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.

United States of America?

July 31, 2016 Frank Kuchar

These past two weeks we have heard much on the topic of “unity” as the two major political parties strove to convince their delegates on the need for them to be “united.” In the Republican convention they went further and stressed the need to “make America one again” as the theme of one of their evenings.

It is unfortunate that such an emphasis should be deemed necessary, but today we are indeed in dire need of being “one” again. We as a country are more divided than any time in my lifetime since the 1960s’. I could never have imagined Americans reverting back to the horrendous divisiveness of that decade, and yet we have. However, as one studies our history unity has always been rather tenuous, from the debates over how to form a “United States” to a war between the states through the turbulent decades of social unrest and change of the last century.

Unity is achieved when individuals or groups join together based upon a commonality. In the case of our political parties, that common ground appears to be the defeat of the opposing party. Yet for true unity to be realized, that common bond must be of a positive nature. So we are led to ask, “What common force brought together those original thirteen diverse colonies who often had more things at odds with each other than not?” The answer can be found in the speeches and writings of our founders, culminating in the words of our Declaration of Independence – Liberty! It is (or was) the same common ground that drew so many to our shores over the past two centuries, as echoed in the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Yet today, is this the common thread among us? It strikes me that there is more of a desire to fracture ourselves into different groups and to obtain benefits for our group at the expense of the others and that we are being flooded with people from other countries who desire the freebies available to them and not to become united as part of the American fabric. Unity and freedom will never be achieved from such seeds. Only when we acknowledge that to achieve true individual freedom we must come together based upon common grounds will freedom and unity be realized.

In this conclusion to Part I of his exposition of his insights into the United States of the 1830s’, Alexis de Tocqueville opined:

“If this process of assimilation draws foreign peoples closer together, it is all the more true that the branches of the same people cannot stay strangers to each other.

Therefore, a time will come when we shall be able to see in North America one hundred and fifty million people all equal to one another, all belonging to the same family, sharing the same beginnings, the same civilization, the same language, the same religion, the same ways, the same customs and among whom thought will circulate in similar forms, depicted in the same colors. All else is uncertain but this is certain.”

Or, as he could have said, E Pluribus Unum: “Out of many, one.” Hopefully, when this election season is over we can once again be united as one.

-July 29, 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

The Devaluation of Citizenship

June 23, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Today there is much talk about countries devaluing their currencies in an attempt to make their exports cheaper and thereby boost their economies. Here in our country we have another serious devaluation going on, that of citizenship.

Citizenship does not entail “rights” properly understood. Rights are those things which every individual possesses by virtue of being a part of the human race as they come, as Jefferson stated, from our Creator and are therefore inalienable. Government, therefore, can neither grant nor take away rights (although tyrannical governments can and do restrict them).

Citizenship is an honor that governments bestow upon those individuals who meet the requirements that the civil society has set forth. Civil societies, according to John Locke, are formed when individuals band together and agree to defer some of their natural rights to the group (i.e., government) so that they may exist in an orderly and peaceful fashion.

Becoming a citizen, then, carries with it certain privileges and responsibilities. Some responsibilities, for example, fall upon both citizen and non-citizen alike. For example, paying taxes to the government is a responsibility of both classes of individuals within a society as both groups benefit from the actions of government (protection from invasion, personal injury, etc). However, privileges are those things reserved for citizens alone.

As we approach the upcoming pivotal election this fall it is important to bear in mind that one such privilege is that of voting. Contrary to what many may believe, there is no such thing as “the right to vote” because voting is an act granted by government, not by our Creator. Therefore, voting is a privilege that comes with the honor of citizenship and if one has not met the stipulations for earning citizenship they have no claim on being allowed to vote.

In a free society, voting is the means by which those who have banded together to form that civil society determine how they, as a society, wish to be governed. Those who are not yet citizens have no allegiance to the group and are, in effect, loyal only to themselves. Consequently they should have no say in how those who do should be governed or to what they should be obligated. Such is the reason why it is critical that the integrity of the vote be upheld and that proof of citizenship be mandated for those who go to the polls to cast their ballots.

However, those on the left have completely misunderstood this basic concept of the nature of citizenship and are pushing for open elections – i.e., granting all inhabitants within the boundaries of our land this privilege. California has recently passed legislation that will permit illegals (non-citizens) access to the voting booth. Such action devalues citizenship, for if this privilege is not restrictive, then of what use is citizenship? If citizenship is not something to be valued and held to be a distinctive identifier of those within a country, then how can a civil society be maintained? The answer is there is no value and civil society will eventually splinter into sundry parts, each vying for their own special benefits rather than the good of all society. In such a circumstance America (or any country) will cease to be a country.

Finally, voting is one of the privileges of citizenship that also falls into the realm of responsibility. If citizens fail to live up to this responsibility, then eventually the time will come when this failure will result in a government that deems such privileges are no longer to be granted, and all of society falls under the dark cloud of tyranny where our Creator-granted rights are restricted.

– June 24, 2016

Study Guide/Handbook on the US Constitution

June 18, 2016 Frank Kuchar

At the bottom of this newsletter you will see the cover to a new book, “The Handbook for We The People: A Primer on Strict Construction of the Constitution”. Originally, the book was written with the intent to serve as a study guide to the fundamentals of our Constitution and the principles of the government it created for high school students, but it is an excellent tool for anyone who would like to have an understanding of the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.

The author, a good friend of mine, used several sources in putting this guide together. The principles covered were based upon the writings of a retired attorney who is a devoted student and lecturer on the Constitution who writes under the pseudonym “Publius Huldah” (whom some of you may be acquainted with) along with writings of the founders including the Federalist Papers and Webster’s 1828 Dictionary which gives the meanings of the words as understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

The book is an easy read and contains seven chapters. The first chapter covers the basics of the principles behind the Constitution such as a brief description of Federalism, republican government, etc. The next three chapters cover in brief the enumerated powers of each of the three branches of government and touches on topics that are much in the news today such as the major clauses of governmental power (Welfare, Commerce, Necessary and Proper) and how they were intended to be understood by the founders.

Chapter six builds upon the principle of federalism and republicanism and delves into the topic of nullification – a tool, as explained in the chapter, the founders put in place for the states to use in keeping the federal government within its constitutional boundaries. Chapter seven focuses on the issue hotly debated today in regards to the relationship between religion and the state. The final chapter covers the concept of making amendments to the Constitution, including a brief look at the idea of what some are calling an “Article V Convention of the States”.

At the end of each chapter there is a list of questions and assignments to encourage the reader to delve deeper into the subject matter presented in the chapter. In the appendix is a list of references such as the text of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and a glossary of terms that are critical to understanding the original intent of our founders.

The prophet Hosea of ancient Israel, speaking for the Lord, declared “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” It is the intent of this book to help our youth, citizens, and yes, even government officials at all levels, gain a basic knowledge so as to keep our republic from being destroyed. I highly recommend the book and would encourage anyone interested to look into it and use it for your children, grandchildren as well as any teachers and government officials you can convince to read it.

As a disclaimer, I did help in the early proofing of the book and making suggestions regarding the chapter questions; yet I have no financial interest at stake in the proceeds of the sales. My only concern is to get an excellent primer into the hands of those who wish to gain a firm grasp of the original intent of our Constitution.

Handbook for We the People

-June 17, 2016

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

June 2, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In all the times you’ve sung/heard that last phrase in the first stanza of our national anthem, have you ever given much thought as to why those two concepts are joined together? Reflecting back upon this past Monday when we remembered those who gave “the last full measure” to procure and secure our freedom, the inextricable connection between them becomes very clear.

We were established to be a land of free citizens through the bravery of a few who sought to make their home in a land of freedom. When those 56 men in Philadelphia pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor by signing our Declaration of Independence, they were bravely signing their death warrants in the eyes of the British Crown. It was their burning passion for liberty over their fear of death, as expressed by Patrick Henry, that gave them the courage to sign that document and bequeath to us the freedom we now see slipping from our grasp.

How is it that we sing this phrase and yet no longer act like we mean it or believe it? Are we a “land of the free”? Hardly; not like we were in times past nor as we were meant to be. Are we the “home of the brave”? For some we are, but not as many as there should be. We have those among us who are yet brave in the defense of freedom – every man and woman who put on the uniform of our military or local police and emergency service provider can be numbered among those who are “the brave.”

But what about the rest of us? Why are we allowing those we elect to represent us to create laws that chip away at our freedom without any accountability or repercussion? Why do we tolerate nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to trample our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties with their unconstitutional acts and regulations? Why do we cower in fear before them when it is they who should cower before us? Is it because we have become too soft – too afraid to stand up and be counted because we fear becoming like a few brave fellow citizens who have and now languish in jail?

We celebrate two holidays – Memorial Day, in which we somberly reflect upon those brave souls who sacrificed their lives for us, and another, Veterans’ Day, for those who have and currently serve in defense of that freedom. These men and women bravely left their homes to ensure that our land remains free, and some have returned, not to the embrace of their loved ones, but rather in a flag-draped casket.

So the questions for us are: “How brave are you? How brave am I?” “How deeply do you want to be free? How deeply do I?”

-June 3, 2016

What “-ism” Are We?

May 28, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Our founders championed the political structure of “republicanism”, i.e. a system of government based upon democratically elected representatives who would govern in behalf of those who elected them and to whom they would be accountable for the manner of their governance. Since then we have seen the rise of socialism and its variants of communism and fascism throughout the world and more alarmingly, our transitioning from the republicanism upon which we were founded to fascism.

This week Michelle Obama demonstrated another “-ism” towards which our country has been lurching for decades – “nannyism”. One of the actions advocated by the first lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign was an overhaul of the nutrition labels on food packaging. These updates that she will be announcing were recently finalized by the Food and Drug Administration (another agency without authority granted to the federal government among the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution). It is not the government’s role to tell companies what and how they must label their products – that is the role of consumers in the marketplace who can bring pressure on companies to do so or, if necessary, by the states.

Furthermore, as is usual with governmental regulations, it will only place more burdens on businesses, the cost of which will ultimately be borne by us, the consumers as all such costs are. According to industry estimates, it will cost companies at least $640 million to make the updates, with a net social cost of at least $1.4 billion.

The question to be asked is “Will this be an improvement or just more government heavy-handedness?” A number of scientists are going on record that these new guidelines are not based upon sound science. A dozen scientists have signed a joint letter stating that the new requirements are misleading. Among those signing this letter are Roger Clemens, a member of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and Eric Decker, head of the Department of Food Science at the University of Massachusetts. They further state that these regulations are based upon the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, which were formulated by a committee that did not include even one expert on sugars; yet the first lady boasts that the most important change in these regulations is information about sugar content!

So as with most other similar government regulations, they are outside the scope of the role and authority of government as well as being inaccurate, misleading and costly. But then again, we are too stupid to know better than to consume an entire bag of Oreos, so we need the government to tell us.

-May 27, 2016

Government Intervention into Labor Relations

May 21, 2016 Frank Kuchar

The Department of Labor has announced new regulations redefining the classification of workers who will be entitled by law to overtime compensation and the salary levels below which workers must be reclassified. As with all such interventions by government, there are issues to be taken with this one on many levels.

First is the existence of a Department of Labor which is tasked with regulating labor relations within our economy. Nowhere in the enumerated powers of the US Constitution is the government granted the power to create such laws and regulations. We claim to have a “free marketplace”, but it is only lip service; in fact it is, by the definition of Fascism economics, a Fascist marketplace. As Ayn Rand put it, “…a system in which the government does not nationalize the means of production, but assumes total control over the economy is fascism.” This is the very description of the direction our government has been heading for decades, and is only picking up steam with such encroachments into business practices such as this.

Second, as with most, if not all, governmental encroachments into labor matters, the opposite end of what is desired is what is achieved. For example, consider Milton Friedman’s excoriating of the idea of a minimum wage (which is making the headlines nowadays): “Minimum wage laws are about as clear a case as one can find of a measure of the effects of which are precisely the opposite of those intended by the men of good will who support it. Many proponents of minimum wage laws…hope, by outlawing wage rates below some specified level, to reduce poverty. In fact, insofar as minimum wage laws have any effect at all, their effect is clearly to increase poverty…The effect of the minimum wage is therefore to make unemployment higher than it otherwise would be.”

The consequences of this latest regulation will be no different from what Friedman stated about the effect of the minimum wage. Are there occupations where individuals are being taken advantage of by companies that this regulation is intended to help? Most definitely. However the solution is not the heavy hand of government interference, but rather the power of the marketplace. When enough people refuse to perform certain kinds of jobs for the wages offered, companies will be forced to raise the salaries and/or benefit packages to attract the quality of employees they seek. As one who has earned professional certifications in the field of compensation I can attest that market forces are extremely forceful in determining compensation levels.

In Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard, those who worked all day were paid the same wages as those who only worked a small portion of the day. When they complained because they had worked longer than the others, the owner said “Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go.” If we accept a position in exchange for a certain amount of compensation, then that is our decision; it is we who made the agreement and if we don’t like it, then either don’t accept the offer or stay in that position while seeking better employment. I have done this more than once in my career. It is not the function of government to improve our situation in life; it can only make life more difficult when it goes beyond the purpose for which it was created.

-May 20, 2016

My Rights, Your Rights – Who’s Right?

May 6, 2016 Frank Kuchar

There is much debate in our country today over this subject of “rights.” Many of these claims are without basis, for they are not truly “rights.” A “right” is something you are not given, but instead are born with – it is innate within you, and as such is something to which no one or group has a legitimate claim.

Such are the “inalienable rights” we are familiar with from our Declaration of Independence. It should be noted that the four listed in that second paragraph, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and the removal of a tyrannical government, are only the beginning point of “rights;” others are enumerated within the so-called “Bill of Rights” in our Constitution.

One of these additional “rights” is brought front-and-center in the first amendment, namely the right to free speech. The meaning of this short phrase is simple – I, you, and everyone else, have the inalienable right to speak our mind without the fear of repercussion. Such a right goes hand-in-hand with those other rights named in that amendment.

However, even rights have their limitations. My right to life, for example, ends when I willingly take away that right to life of another fellow human being. My right to speak freely ends when my speech slanders another, causing them harm, or prohibits them from likewise exercising their right to free speech. The motto of rights is simple – “do no harm,” for when you do, you forfeit your right of the same nature.

As we are in the throes of a tumultuous political season, I have witnessed countless examples of a violation of this principle of rights. Many individuals have taken part in protests against those seeking public office. Such protesting is a legitimate right; but when the actions of those protesters prohibit the rights of those candidates to speak or in prohibiting their fellow citizens from engaging in the political process in a peaceful manner, they have abdicated their claim to such a right.

There are so many other areas where we see this principle being violated. The riots in Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland, where thugs and hooligans went on a rampage, destroying private property (ownership of which is another alienable right) because they felt an injustice was committed are two recent examples.

If we are to be a “civil” society, it is high time we begin to act “civilly.” This is why we must ingrain the concept of “rights” and the motto of “do no harm” within our children by teaching and demonstrating this principle to them; for a society that is no longer “civil” is a society that will collapse inward upon itself and cease to exist.

– May 6, 2016