2016 – The Obamacare Hammer Has Dropped

January 22, 2016 Frank Kuchar

This year, in addition to receiving your W-2 tax form from your employer, you are going to receive a Form 1095-C. This is a form that is now required under the so-called “Affordable Care Act.” Unless you work in your company’s payroll or benefits’ departments, you are probably not aware of the burden these departments are experiencing in producing these forms. As I am a payroll and benefits professional and have just finished completing these forms for my employer, allow me to share just how burdensome these reporting requirements are on businesses. (Oh, by the way, the Act also requires your insurance carrier to send you a Form 1095-B as well).

The form requires employers to indicate on one line whether or not you were offered insurance coverage that met the minimum standards as required by the Act. There are a number of different codes that must be used, depending upon certain parameters. Unless the code is the same for all twelve months of the year, the proper code for each month must be recorded in a box for that month. On a second line, businesses are required to record in a box for each month, unless it was the same for all twelve, whether you enrolled in the coverage offered, or if not, the appropriate code indicating why you didn’t (e.g., you were not an employee at the time, you were an employee but was in a probationary period, etc.). Obviously the codes in each month’s box on these two lines must match up (in other words, you could not have the code for having been offered insurance on one line if on the second line the code indicates you were not yet an employee).

If your company has the misfortune to be “self-insured”, it must also list the names of the dependents covered under the plan as well as their social security numbers (the employer is expected to make at least three “good faith” efforts to obtain these numbers in case they are not in a database kept by the company).

Unless you work for a large company that has a robust payroll/benefits accounting system that has been modified to track and produce this data, this information is not readily available in their databases. Consequently it must be compiled from perhaps multiple places into an Excel spreadsheet for example and then merged into a template (that you have to create) so that you can then print the information onto the required form in the proper boxes.

Once these are distributed to the employees, the employer must then report a summary of this information on a Form 1094 which requires a month-by-month accounting of how many employees were active on a particular day of the month and how many of them were eligible for insurance as of the first of that month. This form and a copy of all of the Form 1095-Cs must then be forwarded to the IRS so that the Obamacare “Gestapo” can be sure that you have the required coverage and if not, to impose a penalty – oh excuse me Chief Justice Roberts – a tax on you for your failure to acquire the mandated minimum coverage (or fine your employer for not offering the required insurance).

So now you have an insider’s perspective on the regulatory hammer that has fallen on both your employer and insurance carrier. With these compliance costs hammering businesses and insurers, is it any wonder that premiums are going up and businesses are reluctant to hire more full-time employees or have the profits necessary to expand and hire?

-January 22, 2016

A Tale of Two Speeches

January 15, 2016 Frank Kuchar

This past Tuesday President Obama gave the final “State of the Union” address of his presidency. I’ve noticed over the years that in every speech any of our recent presidents have given, they always proclaim “and the state of our union is strong.” This President’s final speech ended on that proclamation, but such could not be further from the truth.

We have seen our nation sorely divided at several times during our history. The Federalists under John Adams versus the Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson. The southern states versus the northern states throughout most of our history. Racial divisions, economic divisions, etc have at times been severe, and today these are as prominent as they have not been for some time, thanks in large part to this president’s leadership (or lack of) and agenda.

Today, these speeches by the sitting president have turned into a big production with little relation to what was originally intended by the founders. Any more, they are nothing more than a big “pep rally” where the party In power gives itself a huge “pat on the back” and a long laundry list of “ornaments” it wants to “hang on the tree” of government expansion.

Such was not always the case. As a matter of fact, if you read some of these addresses by our early presidents you will see where they read more like a corporate annual report – facts, plans and real accounting of revenues and expenditures. Not only this, but in some instances the speeches were not even delivered orally, but rather were sent to the Congress in letter form.

So, by way of example, I close by sharing with you some quotes from President Thomas Jefferson’s first “Annual Message” (as it was called then), and you can compare the tenor of it with what you heard on Tuesday evening:

“When we consider that this government is charged with the external and mutual relations only of these states; that the states themselves have principal care of our persons, our property, and our reputation, constituting the great field of human concerns, we may well doubt whether our organization is not too complicated, too expensive; whether offices or officers have not been multiplied unnecessarily, and sometimes injuriously to the service they were meant to promote. I will cause to be laid before you an essay toward a statement of those who, under public employment of various kinds, draw money from the treasury or from our citizens. Time has not permitted a perfect enumeration, the ramifications of office being too multipled and remote to be completely traced in a first trial. Among those who are dependent on executive discretion, I have begun the reduction of what was deemed necessary. The expenses of diplomatic agency have been considerably diminished. The inspectors of internal revenue who were found to obstruct the accountability of the institution, have been discontinued. Several agencies created by executive authority, on salaries fixed by that also, have been suppressed, and should suggest the expediency of regulating that power by law, so as to subject its exercises to legislative inspection and sanction. Other reformations of the same kind will be pursued with that caution which is requisite in removing useless things, not to injure what is retained….

Considering the general tendency to multiply offices and dependencies, and to increase expense to the ultimate term of burden which the citizen can bear, it behooves us to avail ourselves of every occasion which presents itself for taking off the surcharge; that it may never be seen here that, after leaving to labor the smallest portion of its earnings on which it can subsist, government shall itself consume the residue of what it was instituted to guard.

In our care, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing applications of money varying from the appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money; and by bringing back to a single department all accountabilities for money where the examination may be prompt, efficacious, and uniform.”

This is just a sample of what a real President, intent upon upholding the Constitution he took an oath to protect and having an interest in securing our freedom and liberties would say. Alas, this is not the kind of rhetoric we heard on Tuesday evening.

-January 15, 2016

Checkmate

January 8, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In the game of chess two sides struggle to keep the each other’s power in check so as to protect their “king.” When you consider how our Constitution structures our republic according to the concept of federalism, you can see how it is much like a game of chess. In this case the struggle is not between pieces in a game, but rather between the forces of tyranny and individuals seeking to preserve their freedom and liberties.

In the game of chess, each piece has its own unique role to play, with its own level of power and ability to affect the outcome of the game. Like in chess where there are five pieces that work in concert to protect the king, within our Constitution there also exists five “checks-and-balances” against the forces of tyranny.

Within the federal government we have the three departments that are supposed to serve as a check against the excesses of one another. Whenever any one of these departments fails to serve its role as a check against the encroaching, extra-constitutional power of the other two, it is as though in the game of chess that piece has been “captured” by the opposing force and removed from the board and is no longer effective in the outcome of the game.

Outside the federal government are the states which, in a system of federalism, are sovereign in their sphere of authority which they retained under the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the state ratification debates and the essays that emerged from those debates (namely the writings of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalist Papers authored by Hamilton, Madison and Jay), the states were repeatedly avowed to be the guardians against tyrannical overreach by the federal government. Yet, like the branches of the federal government, when the states abdicated their sovereignty in the areas retained by them under the Constitution they too have been “captured” and “removed from the game.”

This leaves the final and most powerful “piece” in this “chess match” – the queen, which in this case is the American people. It is “We the People” who hold sovereignty over both state and federal government, and it is “We the People” who are to be the ultimate deciders in this match. However, if the “queen” is unaware or not concerned as to its crucial role, it has in effect allowed itself to be cornered and though not necessarily “off the board”, it might as well be. You may consider yourself to be more of a “pawn” and not the powerful “queen”, but together, united, the American people can be an unstoppable force against this surge of tyranny washing upon the shore of our liberties.

In chess, if a pawn reaches the back line of the opposing side of the board, it can elect to have a previously captured piece restored to the board in its place. So it is in our struggle to preserve freedom. Though it appears as if Congress has been “captured” in that it has refused to blunt the excesses of both the judiciary and executive branches, it can be restored if “We the People” elect constitutionally-minded men and women to serve in that body. We can restore the power of the states by putting men and women in our state offices who will recognize and reassert their constitutionally-guaranteed roles as a shield against federal encroachment. And finally, if the people of this once great republic will awaken to this danger and band together, we can put the “king” of tyrannical governmental power in check; failure to do so will allow tyranny to put our “king” of freedom in checkmate.

-January 8, 2016

Jefferson & Madison’s Answer to Federal Overreach

December 18, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Rumors are swirling that once again President Obama is going to not only exceed federal constitutional authority, but also his presidential authority by issuing additional gun control regulations via executive order. Since Congress lacks the will to carry out its constitutional obligation to impeach him and remove him from office, what alternatives are left to us? To answer that question I want to take us back to the early years of our republic when the Federalists controlled the presidency (John Adams) as well as both houses of congress.

In June 1798, Congress passed and President Adams signed The Alien and Seditions Act, which was an abusive violation of individual rights and the Constitution as far as some of the citizens of Kentucky and Virginia were concerned. In response Jefferson wrote on behalf of the state government of Kentucky what we today know as “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798”, and he convinced Madison to do the same for the state of Virginia (“The Virginia Resolutions of 1798”). In both of these documents they laid out the case that this legislation was in violation of the Constitution. Jefferson more stridently declared no less than five times that the state of Kentucky held the legislation to be “altogether void and of no force.”

Madison’s draft was not as forceful as that of Jefferson’s and was much shorter, but in both cases these two giants of constitutional republicanism and federalism appealed to their sister-states to join them in resisting this law. Madison summed up the appeal at the end of his resolutions with these words:

“…the General Assembly [of Virginia] doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for cooperating with this State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In his appeal, Jefferson went so far as to declare that “every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.” Yet he also expressed the same approach as Madison that all of the states should band together in opposition to this usurpation by the “General Government” – “…that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

When Obamacare was enacted over thirty states filed suit with the Supreme Court as to its unconstitutionality, and we all know how Chief Justice Roberts’ twisted logic blunted that effort. What should have been done regarding that legislation, and as Jefferson stated about “these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution“, was to band together with the legislatures of each of them issuing the same kind of declaration as Jefferson and Madison did on behalf of Kentucky and Virginia in 1798.

Unfortunately, Jefferson’s and Madison’s pleadings fell on deaf ears, and so the Act remained in effect until Jefferson was elected president and the Democrat-Republicans gained control of Congress in 1801 when they repealed the law. However, consider this scenario: over 30 states (or more) join hands and stand up as a united group against these onerous overreaches of the general government, be it Obamacare, the EPA, you name it; what would be the likelihood that Washington could roll over that many states like they might be able to do to one or a few?

If you read The Federalist Papers, the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions as well as the writings of the Anti-Federalists, you will hear one common argument among them all – namely, “in our political system…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28). It’s time for the states today to stand upon the shoulders of Jefferson and Madison and follow their lead.

-December 18, 2015

For Whom Was the Constitution Written?

December 12, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has been under fire for his statement that we should ban all Muslim immigration and visa visitors for a temporary span of time until we can better vet the background of these individuals. I have heard several criticisms of this proposal that are both ludicrous and ignorant. Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio has stated that such a prohibition is unconstitutional. Others state that it violates the principle of freedom of religion as espoused in the first amendment. A third claim made Thursday evening by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was that “we do not have the right” to prohibit a group or class of individuals from entry into our country.

The first objection that it is unconstitutional belies a lack of understanding of our Constitution (something I would think an attorney, Senator and President-wanna-be should know). To support this assertion we must ask “For whom was the Constitution written?” One needs look no further than the Preamble to the Constitution to ascertain the answer to this question.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It was the citizens of the several states through either direct election (Rhode Island) or through their representatives in either their legislatures or conventions who comprised “We the People.” This did not include everyone who resided in the territory of the states at that time. It wasn’t until the passage of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments that the securities of the Constitution were expanded to those previously enslaved (both black and white). The Constitution was ordained and established for the citizens of “the United States”, not “we the people of the world.” The Constitution says nothing about our obligation or requirement to admit any and all who wish to enter our borders.

Having established that the sureties given in the Constitution are for citizens, not for any and everyone who comes or wants to come to our shores, the answer to the second objection is also rendered moot. However, I will make just a couple of brief points on it specifically. There are only three references to religion in the Constitution. Article VII references the date of the finalization of the Constitution as being “in the Year of our Lord,” a common phrase that has nothing to do with the practice of a religion. The first amendment has two clauses referencing religion, namely that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

By prohibiting the importation of those practicing Islam the federal government is not “establishing a religion” for the United States. Nor is the government prohibiting these individuals from “the free exercise” of their religion – they are at liberty to practice it in their home countries or some other Islamic country. It is no different than when a couple of years ago we prohibited individuals from countries experiencing an outbreak of Ebola from migrating en mass to our shores.

Finally, the statement that we have “no right” to prohibit any group of individuals from entering our land is patently absurd. Coming to the United States and living among us is a privilege, not a “right.” A true “right” is of the caliber identified by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, i.e., one that comes from our Creator. Migrating to one country from another falls far short of this bar. I might add to this that citizenship is also in this category inasmuch as citizenship can be taken away or revoked by the government since it is the entity that bestows citizenship (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution). It is the inalienable “right” of the citizens of this country to be secure in their life and liberty and it is the responsibility granted to the government by those citizens to make those rights secure, which includes keeping out those who might do harm to those rights.

One final question to be addressed, is “Why not adopt the position of Senator Rand Paul and only limit Muslims from a list of countries known to pose a threat?” To answer this I merely point to the recent atrocities in Paris, France. Some of those perpetrators came across the French border from other European countries. There are millions of Muslims living in France, England, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc., and if these countries were not part of the “list” of forbidden countries, then there would be no way we could prevent Muslim radicals from entering the US from one of those nations.

It Is past time that our leaders quit being so “politically correct” and began looking out for the welfare and safety of Americans first. If you would not throw open the doors to your home and let anyone and everyone enter and live with you without first thoroughly ensuring they posed no threat to your family, then neither should we do so to our country, “America, my home sweet home.”

-December 11, 2015

The Refugee Crisis: Showdown between Federal and State Sovereignty

December 4, 2015 Frank Kuchar

A number of states are forbidding the federal government from settling within their jurisdictions some of the thousands of Syrian refugees President Obama wants to admit into the US. The President has declared that he will force the states to accept however many of these refugees as he sees fit, and so the stage is set for a major constitutional showdown, like two gunslingers in an old western movie squaring off against one another.

The outcome of this confrontation is far more critical to the future of what’s left of our republic than the welfare of these refugees. It goes to the very heart of the structure of our federally constituted republic and whether or not we shall finally fall into the pit feared by the Anti-Federalists at the time of the ratification of the Constitution by becoming a singular nationalized country instead of a union of independent, sovereign states.

To begin with, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority over the matter of granting refugees admittance. You can read it forwards and backwards, but that enumerated power is not stipulated. This being the case, then this authority must be a power retained by the citizens of the several states, who in their capacity as a body politic, according to the tenth amendment, have every right to make the determination as to the settlement of refugees within their borders.

How is it then that we have reached this juncture of a constitutional crisis over who has authority over immigration policy? Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution stipulates that “Congress shall have the power…to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,…” At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was a distinct difference in meaning between the terms “naturalization” and “immigration”, and they were not synonymous. For the first one hundred years of our history the federal government was only concerned with legislation which laid down the requirements aliens would have to satisfy to become citizens of the United States, while the states enacted their own laws regarding who would be permitted to enter their borders. It was not until the late 1800s that Congress began to enact immigration legislation. Over the past 130 or so years the courts have gradually upheld the federal government’s assumption of this power, but with varying degrees of suspect constructions (which makes this assumption on the part of the federal government even more dubious). The conventional argument is that the naturalization clause of the Constitution includes the authority over immigration as well, but such was not the meaning understood by the original authors of the Constitution. Note the absurd contortion Justice Kennedy resorted to in upholding this argument in the 2012 case of Arizona v. United States:

“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….”

In order to substantiate that naturalization includes authority over immigration, he has to fall back on the authority of the federal government to deal with foreign nations. Really? Such so-called reasoning flies in the face of etymology and our early history (which would be the best indicator of which “sphere of influence” this matter resided).

In light of this and President Obama’s threat, we need to step back and consider the structure of the relationship between the federal government and the states as it was originally intended. In his throwing down of the gauntlet over this issue, the President is claiming that the federal government can set aside the wishes of the citizens of a state in regards to matters that are constitutionally retained by them.

The question becomes, ”Does this assertation comport to the form of the union created by the Constitution?” Our system vests sovereignty in but one place – the people of the several, yet united, states. The sovereign people of the states agreed to grant authority (or limited sovereignty if you will) to two spheres – the federal and state governments – via constitutions. It is in the US Constitution we see the spheres of authority between these two entities clearly delineated, and that neither “sphere” is permitted to invade that of the other.

In Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated, published in 1820, John Taylor of Caroline, after quoting both Madison’s and Hamilton’s comments to this point in The Federalist Papers, succinctly summed up this principle with these words:

“The co-ordinacy of institution, the independence of each other, and the mutuality of the right of construing the federal constitution, are thus recognised and asserted, as existing in the federal and state governments; and the principle, which pervades the whole, must also pervade the parts. If the entire federal government possesses no supremacy over, and can require no subordination from the entire state governments, whilst acting within their respective spheres, no part or department of that government can exert a supremacy over, or exact a subordination from, the corresponding parts or departments of the state governments.”

To apply this to our current showdown between the states and President Obama, if the matter of admitting refugees is a matter left to the discretion of the states, and “If the entire federal government possesses no supremacy over, and can require no subordination from the entire state governments,” then for Obama to claim he can force the states to do otherwise is to turn Taylor’s principle on its head, namely, that if one part of the federal government can eviscerate the authority of the states in one matter, then the entire federal government can do likewise in all areas, and the significance of even the semblance of states’ existence is reduced to the theatre of the absurd.

It may well be that having the federal government control those permitted to immigrate into the United States, especially in this day and time, is the best course of action; but as Chief Justice John Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.”

-December 4, 2015

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