The Nail in the EPA’s Coffin

November 27, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Today, the EPA is invading the states and infringing upon the liberties of individual citizens by destroying their private property rights. Our founders would be aghast at such actions by an arm of what is supposed to be our “federal” government.

The Constitution and the federal government were established not by “We the People” of one unified body, but rather by “We the People” of the several states, and as such the “federal” government is to be subject to the sovereignty of the people of those several states (space does not permit an exegesis of the 9th and 10th amendments to show that the usage of the terms “states” and “people” refer to one and the same group, just in different capacities).

The people of the several states agreed between themselves to grant certain and limited powers to the federal government, as was affirmed by James Madison in Federalist #45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Clearly, the people of the several states acting in their sovereign capacity never conferred upon the “federal” government the authority to regulate their private property, especially as exemplified in the tyranny of the EPA. However, the nail in the EPA’s coffin can be found in statements contained within the state constitutions of these original thirteen states. They clearly demonstrate the intent of their citizens as to the exclusivity of their rights when it comes to matters within their respective states. Herewith are just a few examples:

New Hampshire: “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.”

Massachusetts: “The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”

Maryland: “That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”

North Carolina: “The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof,”

One has to ask the “federal” government and its agencies such as the EPA, what parts of ” The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state,” or ” The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof” do they not understand?

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. It is clear from the examples of the state constitutions quoted above as well as Madison’s assertion in the Federalist Papers that the actions of the EPA violate this guarantee and these state constitutions. It destroys the representative form of the states’ governments and seeks to nullify these affirmations contained within their respective constitutions. It is therefore past time that governors and state legislators stand up and reassert their state and federally guaranteed constitutional powers and put the nail in the EPA’s (and its sibling agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Agriculture) coffin once and for all.

-November 27, 2015

Christianity and the Government

November 21, 2015 Frank Kuchar

This past week I have read many comments by Christians saying that our nation must admit the refugees from Syria into our midst as that is our “Christian” obligation. Secularists make the same argument but on purely humanitarian grounds. I will not concern myself with the latter in this essay, but rather address my fellow Christians who hold the former position. I will also address the companion view that we should not be asking our leaders to, in the words of Donald Trump, “Bomb the ‘stuff’ out of ISIS.”

First, I will concede that Scripture teaches us to help the needy, the oppressed and the poor among us. Yet every one of those passages are addressing us as individuals. We are to help those less fortunate “as we have the ability.” We have the example of the Gentile churches in the book of Acts (and as recorded in 1 Corinthians) sending their collective funds to the needy Christians in the Jerusalem church. Having said this, however, it cannot be extended to government, for that is not the purpose and function of government.

Individuals form societies from which governments arise because they need a mutually agreed upon entity to ensure that everyone’s rights are equally protected. For this reason they give over to the government some of their natural rights so that justice and orderliness might prevail. In short, the purpose of our government is to protect our inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, and as is stated in the Preamble to our Constitution, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” For the government to allow into our society those whom we are unable to vet regarding their threat to our inalienable rights is a monumental failure of its prime directive. It is also a failure for it to bring into our republic those who will not assimilate into it and adapt our values, for in so doing the very fabric of our society (and by extension our liberties) will be unraveled.

As for waging unrestricted warfare against these who are sworn to the barbarism we have witnessed over the past two decades, remember that God has throughout history used governments to punish peoples and nations. Paul wrote in the book of Romans that governmental authorities “do not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Also, the Lord through the prophet Isaiah called the godless nation of Assyria the “rod of my anger…against a people who anger Me.” How are we to know whether or not we, the United States, are today the “rod of God’s anger” to destroy the evil being perpetrated against Christians and other innocents by these monsters?

Bottom line, if you wish to contribute to some charitable organization to assist those refugees, such is the “Christian” thing to do; but such is not the purpose of government. Its purpose is to protect us from evildoers and to punish those who seek our destruction. As Vladimir Putin, certainly no Christian, aptly put it in regards to the terrorists: “It’s up to God to forgive them; sending them to Him is up to me.” For once, I agree with Putin; if only we had a president who understood this duty as well.

-November 20, 2015

Freedom, Liberty – What’s the Difference?

November 13, 2015 Frank Kuchar

You say “tAmato”, I say “tOOmato”, what’s the difference? Well a similar question could be raised in our usage of the terms “freedom” and “liberty”. Today we use these two terms virtually interchangeably, and perhaps that is correct as they are synonyms for the same concept.

Perhaps I’m splitting hairs on this, but permit me to suggest that perhaps there is a subtle difference between them. Yes, they both embody the same concept, but how these two terms point up that concept I think are quite the opposite of each other.

Freedom, to me, comes at this concept from a negative position. By this I mean that it is stating that we are “free from” something, i.e. we are no longer under the control or constraints of someone or something. We speak of someone who has beaten cancer or some other terrible disease for a period of time as being “free from” or “free of” that ailment. The term implies that previously you lacked this concept, but now you have it.

On the other hand, liberty approaches the same idea but from a more positive position and one that is dependent upon freedom. Sometimes we use the word in the phrase “to be at liberty”, meaning you are able to do something or go somewhere. Sailors who arrive in port are given “liberty”, indicating they have the right to come and go as they please and do what they please (within reason of course!).

But, you might say, what about that Southwest Airlines’ commercial where they say “You are now free to move about the country”? Isn’t that really a use I’m ascribing to the term “liberty”? Not really. In effect, the message of the commercial is “You are no longer constrained to one geographical location” (i.e. you have been freed) “and you are ‘at liberty'” (i.e., have the ability) “to move wherever you wish.”

Splitting hairs you say? Yes, maybe I am. But here’s my point about our present condition under this government – we are losing our freedom daily, meaning we are once again coming under the bondage of tyranny, and thereby losing our liberty to live life as we please. Liberty, Jefferson said, is an unalienable right, but as we lose our freedom to the tyranny of an unconstitutional government, that right will be withheld from us.

– November 13, 2015

Right Cross to EPA’s Chin

November 6, 2015 Frank Kuchar

You may have heard that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a stay on the implementation of the EPA’s new regulations that, if permitted, would give this fascist agency control over virtually every spot of water in the United States – private ponds, wells, low spots on property that turn into wet areas after a heavy rain, etc. There are some encouraging outcomes from this battle, but some disappointing ones as well.

First, the good thing is common sense finally prevailed and the overreach of this bureaucracy was held at bay (for the moment). The appeals court upheld a previous injunction issued by North Dakota Federal District Judge Ralph Erickson. In his ruling Judge Erickson stated that if the EPA was allowed to have its way, “the states will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters” and that “Immediately upon the rule taking effect, the rule will irreparably diminish the states’ power over their waters.” This power grab by the Obama Administration, he declared, was “exceptionally expansive.”

Second, there are currently ten lawsuits being waged by twenty-nine different states against the EPA over these new rules. We are beginning to see the states finally rise up and fulfill the role the founders envisioned, namely that the states would be the front line defense against federal government intrusion upon the freedom, liberties and property of their citizens. Alexander Hamilton said as much in Federalist 28:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.”

Third, the judiciary finally acted in its role as a check on the powers of the executive branch.

However, there are some failures indicated in this ruling as well.

First, even though the appeals panel did rule correctly, it was a two-one split decision. It should have been a three-zero ruling. So instead, we have one judge who clearly does not understand or care that the EPA is a rogue agency whose regulations and very existence are outside the boundary of the limited, enumerated powers of the government as spelled out in the Constitution.

Second, this was not a reversal of the regulations, but merely a temporary “stay” on their taking effect when they should have been completely stricken down.

Finally, the suits brought by the states are dealing with the symptoms of the problem rather than attacking it at its root, namely the existence and authority of the EPA. That is the crux of the problem and where Congress needs to step in and defund then repeal that part of the Clean Air Act that gave the stamp of approval on Richard NIxon’s executive order that created this Gestapo agency.

-November 6, 2015