Why we honor Robert E. Lee

There is another current push in Arkansas to purge Robert E. Lee’s birthday from being a State holiday as it was originally intended by the Arkansas Legislature. This time the agitation is being administered by first term Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson. Has Robert E. Lee committed some sort of crime since his birthday was designated as a State holiday in 1943 or could it be that the winds of political correctness (mind control) are gaining strength once again after a brief slumber between legislative sessions? For those low-information elected officials who are desiring this holiday purge, I will first offer some exemplary facts of the Lee family.

All the members of the Lee family of Virginia are descended from Richard Lee, a member of a baronial family in Nordley Regis, Coton Hall, Shropshire, England, which remarkably still stands today. He came to America in the year 1640. The Lee family gained prominence with Thomas Lee, the grandson of Richard Lee, who became a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1723. He was later appointed to the Governor’s Council, which was the upper house of this assembly. In 1749, he became the de facto governor of Virginia, but he died the following year, before King George II could officially appoint him governor.

Thomas Lee and his wife Hannah Harrison Ludwell, had eight children, and many of them gained prominence in Virginia politics.

• Thomas Ludwell Lee was a member of the Virginia Delegates and was editor of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 that influenced America’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
• Richard Henry Lee was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and also authored the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. He was chosen as a delegate to the Continental Congress, later as its president, and served as an original US senator from Virginia from 1789 to 1792.
• Francis Lightfoot Lee was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, was chosen as a delegate to the Continental Congress and served as a Virginia State Senator.
• William and Arthur Lee served as agents to the Continental Congress during the American Revolution and also as European diplomats to Spain, Russia, and Austria.
• Henry Lee II was son to Henry Lee I, Thomas Lee’s brother. Henry Lee II was a prominent member of the Virginia House of Burgesses and was also a Virginia State Senator.

His son was the famous Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee III, who was a cavalry general under George Washington during the American Revolution. After the war, he served as delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress and later at the Virginia ratification convention for the US Constitution. Afterward, he served as Virginia’s governor and later as a US Congressman. It was Henry Lee III who eulogized George Washington at this funeral with these famous words: “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Even future president John Adams of Massachusetts exclaimed in 1779, “The family of Lee has more men of merit in it than any other family!”

Henry Lee III and his wife, Matilda Ludwell Lee, had three children before she died prematurely. One of them was Henry Lee IV who wrote speeches for Vice President John C. Calhoun. Henry Lee III later married Anne Hill Carter who was the great-granddaughter of Virginia colonial governor Alexander Spotswood. They had six children. One of the more famous was Sydney Smith Lee, who was an American naval officer and served during the Mexican War at Veracruz. He later became commandant of the US Naval Academy until 1861, when he resigned the day Virginia seceded. During his Confederate service, he became chief of the Confederate Navy’s Bureau of Orders and Detail until the end of the war.

The most famous son of Henry Lee III and the most well-known member of the Lee family of all was Robert Edward Lee. He was born January 19, 1807 at the Lee family estate at Stratford Hall, Virginia. Robert received an appointment from Secretary of War John C. Calhoun to enter West Point in 1825 and graduated in 1829, second in his class without receiving a single demerit. After graduation, he married Mary Custis, the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington. They were married at Arlington House, which became their home. It was a gift to them from her parents and was built by her father, George Washington Parke Custis, who was George Washington’s step-grandson. Lee became a combat engineer while serving in the US military and helped engineer the construction of Fort Pulaski in Georgia and Fortress Monroe in Virginia. He later distinguished himself at Veracruz in 1847 in the Mexican War.

In 1852, Major Lee became the superintendent of West Point Military Academy until 1855, when he received a promotion to colonel in the Second Cavalry Regiment in Texas, which protected settlers from attacks by Apache and Comanche Indians. He resigned his commission in the US military when his native State of Virginia lawfully seceded from the American Union in 1861 and tendered his services to the Confederate government.

In a nutshell, the Lee family took pride in their role in the building of America, beginning in colonial days until the secession of Virginia. They fought in its wars as high-ranking officers, held such political offices as representatives in the Virginia House of Burgesses, governors, US congressmen, US senators, Virginia State senators, diplomats, signers of the Declaration of Independence, delegates to the US Constitution Conventions, and they played a leading role in instituting the Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment. They were the epitome of American greatness that was instilled with liberty by way of limited government and State sovereignty. Indeed, Virginia was the State of States and the State of statesmen.

I ask the readers. Can any current elected official (federal, State, or local) claim the same virtues of the Lee family? Can they even claim a fraction of what this American clan has contributed to the principles of limited government as set forth in the three cornerstones of American liberty which are The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of 1787, and the Bill of Rights? Notwithstanding, there are elected officials who serve at all levels of government in Arkansas who wish to eradicate Robert E. Lee’s holiday which was given in his honor by a previous Arkansas legislative assembly and who will not be satisfied until they succeed at turning us into a socio-Marxist state.

When they choose to dishonor Robert E. Lee, they are also discrediting his family, as well as disgracing the principles of government upon which this nation was founded. Many of those who testified in favor of expunging Lee’s holiday during the 2015 legislative session resorted to smear tactics which has become the norm in American politics. They falsely testified that Robert E. Lee led an insurrection against the US government in order to keep blacks enslaved. His detractors also referred to him as a rebel and traitor who did not honor his oath to the US Constitution.

These are bald-faced lies! There was no insurrection due to the fact that the ordinance of secession is guaranteed in the US Constitution per the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Secession is a reserved right which means the several States possessed this power both before and after the Constitution’s ratification. Let us not forget that it was Robert’s great-uncle, Richard Henry Lee, who authored the Tenth Amendment! Also, the several States created the Constitution which in turn created the federal government. Therefore, if the federal government had no power to make war on a State, how could it be called insurrectionary? Simply stated, one can only rebel against lawful authority and the lawful authority is the US Constitution and NOT the federal government.

It is also false to assert that Robert E. Lee fought a war in order to perpetuate the institution of slavery. It was not necessary to fight a war to keep this right which was codified in the US Constitution no less than four times, nor was it necessary to fight a war to keep any other constitutional right such as the right of secession. Lee’s oath was to the US Constitution and valid only as long as his native State of Virginia consensually remained in the Union.

To put it bluntly, Robert E. Lee was not attempting to destroy constitutional government. He instead drew his sword in order to preserve the principles of constitutional government as handed down to us by the Founding Fathers and in which his family played a huge role in creating. If indeed our elected officials one day choose not to honor this great American by discontinuing his holiday, then they should also refuse to celebrate the 4th of July or honor the names of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al on Presidents’ Day, for they also helped establish these same principles of constitutional government that Robert E. Lee defended.

Loy Mauch 1-17-16

Who decides our gun rights?

Who ultimately decides the right to bear arms, the federal government or the several States? Since the Usurper-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, has garnered national attention by claiming he has executive powers to override Congress on this matter, I will illustrate the cold-hard constitutional facts.

Article I, Section 1 states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” This language means that the several States granted the newly created federal government legislative powers by which only Congress shall possess and it clearly denies this lawmaking power from the executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

The president does indeed possess executive powers as delegated to him in Article II, but these powers cannot in any shape, form, or fashion usurp the US Constitution which he is sworn to uphold.

Judicial powers are delegated to the federal government and are enumerated in Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution. The federal courts can only hear cases that involve federal codified law which certainly prohibits them from having jurisdiction on such matters as guns, firearms, ammunition, etc. since this power was not enumerated in Article I.

Article IV, Section 4 expressly declares: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” This language means that the federal government is strictly forbidden to interfere with the powers that are reserved to the several States.

Before I delve into the 2^nd Amendment, a landmark US Supreme Court decision is needed to ascertain the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Barron v. The City of Baltimore in 1833 these very words: “Had the framers of these Amendments [Bill of Rights] intended them to be limitations on the powers of State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several States, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.” Chief Justice Marshall emphatically declares that the Bill of Rights places strict limitations on the federal government and does NOT apply to the several States!

I will now get to the heart of the matter. The 2^nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights states: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Therefore, any federal firearms law is a direct infringement on our gun rights plain and simple. Let me ask a question. Do our gun rights stem from the US Constitution? No, they do not. The Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government the power to allow us the right to own guns. It merely restricts the federal government from disarming us. That is why “shall not be infringed” is worded “in plain and intelligible language” at the end of the sentence.

That being said, then where does this right stem from? The first place I would look is in our State Constitutions. In my State [Arkansas] Constitution, Article 2, Declaration of Rights, Section 5 declares: “Right to bear arms. The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.”Now go back and carefully re-read Chief Justice John Marshall’s aforementioned opinion.

For the naysayers who may still be somewhat skeptical, some American History 101 is needed. On June 29, 1776 (five days before this country declared its independence from the British Empire), Virginia became the very first State to adopt its own constitution. Section 13 of this document states: “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” It should be duly noted that no federal government existed in 1776. The Virginia Constitution was written “in plain and intelligible language” and clearly evident that it was adopted way before the States created the federal government.

The final evidence to this argument lies in the 10^th Amendment. “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.” Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 will the terms guns, firearms, ammunition, etc. be found. Therefore, since the federal government is not delegated this power and nowhere in Article I, Section 10 are the States prohibited this power, then it is reserved to the States respectively. A reserved power specifically means the States possessed this power both before and after the constitution’s ratification and furthermore, the 10^th Amendment was written “in plain and intelligible language.” Therefore, if the federal government is not delegated this power, then it cannot enact laws pertaining to firearms.

Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, who I consider the ultimate authority concerning the principles of limited government upon which this nation was founded and was political wisdom personified stated verbatim: “Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government, but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserved each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” His credentials are as follows: Delegate to the 2^nd Continental Congress, 2^nd Governor of Virginia, Delegate to Congress under the Articles of Confederation, US Minister to France,, 1^st Secretary of State, 2^nd US Vice-President, and 3^rd US President.

It does not require above-average intelligence to admit that any infringement on what is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights is forbidden fruit to the federal government. Also, it is beyond ludicrous to believe that a temporary occupant of the White House has these so-called executive powers to restrict by executive fiat our God-given rights by circumventing the Bill of Rights which plainly places restraints on the federal government. The truly sickening fact is that Congress aids and abets in this criminal type behavior. The American public goes along with this because they have been so dumbed-down by government education and the mainstream media that they blindly accept their servitude to the federal government which was a creation of the once sovereign States. This would have been an abhorrence to the Founding Fathers due to the fact that they had just paid for their liberty and God-given rights in blood and certainly had no appetite to be ruled subsequently by another tyrannical government.

Loy Mauch 1-13-16

The Bill of Rights

On today’s date, 15 December 1791, the Bill of Rights was added to the US Constitution and for a specific good reason. The very purpose this country was afforded the Bill of Rights was due to the demands of the Anti-Federalists, who viewed this newly created federal government with a predictable mistrust. By now, it should be evident that the skepticism of these men was more than well-founded. They insisted these guarantees should be written out in black ink on white parchment paper for both sides of the political factions to see, not only in order to prevent any misunderstandings among themselves, but to clarify for future generations as well. It all came down to the men on the Federalist side, who broadly assumed that the federal government would be vastly limited in scope, while the Anti-Federalists correctly envisioned the mischief that could be born from this document without written guarantees.

George Mason of Virginia was the only delegate who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia who refused to sign this Constitution because the document did not guarantee the powers reserved to the sovereign States. He and other Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee were very vociferous about this and warned their fellow Virginians that what was needed was a Bill of Rights. Mason had already authored all sixteen of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, nine of which would go on to be incorporated into the federal Constitution.

Patrick Henry of Virginia refused to attend the convention in Philadelphia and expressed his distrust by saying “he smelt a rat”…justifiably so. After reading the Constitution and hearing the oral arguments during his State’s ratification convention, he specifically demanded these reserved powers be written out. This is the essence of the Tenth Amendment, which was the brainchild of Anti-Federalist Richard Henry Lee, who of course spelled out verbatim the delegated powers of the federal government and the reserved powers of the sovereign States. Every delegate of every state completely understood this amendment, which was the final link in the chain that prevented the federal government from acting outside its delegated powers.

The common error of the average modern American mind is the fact that he/she believes the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal and State governments. It does not! Close attention should be given to an 1833 US Supreme Court decision in Barron v. City of Baltimore. Chief Justice John Marshall gave this opinion by reaffirming the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government and NOT the States. He stated:

“Had the framers of the amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several States, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.”

John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was also a Federalist from Virginia, didn’t mince words as he explained that the Bill of Rights placed strict limitations on the federal government. They start with “Congress shall make no law” (Amendment I) and end with “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” (Amendment X), which makes the inferior nature of the federal government crystal clear.

By now you should be wondering why this isn’t so in today’s America. The reason is that in 1861, US President Abraham Lincoln not only unconstitutionally warred with the sovereign States, he also warred with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights as well. The whole purpose of this war was to make the once sovereign States subjugated to the entity they created (the federal government) which would then allow the industrial Northern States to govern at will without constitutional interference. In order to achieve this, the South had to be annihilated and crushed, for you see, the Confederate States were fighting to perpetuate and preserve constitutional government, certainly not for its destruction, since all three of America’s founding documents were written by Southerners. To place this in a better perspective, the South was fighting for the Tenth Amendment which was authored by Richard Henry Lee who was also the great uncle of Robert E. Lee.

In today’s America, the once sovereign States can no longer govern themselves as guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 and further enunciated in the Tenth Amendment. Think about this the next time religious rights, gun rights, abortion, marriage, immigration, etc. are mentioned in the press, debated in Congress, or argued in courts of law. Originally, these issues were forbidden fruit to the federal government per the Bill of Rights.

Loy Mauch

December 15, 2015

 

More on Trump’s Comments

As any politically-minded American should know by now, Donald Trump’s comments on halting Muslim immigration into this country has now gone predictably viral. My previous article proved that the issue of immigration  falls under the jurisdiction of State governments per the Ninth & Tenth Amendments. After listening to the constitutionally ignorant politicos and talking heads babble their perennial gush and proving their lack of knowledge on this subject, I will further expound on the truth of immigration as it applies to the US Constitution.

Since the liberal left and neo-conservatives both worship and idolize Abraham Lincoln, and who considers him this nation’s greatest president, I will illustrate his views on this matter.

When Abraham Lincoln announced his constitutionally illegal Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, there was an uproar among the people of the North, who feared that it would cause a huge influx of blacks into their respective States. To assuage their fears, he said in a message to Congress in 1862: “But why should emancipation South send free people North? And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?”

It does not get any plainer! Lincoln very well knew the States possessed the authority to police immigration, since Illinois had enacted laws preventing blacks, slave or free, from settling in his home State. Bear in mind that these were not immigrants from a foreign country but a people who were born and raised within the boundaries of the United States. Therefore, it is ludicrous to believe the federal government, a creature of the States, has police powers over them concerning foreign immigration.

Lincoln even takes it a step farther. Not only did he reaffirm that States could in fact ban black immigration, but could also banish and re-colonize them entirely out of the country. He made this speech and declared: “A separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together…Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be affected by colonization…The enterprise is a difficult one, but where there is a will there is a way, and what colonization needs is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right [emphasis included], and then at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be [emphasis included].

Abraham Lincoln declares emphatically that the States not only have the power to police immigration, but also to deport anyone and all who they so desire out of their respective boundaries. He was not censured by any federal official nor was he called to task by the press! But of course , don’t expect to hear any of these historical facts from any elected official or the mainstream media. The average low-information citizen blindly accepts that the federal government has omniscient constitutional authority over any and all matters which is a direct usurpation of the Ninth & Tenth Amendments.

For those who falsely believe federal powers override State powers, here is what the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, declares in his Federalist #45 which defines the Tenth Amendment: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Thanks for clarifying this Mr. Madison! Constitutionally speaking, when did the sovereign States [nations] consensually surrender their right to police immigration? They did not! For the States to relinquish a reserved power, such as immigration, the only process to achieve this is articulated in Article V which states: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Convention in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress.”

Since neither Congress nor the several States has endeavored to propose an Amendment to the Constitution for the purpose of delegating the power of immigration to the federal government, this issue is still in the jurisdiction of State governments, just as it was reserved to the States in 1787. Mr. Trump, keep hammering this issue and don’t back down!

Loy Mauch

12/9/2015

 

12/7/2015

There has been some sharp discussion on President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech concerning the recent terrorist attack in California and his “no religious test” statement where he condemned Americans for not desiring any Syrian refugees into this country. GOP presidential front-runner, Donald Trump also made a speech which in effect would ban these refugees from entering our borders that was considered highly “un–American” by various talking heads. Let us examine who is correct, Obama or Trump per the US Constitution.

According to the Founding Fathers, the issue of immigration comes under the jurisdiction of State governments. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 does it delegate to the federal government the power to legislate on matters concerning immigration, nor is this word to be found anywhere else in this document. This is further clarified in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights so please pay close attention to them.

Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Basically, this declares that the powers of the States are too many to list.

Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), nor prohibited by it to the States (Article I, Section 10), are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Again as you can plainly see, since immigration was never delegated to the federal government, it is a reserved power to the several States. A reserved power means that the State governments possessed this authority both before and after the Constitution’s ratification.

A classic example of this is the fact that during the early 1800s, many Northern States would not allow free blacks to immigrate to their respective States. If these State governments possessed the authority to ban certain people to immigrate to their States then, they certainly still possess this authority in 2015 since the Constitution has not been amended on matters concerning immigration.

Religious test is in fact mentioned in Article VI, Clause 3, which states: “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This means that any person elected or appointed to office in the federal government can be of any belief they choose, whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Atheist, or the Dalai Lama. James Madison addressed this in Federalist #52: “Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any profession of religious faith.”

Note that he did not include the States, because to do so would have invaded their sovereignty. To put it precisely, the federal government cannot impose a religious will on any of the several States that would be in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, which places restrictions and limitations on the federal government, which these sovereign States created in 1787.

On a final note, I want to accent an important fact that the States are supposed to be in fact sovereign nations which is reaffirmed in a US Supreme Court decision, Bank of Augusta v. Earl in 1839 which declared: “The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.”

One of the rights that was “not so yielded up and remained absolute” was the issue of immigration which places Donald Trump’s view more in line with the US Constitution.

Loy Mauch

 

 

6/21/15

This post is in regards to the recent Charleston, S.C. shootings and the Confederate Flag controversies that have been politicized by the liberal left.

First of all, my concerns, feelings of hurt, and prayers go out to the victims and their families for this senseless act of violence perpetrated towards totally innocent American citizens. My prayers also go out to the family of the shooter who I know are feeling shock and disbelief as well. Sorrowful instances such as this tends to bring the very best and also the very worst out of people during a time when our focus should center around the mourning of lost loved ones and bringing the murderer to justice. The healing hands of time will eventually bring bits of joy to those directly involved in this tragedy and I sincerely hope a final recovery of inner peace.

It has ridiculously become the norm for the liberal left to immediately bring false charges against innocent people or inanimate objects like the Confederate Battle Flag, as is the case being sensationalized this very moment. Remember how the Duke lacrosse players were scorned and how the left immediately ties mass murderers to the Tea Party and conservative right.  The media is awash with pictures of Dylann Roof posing by Confederate flags and Confederate license plates which has now raised a storm of protests to remove the flag from the South Carolina State Capitol grounds.

If this flag was the true cause of these senseless murders, then we would have been having them on a regular basis long before now. Instead, we get the typical knee-jerk reaction from the media, not to mention the president and other politicians who wish to capitalize on this tragedy. I guarantee that if every Confederate flag, monument, license plate, t-shirt, etc. etc. etc. were expunged from the face of the earth, tragedies such as this will continue to happen. For a politician to believe this will stop another race-related crime accentuates he or she has failed to do the job they were elected to do.

We have scores of laws already against murder, rape, arson, theft, drinking while driving and texting while driving, yet people still violate these statutes. Why? The best reason I can give is called destructive behavior and it crosses racial, religious, and gender lines. And what causes destructive behavior? There are a myriad of determinates, but one that seems to be the common denominator concerning the mass murders this country  in recent years is due to the use of psychotropic drugs taken by these mentally disturbed individuals. I’m not rushing to judgement in the Charleston murders, but it has come to light that Dylann Roof was indeed taking this type precription medication which can have dangerous side affects. I vote we allow the court of law  to do its job by bringing out the facts before making false judgements and certainly not placing blame on a flag of all things.

The mainstream media and politicians tend to also display traits of destructive behavior by taking the path of least resistance instead of directly confronting the problem by diagnosing the root cause. If indeed psychotropic drugs can be proved to be a leading factor in these random acts of violence, then this is where the focus of politicians should be, and certainly not on an inanimate object such as a flag or license plate. Until this is addressed properly by medical, psychological, and pharmaceutical experts and passed on to this nation’s legislative bodies, then expect more, and certainly not less acts of random violence to occur.

Loy Mauch

 

2/3/15

The war in Arkansas to remove Robert E. Lee’s name from the joint Robert E. Lee/Martin Luther King holiday is now in full escalation. For those of you who have not been keeping up with this news, there were two bills filed at the State Capitol, HB 1113 & HB 1119, by Rep. Nate Bell and Rep. Fred Love to have an exclusive Martin Luther King holiday. After the initial overwhelming defeat of HB 1113 last Wednesday, Lee’s detractors have now changed tactics and are now playing the race card along with monetary factors to force this bill through. Proof of this is what Rep. Nate Bell has written on his Facebook page as follows.

“I regularly travel around the country both in my official capacity as a state rep and for business. I make it a point to seek out business leaders and entreprenuers to ask them about choosing an Arkansas location for their business. I often hear the combined Martin Luther King/Robert E. Lee holiday mentioned as “proof” that we are a bunch of backward, uneducated racists. Whether that’s true or not, really doesn’t matter. In economic development, perception matters most. If they think it, they’re not coming here. Locating in one of the 47 states without the perceived embedded racism is just too easy and especially so given our high taxes and regulatory burden. Separate celebrations honoring Dr. King and General Lee just make sense and doing so eliminates one more barrier to job creation in our state and costs us nothing. I’m asking all good people of good will to stand with me to pass HB 1113. It’s time for Arkansas to thrive.”

First of all, he says that he hears that we are a bunch of backward, uneducated racists. In my opinion, having a joint holiday of one white southerner and one black southerner proves there is no racism involved except  to those who clamor for it to be.  Secondly, who is the one uneducated here by claiming there are 47 states. The last I checked, Hawaii became our 50th state in 1959 which was of course before Rep. Bell was born.

I don’t recall Arkansas-based corporations such as Walmart, J.B. Hunt, Dillards, et al hurting financially or desiring to relocate to another state due to this false allegation. As far as our high taxes, Rep. Bell voted for the largest tax increase in Arkansas history by means of an unconstitutional law so he is largely contradicting himself again.

I know by now, many of you are wondering, what has any of this have to do with Anti-Federalist politics? It has everything to do with it due to the fact that the family of Robert E. Lee played an integral part of creating the principles of limited government in this country. Two of his uncles were signers of the Declaration of Independence, one of whom authored the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights and later became Virginia’s first US Senator. His father was a general under George Washington in the Continental Army and later became a US Congressman and governor of Virginia. His mother was a great-grandaughter of Alexander Spotswood who was colonial governor of Virginia and Robert later married Mary Custis who was the granddaughter of George Washington’s wife, Martha Washington. John Adams exclaimed in 1779, “The family of Lee has more men of merit in it than any other family.”

Basically, what Rep. Bell is saying is that we should sacrifice our heritage and the principles of limited government that the Lee family played such an integral role in creating for an alleged guarantee of economic prosperity that he cannot deliver. Lastly, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Loy Mauch

 

12/2/2014

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution delegates power to the federal government “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures.”

Article I, Section 10 forbids any State to “Coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

The Framers of the Constitution deemed it very important that the nation’s money supply should be based on gold and silver since both have always had intrinsic value. They also wanted a monetary system that would be uniform throughout the several States instead of thirteen or however many different currencies circulating from State to State causing major confusion. In other words, a sound money base would also substantiate a sound economy for all the citizens of every State to prosper and grow wealth which is the basis for capitalism. To prove how right they were and how wrong our current monetary system is based, I will illustrate the following example.

In 1970, the average price of gasoline was roughly 25 cents a gallon and the value of silver was close to $1.60 an ounce. One-fourth of a dollar would purchase a gallon of gas and one-fourth of an ounce of silver (40 cents) would purchase 1.6 gallons. Depending on the type vehicle one would drive would determine their mpg, but for simplicity sakes, I will use 20 mpg which would take you down the road quite a ways for 25 or 40 cents.

In today’s economic environment, gasoline is roughly $2.45 a gallon and the value of silver around $16 an ounce. That same 25 cents that used to purchase a gallon of gas now would buy 12.8 fluid ounces or a cup and a half, which may allow you to crank your car and back it out of the driveway. On the other hand, one-fourth of an ounce of silver ($4.00) would purchase close to 1 1/2 gallons of gas which would allow for about 30 miles traveling distance at 20 mpg. This is quite a remarkable contrast and does not take a degree in economics to comprehend.

This, dear readers, is how much the value of your money has depreciated in 44 years and will continue to grow worse if our current monetary system continues. The major difference is the old monetary system was backed by gold and silver while our current monetary system is backed by nothing more than a promise. This was instituted when the Federal Reserve was unconstitutionally ordained by the federal government in 1913 and there is absolutely nothing federal about this bank except the name. It is comprised of independent bankers who unscrupulously manipulates the value of our money.

The point I’m trying to make is the true price Americans are paying by getting off the gold standard which has resulted in inflation and is a hidden tax that we all pay. On a final note, after the adoption of the Constitution, Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792 that set the standard by which gold and silver would be valued. What truly should get your attention to this coinage act is that any employee of the mint that fraudulently manipulated or debased the gold and silver coins would be deemed guilty of a felony and would suffer death. This alone would empty the Federal Reserve that provides for this artful deception. What a striking contrast in today’s America where it is considered absolutely legal to manipulate the value of our hard-earned money and the citizenry blindly accepts what the Founding Fathers condemned as a felony!

Loy Mauch.

 

 

 

11/23/14

Given time to reflect after Barack Hussein Obama declared amnesty to illegal aliens without a shred of constitutional authority, a very similar and undeniable comparison can be made with Abraham Lincoln. Obama previously said that he had no authority to declare amnesty and that he was the president and not the emperor of America, which was truth spoken, only to later lie and profess that he does indeed have that authority.

In 1848, then Congressman Abraham Lincoln gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives advocating the right of secession. He even went as far to declare secession as a sacred right, meaning divine or holy, only to totally reverse and declare secession as anarchy after he became president. That is quite a contrast!

During his first inaugural address, he stated: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Lincoln again totally countermanded his own direct statement when he unlawfully issued his Emancipation Proclamation without a shred of constitutional authority. He falsely claimed that he had “war powers” when he invoked this edict, which do not exist in the US Constitution.

According to the US Constitution, the executive branch of government has no more, or no less powers than the Constitution delegates to him. The president does indeed have certain powers but none of which can circumvent the Constitution that he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend.” Whoever egregiously believes the president possesses the authority to act upon his own authorization as would a king, czar, emperor, or dictator is totally clueless concerning the intent US Constitution as well as the political ideology of the Founding Fathers. Does one earnestly believe they desired the president to be entrusted with authority that would allow him to act independently of the US Constitution? It does indeed take a delusional mind to believe this since the Founding Fathers were previously governed by a tyrannical king and certainly had no appetite to be dictated to by another.

Lincoln was the first president to flagrantly usurp the Constitution and every president since him has invoked these same invisible powers. The comparisons between these two self-appointed dictators are eerily similar excepting Obama has not unlawfully made war on his own countrymen with the US military. At least not yet he hasn’t.

11/7/2014

How foolish to believe that the president of the United States has the authority to declare amnesty to illegal aliens. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it delegate authority to the federal government on the issue of immigration, legal or illegal. The framers of the Constitution reserved this power to the several States per the 10th Amendment which declares verbatim: “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.”

Let’s break this down. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention immigration and certainly nowhere in the legislative, executive, or judicial powers delegated in Articles I, II, or III. Also, nowhere in Article I, Section 10 does it enumerate immigration as prohibited to the States. Simply stated, the power to legislate on the issue of immigration was not delegated to the federal government by the several States, so therefore, it is reserved to the States to decide.

The federal government has assumed bogus authority on immigration and thus has usurped power from the States per Amendment 10 in the Bill of Rights. The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, explained this amendment in his Federalist #45 and he states: “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.”

Article VI plainly states that “this Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” meaning that no one person or entity is above this document, including the president of the United States. The only executive powers the president has are enumerated in Article II and absolutely none of them can circumvent the Constitution, which would in fact place him above the supreme law of the land.

The States created the federal government when they individually ratified the US Constitution and this document is what created the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. How ludicrous to believe that they created an entity to have total dominion over them and especially an entity whose powers are supposed to be “few and defined.” Until three fourths of the several States amend the Constitution and delegate power to the federal government on the issue of immigration, this power is still reserved to the States. I truly hope the newly elected representatives on the federal and State level take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and begin to abide by the “supreme Law of the Land.”

Loy Mauch