fair elections in America.
The bill has been passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives and is awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Contact your legislators, especially your U.S. Senators, TODAY to express your opinion on this massive piece of legislation.
Your freedom depends on it.
H.R. 5 has quickly come through the U.S. House and was passed on February 18, 2021, by a vote of 224‑206 along party lines (with three Republicans joining Democrats to vote in favor of the legislation). It is now awaiting vote in the U.S. Senate, and they are expected to take up the bill very soon.
The proposed Equality Act of 2021 (H.R. 5) would make mainstream beliefs about marriage, biological facts about sex differences, and many sincerely held beliefs punishable under the law. The Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land by forcing Americans to conform to government-mandated beliefs under the threat of life-ruining financial and criminal penalties. Presented as a bill with common sense and decent protections against discrimination, H.R. 5 is anything but. The Equality Act politicizes medicine and education and demolishes existing civil rights and constitutional freedoms.1
It would prohibit schools, hospitals, “public accommodations,” and in some cases churches from discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; legally oblige those establishments to accommodate transgender persons in accordance with their preferred gender identity; remove a major “conscience protection” for religious workers, including healthcare workers, and thereby indirectly weaken the legal position of religious employers in hiring workers in accordance with their religious ethos; leave religious colleges open to being cut off from federal assistance if they violate Title VI non-discrimination rules, and could indirectly weaken their protection against having their accreditation removed.
Specifically, it would:
• Designate schools, churches, and healthcare organizations as “public accommodations.” With this, schools, churches, and hospitals could be forced to accept the government’s beliefs and mandates about sexual orientation and gender identity. That would be highly intrusive and incredibly far-reaching. It will threaten everyday speech where people can be fined or lose their jobs for using the wrong name or pronouns.
• Legislate that we allow boys in girls’ sports, boys in girls’ locker rooms, men in women’s shelters, and men in women’s prisons. It will force teachers and students to publicly pretend that a biological male is a female. Schools will be encouraged or mandated to instruct young children that they can choose to be a boy or a girl, or neither, or both—making biological sex (and science) a relic of the past.
• Use the force of law across all 50 states to strip Christian and other religious ministries of their right to hire people of shared faith to pursue a shared mission. Can you imagine a Christian organization being forced to hire people hostile to its deeply held beliefs who have no passion for its beliefs, teachings, and mission?
• Strip health professionals of their rights of conscience. It will force doctors and medical professionals who long to do no harm to engage in gender transition treatments such as hormone-blocking, cross-sex hormones or surgery. It is obvious that a Catholic or faith-based hospital should not have to perform gender transition surgeries that go entirely against all they believe.
• Be a tool used by the government to deny or threaten accreditation to religious colleges and universities if they do not satisfy the demands of the secular Left to apply sexual orientation and gender identity to dorms, sports, places of privacy and even teachings. The Act could be used as a weapon to threaten the availability of federal student loans and grants to students at certain disfavored religious schools.2
In their brochure, “The Equality Act: How Could Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Affect You? the Heritage Foundation, offers the following:
Congress should honor the Constitutional freedoms of all Americans to think, work, and live according to their beliefs on marriage and biological sex. SOGI legislation wrongly conflates disagreement on these issues with discrimination. All people should be treated with dignity and respect and powerful market and cultural forces are deterring discrimination against anyone simply because they identify as gay or transgender. State SOGI laws have punished non-conformity to cultural orthodoxy. Federal laws should not exacerbate social conflict by doing the same. Anti-discrimination laws are supposed to be shields from invidious discrimination, not swords to punish non-conformity. Our laws should honor the freedom to hold different beliefs in order to protect true diversity and promote tolerance.3
The bill has been passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives and is awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Contact your legislators, especially your U.S. Senators, TODAY to express your opinion on this piece of legislation.
Contact The Constitutional Coalition, PO Box 37054, St. Louis, MO 63141, for a complete copy of the Spring 2021 Front Line.
1 “11 Myths About H.R. 5, The Equality Act of 2021,” Heritage.Org, https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/11-myths-about-hr-5-the-equality-act-2021, accessed March 12, 2021.
2 Graham, Franklin, “We Cannot Remain Silent!” Samaritan’s Purse, samaritan.org, February 24, 2021, accessed February 24, 2021.
3 “The Equality Act: How Could Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Affect You?,” https://www.heritage.org/gender/heritage-explains/the-equality-act, Heritage.org, 2019_01_0003_SOGIOne-Pager_DIGITAL-cover.pdf, accessed March 12, 2021.
Secretary Baker co-chaired the Commission on Federal Election Reform with President Jimmy Carter. After considering the testimony of many experts and election officials from throughout the nation and across the political spectrum the Carter-Baker commission issued its highly praised report in 2005. The Carter-Baker Commission addressed the “crisis of confidence” many Americans had in our nations’ election system after the 2000 presidential election and the Bush v. Gore litigation. The Carter-Baker Commission made a series of specific recommendations to increase public confidence in American elections.2
The bi-partisan Commission identified five central principles necessary for fair and honest elections.
Among the specific recommendations to combat mail-in vote fraud and voter registration fraud was a prohibition “ballot harvesting.” The Commission recommended “[a]ll states should prohibit a person from handling absentee ballots other than the voter, an acknowledged family member, the U.S. Postal service … or election officials. The practice in some states of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”
Indiana adopted the Carter-Barker Commission’s recommendation and required voters to identify themselves with a photo ID that was provided to all eligible voters for free. Democrat activists and partisan operatives sued to have Indiana’s photo ID law declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court relied heavily upon the Carter-Baker Report in concluding that Indiana was justified in adopting a photo ID law as a means to prevent vote fraud and safeguard voters’ confidence in the election. Crawford v. Marion County Elec. Bd. 553 U.S. 181 (2008). The Supreme Court wrote, “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.” Following Crawford the federal Courts of Appeal have upheld similar photo ID laws and protections against vote fraud. Lee v. Virginia, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir, 2016) is an example. Hillary Clinton’s attorney Marc Ellis unsuccessfully tried to overturn Virginia’s voter ID law in the 2016 presidential election. Relying upon the Carter-Baker report and the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford, the Fourth Circuit unanimously upheld Virginia’s voter ID law.
In the 2020 presidential election, a calculated strategy was mounted to rig the election by changing the rules for the conduct of the election. Democrats bragged about this coordinated assault on our election process in a recent Times magazine article. A centerpiece of this effort was changing the rules governing the conduct of the election with lawsuits filed before friendly judges and state and local election officials changing the rules under the pretext of the COVID‑19 virus. Excluding observers from monitoring the conduct of the election, mailing out a massive number of ballots that could not be verified, and ballot harvesting by political operatives were only some of the tactics that undermined public confidence in the outcome. The federal and state constitution provide that the state legislatures are to establish the laws governing the conduct of elections. These election laws cannot be rewritten by judges or executive branch officials. Furthermore, arbitrarily changing election rules to favor only certain partisan precincts such as the Democrat Wayne County in Michigan violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection as explained by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
The Democrat House has now passed H.R. 1 which is a highly-partisan election bill that (if passed by the Senate) would institutionalize what the Democrats sought to do with litigation and arbitrary orders by state and local election officials during the 2020 election. H.R. 1 is the antithesis of the bipartisan Carter-Barker Commission’s recommendations. H.R. 1 would, among its other evils, eliminate voter ID, prevent the states from removing dead and fraudulent names from the voter registration rolls, require mail-in voting and allow ballot harvesting. These and the other provisions of H.R. 1 promote election fraud, would allow future elections to be rigged and destroy any basis for Americans’ confidence in the outcome of our elections. The constitutional infirmities of H.R. 1 are legion, and it will hopefully not pass the Senate.
1 Thor Hearne is the eldest son of Donna Hearne. Thor was President George W. Bush’s national election counsel in 2004, served as legal counsel to Secretary of State Baker on the Carter-Baker Commission, represented the leadership of the House and Senate in the Supreme Court in Crawford, successfully represented the Commonwealth of Virginia defending the state’s voter ID law in Lee v. Virginia and represented President Donald J. Trump and Michigan voters in election litigation during the 2020 presidential election.
2 “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” Center for Democracy and Election Manage-ment, September 2005, https://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/election_reform_report.pdf, accessed March 14, 2021.
Everyday, evil and malicious, powerful “enemy soldiers” are creeping up behind normal, God-fearing, law-abiding Americans and slapping duct tape over their mouths preventing Americans from speaking the truth. Literally and figuratively. Have YOU been one of their victims?
Have you caught yourself “self-censoring” your political/religious speech when around others? Afraid you would be accused of “hate-speech?” Think your conservative Judeo-Christian worldview might be “hate speech?” Not really sure what “hate speech” is? Feel it’s better to be safe? Concerned that all you write on the Internet or text could be considered by someone to be offensive or even hateful? If you have, welcome to the world of George Orwell’s 1984.
Today, somewhere in a public school classroom, five and six-year-old kindergarten children are being recruited by Planned Parenthood’s comprehensive sex education curriculum into a lifestyle glamorizing sex, which for some, ultimately results in castration and sterilization. It begins with being read the book called, Who Are You? A Kid’s Guide to Gender Identity by Brook Pessin-Whedbee.”1
Teens as young as 15 in Oregon2 (and potentially other states) are receiving hormone blocking drugs and even surgery to change their gender without parent’s knowledge, leading to the child losing their ability to bear/father children, even if later the grown child wants to reverse the sex change. Adults, including doctors, are using the “affirmative care” approach that lets the child chart his future instead of allowing wise adults to provide sound science that says,
Speaking the truth about the movement to sterilize some of the future generations through chemicals and surgery, abort babies of deluded young girls, and the crusade to shut down all discussion that is not approved by the progressives requires doing something else. It also means educating, supporting and promoting the historic nuclear family of a biological mother and father.
Twenty-first century America not only has accepted the muzzling of truth, but also has been sold a lifestyle that, if continued unabated, is guaranteed to end America’s freedom and opportunity as set out by our Founding Fathers. Sexual licentiousness puts self-pleasure before historic understandings of the critical and moral role that the nuclear family plays in maintaining and perpetrating a free and prosperous civilization.
Speaking the truth about the progressives’ efforts to remake America into a totalitarian god-less state, where men decide what truth means and become the enforcers of it, is necessary in order to awaken America. Yet so far, Americans seem clueless as to how to do that.
Does it make a difference what underlies progressive thought? Christian and Jewish thought? Does it make a difference if public schools and libraries subject small children to drag queen-story hour, or if media and tech companies censor information on the Web? What does the progressive plan mean to YOUR future freedoms, your natural rights, and your ability to live your life your own way? What hopeful ideas MUST we start speaking out about? How will traditional America survive?
Will enough Missourians turn out to make a positive difference in the election on November 6, 2018? Do enough Missourians still care about issues of drug use, taxation, and education to make a difference during a mid-term election cycle? Will emotions, stirred up by a biased and selective media succeed in electing their favored candidates?
Elections DO have consequences and the most dangerous voter is always an uninformed voter. How we cast our ballot can effect the circumstances of crime running rampant, churches being silenced, children being recruited into sexual slavery in their schools, families suffering under oppressive taxes and mandates, and having jobs or not having jobs. How much we spend at the gas pumps and what our children learn in school, bring public policy home. These are not just questions of price and curriculum. They are decisions of morality and values: what we believe and why we believe it.
Missourians already made a significant choice this summer in the August primary, when voters chose to reject the legislature and the executive decision in 2017, which would have made Missouri a Right-to-Work State. How this decision impacts the state’s economy and employment over the next decade will be watched closely by both sides in this debate.
Space limits our coverage of ballot issues and state candidates, but we have provided a starting place and great resources for our readers to follow up on the rest of the local races and issues. We encourage you to use this information as a starting point to inform yourselves and others on the issues and candidates so you can make a wise and informed decision. In an attempt to give a sense of the candidates’ positions and qualifications, we have chosen to highlight information from independent sources, especially their endorsements and their supporters. Be sure to go to the candidates’ own websites to see what they have to say. Some of this information can be found on ballotpedia.org and votesmart.org. For some candidates, we could only provide their websites for further information.
Every effort has been made to be fair and impartial in our presentation of candidates, as we do not and will not endorse any particular person or party. We are, however, focused on issues of faith, the economy and free market system, and education, which impact the family and the culture. Our focus and guide, therefore, in selecting information is based on the Constitution and the Author of Divine Providence on whose principles that document was created. With that in mind, please use this information as a guide and then use the available resources to further inform your own judgment and decisions.
Update Prop A: Right to Work: In 2017, the Missouri legislature passed Senate Bill 19 (Right-to-Work), which was then signed, into law by the governor. The law was intended to prohibit as a condition of employment the forced membership in a labor organization (union) or forced payments of dues. Before the law could take effect, the opponents of worker choice gathered thousands of signatures in order to put the new law up for popular vote in the 2018 election cycle. On August 7,2018, union labor and union money that poured into the state to oppose the law were able to flex their muscle and overturn Missouri’s decision to join the ranks of Right-to-Work states across the nation. The new law would have protected Missouri workers and their families from being forced or coerced to join a labor union as a condition of employment. The “no” vote in August means that Senate Bill 19 will not become law, and Missouri remains a forced union state. The extent to which preventing worker freedom by labor unions will harm Missouri workers and impact the State’s economy is yet to be seen.
Amendment 1: Redistricting, Ethics