When Rule of Law Vanishes

October 21, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Law, in a free society, is nothing more than the rules by which the citizens of a society have agreed (either democratically or through representation in a republican form of government) to live by so as to respect and preserve the inalienable rights of all citizens. In order for law to achieve this goal it must be applied equally and fairly to all citizens regardless of status or position within the society. If the rule of law ever fails in a society, then it will no longer be civil as it will ultimately descend into anarchy and then tyranny.

What we are witnessing in our country as revealed in the leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC and other government agencies such as the FBI, is the utter contempt for the rule of law. From these emails we are learning that those individuals in these groups believe and act as though laws regarding their conduct in elections and government functions do not apply to them. As a result many in our society now have even less confidence in and therefore less feeling of affection and loyalty to the government. When this happens then more and more citizens will develop a lack of respect and adherence to the rule of law, and societal structures will begin to crumble.

Our founders emphasized the importance of the people having confidence in their government and their representatives in order to maintain a representative government based upon free principles. William Findley, an Anti-Federalist from Pennsylvania who was later the first Representative to be given the title “Father of the House” due to his long service in Congress, wrote “…for as a republican government rests on the people’s confidence, whatever weakens that confidence saps the foundations of the government.”

A final point that we are learning in these emails is just as alarming, namely that our media is, as many have suspected, not fulfilling its role as a check against government abuses and violation of law. The founders emphasized how critical it was in a free society that the press be the people’s watchdog in order for freedom and liberties to flourish.

The guarantee of the freedom of the press in our first amendment means free from government control and censorship. Whenever a free press coludges with the government or certain ones in power, then it ceases to be a free press and instead becomes a propagandist arm of the government which is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes and not that of a free country.

Justice is not served when those in government and powerful positions are not held accountable to the rule of law as other citizens would be. When the people’s designated watchdog turns on them, then all confidence in it and the government withers away. When that process runs its course then the question becomes, will people rise up and revolt to reassert their rights or will they meekly submit the the darkness of despair and tyranny. As King Solomon succinctly stated in the book of Proverbs, “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.” Far too many of our leaders and leader-want-to-bes should take that nugget of wisdom to heart.

-October 21, 2016

Loss of Property Rights…

September 30, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Equivocates into the beginning of the loss of all rights and liberties. The right to property (be it money, land, intellectual property, etc) is the foundation of individual liberty. I have made this point in times past by quoting the 17th century political philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:

“…every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property…For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to…”

This fact was not a new concept to Locke; it is a concept as old as mankind’s earliest civilizations. Every civilization from that of the ancient Sumerians to our time have held individual property to be sacrosanct. That this is an inalienable right, i.e., one granted by our Creator and not bestowed upon us by man, is upheld by the fact that God included it in one of the ten commandments – “Thou shalt not steal.” It is so important that this principle was incorporated in not just one amendment to our Constitution, but in four – the third, fourth, fifth and fourteenth!

When there is a loss of private property, depending upon the cause and scope, a number of situations may unfold, none of which are good. A thief who attempts to steal someone’s property may be shot in the attempt, or if successful, cause the victims to feel violated. When a group of individuals destroy the property of their fellow citizens, it creates a maelstrom exhibited in anarchy, such as we’ve recently witnessed in several of our cities this year. Or it may be in the form of tyranny and oppression when government confiscates the property of its citizens through taxation, be it income or forfeiture due to the failure to pay property taxes.

Unfortunately, such is not new to America, or to mankind. For example, we celebrate the “Boston Tea Party”, yet it was not any different than the looting we witnessed in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte. It was the willful, wanton and unlawful destruction of another’s property over the frustration of what was felt to be an injustice.

Our war for independence was begun over the attempt of the government to seize private property. On April 19, 1775 British soldiers set out from Boston en route to Concord to seize a cache of munitions that were stored there. The American militiamen, upon hearing of their approach, assembled in Lexington Commons to oppose them. It was there that the “shot heard ’round the world” was fired and our fight for independence and freedom was launched.

So what’s the point of all this? If we are to remain a civil society, then it must begin with a firmness to instill respect in the heart of every citizen this respect for each other and one another’s property. We must demand that the government respect our property rights as well. Without it, we will continue to slowly disintegrate as a society and a country. The key to achieving this can be found in another of the ten commandments: “Thou shalt not covet…” We shun the wisdom and commands of God to our peril; but, it’s not too late to turn back to this foundation of life and liberty.

-September 30, 2016

There He Goes Again…

September 23, 2016 Frank Kuchar

If President Reagan were with us today he might well make use of this line he made famous in his presidential election debates with President Jimmy Carter, but this time in reference to President Obama.

A couple of weeks ago I commented on President Obama’s unconstitutional use of executive power to “federalize” 400,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean, declaring it off limits to commercial fishing and mineral exploration (Federal Overreach into State Territory). He is now threatening to declare off-limits to commercial fishing (and “other activities” – think drilling for oil/gas) in large portions of the 200-mile continental shelf off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of our country, all with the flourish of his mighty pen. In both instances there were/are no hearings, no legislative debates and no representation of the people; just a tyrant and his minions wielding their power to force their environmental agenda down the throats of our citizenry.

The consequence of this will be to put many fishermen and those industries dependent upon their fishing success either out of business or severely restricted. This will in turn negatively impact the communities that have for centuries built their economy around the fishing industry. Those who press on to continue their business will have to venture further out into the ocean to hopefully continue providing us with fish entrees. Of course, those entrees will now cost consumers more as well, but all of this is of little concern to Obama and his henchmen.

I realize that these leftists will claim they have the authority to make such sweeping grabs of land and ocean, based upon the 1906 American Antiquities Act, signed by Teddy Roosevelt (no friend of the Constitution or limited government). This Act grants the president the power to designate land (and now oceans) by simple degree “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.” However, this Act is wholly unconstitutional and should be declared as such for no authority of this magnitude is granted to the president in the US Constitution.

Behind closed doors President Obama is working with the leaders of many other countries to do likewise with their coasts and to designate up to 2.3 million (yes, you read that right) square miles of ocean as protected areas for natural parks for fish and other marine life! You just can’t make this stuff up. And we wonder why we see our property rights – the foundation of individual liberty – being eroded away?

Unheralded stories like these are why our upcoming election is so vital to turning back this tyrannical onslaught upon our liberties, our Constitution, and our “American way of life.” The prospect of putting an end to such atrocities will vanish as a vapor should Hillary Clinton become our next president. In that event America, as most of us knew her, along with our freedom, will be no more.

-September 23, 2016

Who has Constitutional “Rights”?

September 9, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In the debate over immigration, those advocating for open borders and legalization of those who enter our country illegally are often heard to assert that these individuals have “constitutional rights”, but do they? To answer this question we must return to the understanding of exactly what a constitution is and why they are created.

A constitution is a compact – a contract if you will – between members of a society in which they agree with one another as to what authority they will cede to a government that will rule over them in order that society might be orderly, and the rights and property of the citizens be protected.

However, not all constitutions are of this exact nature; it all depends upon who drafts the constitution for the society. For example, the old Soviet Union had a constitution, but it was created by those in power to secure their power over their citizens, not for the benefit of the people.

Our constitution is different. All you need do is read the opening words of the Preamble – “We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In our constitution we see the definition of a constitution that I stated above. We – the citizens of the United States – agreed (and each generation continues to agree amongst ourselves) that the powers contained within the Constitution are those, and only those, which the government may exercise over us, and all those not granted to it reserved, ultimately, to us, the people (Amendments IX and X). Within the first eight amendments certain of our rights are enumerated and guaranteed to be protected from government encroachment.

However, again, to whom are these guarantees given? Remember, these are part of a contract that “We the People” made and continue to agree to as belonging to us, American citizens. Those who come to our country illegally have never entered into this agreement; they are not part of our society, though they live among our society. They have no allegiance to our principles of government and society, and have not assimilated into our culture, learned our language (English), nor come to an understanding and appreciation for our history and the sacrifices of those before who made our country the greatest on earth.

This being the case, therefore, they do not have “constitutional rights” or guarantees as they have not become a part of “us” who agreed to continue that contract established over 200 years ago. They have inalienable rights granted to them by our Creator, but constitutional rights, no. You see, rights are those things that no one has the authority to give or take; they come from our Creator. A constitution cannot grant rights, only protect or restrict them as agreed to by those who created and perpetuate it, and illegal aliens living among us are not of us nor parties to our contract known as our Constitution.

-September 9, 2016

Federal Overreach into State Territory

September 2, 2016September 2, 2016 Frank Kuchar

On August 26, 2016, President Obama created the largest ocean reserve in the world off the Hawaiian Islands. He did this without the consent of Congress, but simply with the flourish of his signature on a presidential proclamation. His proclamation expanded the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument by over 400,000 square miles (that’s right, miles), increasing the total size of the preserve to 582,578 square miles! This means that this region is now off-limits to commercial fishermen and mineral exploration, which will, in a statement released by the White House, “allow scientists to monitor and explore the impacts of climate change on these fragile ecosystems.”

This action will adversely affect those whose livelihood depends upon fishing or exploring that part of the ocean as well as prices for their products, all in the name of the bogus concept of “climate change”. Furthermore, American citizens who violate this “protection” will be subject to prosecution; but how will this be enforced against foreign fishermen and companies? 582,578 square miles of ocean is a lot of ocean to “rope off!”

The bigger question, though, is does the general government have the constitutional power to make such a land grab (or in this case, ocean grab)? The answer would be a definite ‘NO’! I realize the argument is made utilizing the “Property Clause” in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to do as it wishes with federal territory:

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

However, this does not address the issue as to whether or not the federal government has the right to this property in the first place. Turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own” we see that it strictly limits the kinds of property it may constitutionally acquire. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen.

Nowhere in those enumerated properties will you find national parks, preserves, etc authorized. So for President Obama to annex such a huge swath of ocean to the control of the general government is an act outside the bounds of his constitutional authority. As former Hawaiian governor George Ariyoshi (a Democrat by the way) stated in July at a rally regarding ownership of the ocean, “The ocean belongs to us. We ought to be the ones who decide what kind of use to make of the ocean” – a statement echoing the words of the ninth and tenth amendments:

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

So remember – if a president or group of legislators can with the stroke of a pen or passage of a piece of legislation seize control of 400,000 square miles of ocean that it has no constitutional right to, what can they do regarding your and my property? This is precisely why we have a constitution to limit the power of government; it’s time we returned to it.

-September 2, 2016

This Land’s NOT Your Land, This Land’s NOT My Land…

August 31, 2016August 31, 2016 Frank Kuchar

I remember singing “This land is your land, this land is my land” in elementary music classes, but my how the sentiment has changed from “is” to “not”! We have witnessed some startling developments as related to our Constitutional rights this past week in the confrontation between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Federal Department of the Bureau of Land Management. You can read the news stories and blog essays about what happened there but I want to take a few paragraphs to delve below the surface of these events.

(As an aside, in the standoff between armed citizens and those armed members of this government agency, we have witnessed the precise reason why we have the second amendment right to bear arms – to resist the tyrannical overreach of the central government as well as the further trampling upon our Constitutional right of free speech when these government agents limited such speech to only certain restricted areas.)

There are some basic Constitutionally-related issues that need to be addressed. First, who controls the land that is in dispute, and the corollary to it, who should control that land, Nevada or Washington DC? Second, should any government entity control the land to begin with? Third, if the land is “owned” by the state of Nevada, under what Constitutional authority does the federal government have in interfering with how the land is used?

Let us begin by turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own”. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen. Further, Article IV, Section 3 states that Congress shall have the power to either dispose of its territory or property as well as “make all needful Rules and Regulations” regarding said territory.

The general government owns approximately 85% of the state of Nevada, which pretty much destroys any notion of state sovereignty as far as the citizens of Nevada are concerned. There is a dispute in this case as to whether or not the grazing range used by Mr. Bundy is federal or, as he alleges, land properly belonging to Nevada. It appears that the property is technically federal land. So the question is, does the property in Nevada at the heart of the dispute fall into any of those seven categories of property listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and if not, then even though Nevada may have at some point ceded the land to the general government, such would be an unconstitutional exchange. The federal government has no business being in possession of that land. It should belong to the citizens of Nevada to either sell to private individuals/companies or lease to ranchers such as Mr. Bundy.

Therefore, since the “federal” government has no constitutional right to own that land, the land should revert back to the state of Nevada, and as Nevada is a sovereign entity, the “federal” government has no right to interfere in how the land is used. This is why I advocate for the return of all lands and property currently owned by the general government that do not fall within those above listed categories of the Constitution back to the states wherein such property is located.

-April 23, 2014

America’s Greatness – Past, Present or Future?

August 12, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In this election cycle, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan has been “Make America Great Again” – an implication which portrays an America that was great but is no longer. Countering that, Hillary Clinton has proclaimed that “America is Great”, meaning there has been no loss of America’s “greatness”.

So the question posed to voters in this upcoming election is, “Who’s vision of America is accurate?” The answer lies in the follow up question, “What do you mean by ‘greatness’?” To resolve this issue, all we need do is examine our present condition and ask if that condition fits how you would define “greatness.”

In approaching this matter I was drawn back to the Roman Empire, which by all accounts possessed “greatness.” What were some of the things that Rome was noted for that amounted to its “greatness”? There was the Pax Romana, paved stone roads that linked all parts of the empire together, a common language for government (Latin), emphasis on architectural achievements and engineering feats, literature and the advancement of the sciences, a strong army and navy, a high price placed upon citizenship and much more. In looking at our past, we could say that America also possessed these same qualities as well; the debate is whether or not we still do.

If you believe that a government should give you cradle-to-grave care at the expense of the whole of society, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe that leaders are exempt from the same judgment under the law that other citizens would be, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe that the government should set the educational standards and water them down so that all students “pass” whether or not they learn the material, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe we should not project a strong military presence on the world stage so that the other nations will “like” us better, then you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe we should not insist that those who come to our shores learn our historical tongue and assimilate into becoming “American”, but instead maintain the language of and allegiance to their mother country instead of America, you might think we are presently “great.” If you believe the loss of individual freedom and liberties to an ever-growing centralized government is a good pathway, then you might think we are presently “great.”

On the other hand, if you believe that we have ceased to be a land where all are equal under the law and that the powerful and influential should not be given special treatment, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” If you believe that we have lost our competitive edge in science and technology and must import skilled and knowledgeable people from other countries because our educational system has become a dismal failure, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” If you believe that the reduction of our military to a mere shadow of what it was when America was respected by its allies and feared by its enemies, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” If you believe our open border and non-assimilation policies have destroyed what it means to “be American”, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.” And if you believe that our individual freedom and liberties are being stripped from us so that we can no longer live a life of self-determination, then you might think America needs to be made “great again.”

There’s many more of these “Jeff Foxworthy” type of questions we could play, but I think these sum up the two pictures well enough. I happen to believe America falls into that second category, and so the obvious follow up is, “Who made America great to begin with, and how do we get back to that position of greatness?” I’ll broach this topic in a follow up essay.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

July 15, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Aretha Franklin had a hit in the 60s’ in which she called for her significant other to give her a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. A community and a country that is bound together in peace and harmony is what we term a “civil society.” However, in order to be civil a society must be driven by R-E-S-P-E-C-T, for when this trait is absent from its citizens, civility breaks down and anarchy reigns. Such is precisely what we are witnessing in our society today, especially within just the last two weeks with the war being waged against police departments across our land.

A civil society is one that is based upon the rule of law. In our society this is not just any law, but laws that comport to the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator and are in made in pursuance to the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). However, when there is no respect for laws that meet these two criteria, we reap the lawlessness running rampart in our streets. Such is why we have “loaned” the government the power to police those who, by their lack of respect for law, threaten the inalienable rights of the rest of society. A lack of respect for law reveals itself in a lack of respect for the inalienable rights of others to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. This is precisely what unfolded in Dallas, Texas last week.

The question, then, is what causes this loss of respect for law and the rights of others? Those who are acting so wantonly will point to alleged injustices they feel they have experienced, and in some cases there may be grounds for such allegations. However, in the first amendment to our Constitution it guarantees us the proper avenue to address such injustices. Citizens have the guaranteed right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is our representatives in Congress whom we elect that are to serve as the conduit for these grievances, and if they fail to respond, to replace them with others who will. Such was the approach of Martin Luther King, Jr in his peaceful approach to securing civil rights for all Americans in the 1960s’.

Going one step further, though, if an individual does not respect himself, then he is incapable of respecting any laws, be they man’s or God’s, nor other fellow members of the society. Over the past fifty years, thanks to LBJ’s so-called “Great Society” initiatives, government put in motion programs that have robbed citizens of their self-respect and today we are reaping their bitter fruit.

Perhaps those who are part of the BLM movement should, instead of filling their minds with the vile garbage of so many of the modern-day rap singers, go back to another hit of the 60s’ by the Staple Singers – “Respect Yourself”:

You disrespect anybody

That you run in to

How in the world do you think

Anybody’s s’posed to respect you

If you don’t give a heck ’bout the man

With the Bible in his hand

Just get out the way

And let the gentle man do his thing

You the kind of gentleman

That want everything your way

Take the sheet off your face, boy

It’s a brand new day

Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you don’t respect yourself

Ain’t nobody gonna give a good cahoot, na na na na

Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you’re walking ’round

Think’n that the world

Owes you something

‘Cause you’re here

You goin’ out

The world backwards

Like you did

When you first come here

Keep talkin’ ’bout the president

Won’t stop evolution

Put your hand on your mouth

When you cough, that’ll help the solution

Oh, you cuss around women

And you don’t even know their names

And you dumb enough to think

That’ll make you a big ol man

Respect yourself, respect yourself

If you don’t respect yourself

Ain’t nobody gonna give a good cahoot, na na na na

Yep, these lyrics from almost 50 years ago pretty much sums up what’s wrong in society today.

-July 15, 2016

The Flip Side to Church/State

July 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Today, at every turn we hear the wail that any expression of Christian/Jewish religious belief in connection with any public event or on public property is a violation of the constitutional principle of “the separation of church and state.” However, this is not a constitutional principle; it is based upon a misapplication of the phrase lifted from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists who had written him of their concerns about the state establishing one particular Christian denomination over all others.

Second, the first amendment is applicable only to the federal government, not to the state governments, and it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” For over 150 years, every time a challenge was made on any religious issue based upon Jefferson’s phrase, the courts struck it down as not being what the founders intended. As far back as 1853, a group petitioned Congress to forbid the presence of chaplains in the military and elsewhere, using this argument. After a year of deliberation by both the House and Senate judiciary committees, the House issued the following statement:

“Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]….

It wasn’t until the case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority on the Supreme Court applied this phrase as it is currently misused.

There is a lawsuit being brought in Iowa by a church against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission which, in a brochure it published, states that any church which opens its doors to the public for any reason – worship or otherwise – must comply with sexual orientation and gender laws. This includes the recent issue regarding transgenders and restrooms. Hiram Sasser, the director of litigation of the firm representing the church in this suit stated “It [the commission’s regulations] further compels our client to use specific pronouns when referring to certain ‘gender identities’ and prohibits our client from even teaching its religious beliefs.”

So here’s the flip side of the “separation of church and state” coin for you liberals. If the church cannot inject itself into the public arena because there is a so-called “wall” between them, then that wall works both ways – the government has no right to inject itself into the beliefs of the church. Liberals are quick to seize on idea of an establishment of religion (erroneously, I might add), but they are blind to the second part of the phrase, namely that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the government regulates matters relating to the practicing of the beliefs of a church or of individuals, then it is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and is in violation of this principle. Of course, this is applicable only at the federal level, not the state, but what is happening in Iowa will most likely soon become the rule at the federal level as well, and then we will have a constitutional issue at stake.

-July 8, 2016

Proclaiming Liberty versus Attaining Liberty

July 1, 2016 Frank Kuchar

This Monday, July 4, we will celebrate the signing of our country’s Declaration of Independence in 1776, which proclaimed America’s right to liberty from Great Britain. However, our forefathers learned that it is one thing to proclaim liberty, but quite another to attain it. It would be a long, hard six years before that proclamation would become a reality.

As we gather in backyards, parks and other places to enjoy barbeque, cool drinks and sweet deserts, I want to remind us all of what it took to give us cause to celebrate. In December of 1777, General George Washington moved his 12,000 man army to winter encampment at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. That winter was to prove to be one of the harshest on record and one which caused the deaths of 2,500 men of the beleaguered army. On February 16, 1778, Washington wrote the following to Governor George Clinton from the harsh encampment of Valley Forge:

“Dear Sir: It is with great reluctance, I trouble you on a subject, which does not fall within your province; but it is a subject that occasions me more distress, than I have felt, since the commencement of the war; and which loudly demands the most zealous exertions of every person of weight and authority, who is interested in the success of our affairs. I mean the present dreadful situation of the army for want of provisions, and the miserable prospects before us, with respect to futurity. It is more alarming than you will probably conceive, for, to form a just idea, it were necessary to be on the spot. For some days past, there has been little less, than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere this excited by their sufferings, to a general mutiny or dispersion. Strong symptoms, however, discontent have appeared in particular instances; and nothing but the most active efforts every where can long avert so shocking a catastrophe.

Our present sufferings are not all. There is no foundation laid for any adequate relief hereafter.”

A few weeks later, still suffering from lack of food and clothing, he penned the following words in his General Orders issued on March 1:

“Contingencies of weather and other temporary impediments have subjected and may again subject us to a deficiency for a few days,1 but soldiers! American soldiers! will despise the meaness of repining at such trifling strokes of Adversity, trifling indeed when compared to the transcendent Prize which will undoubtedly crown their Patience and Perseverence, Glory and Freedom, Peace and Plenty to themselves and the Community; The Admiration of the World, the Love of their Country and the Gratitude of Posterity!”[emphasis added]

So, as you enjoy the plentiful bounty afforded us in America and revel in watching the firework displays along with stirring, patriotic music, pause and reflect upon the sacrifices of those brave men in the freezing cold for whom we, their posterity, owe an immeasurable amount of gratitude. On this July 4th, may we all resolve to not let their suffering be in vain but determine to reclaim the liberty being wrested from us by our own government.

-July 1, 2016