San Juan Capistrano Report on EPIC Win Against Sanctuary State

Only now do I have the time to talk about the epic number of victories which We the People have racked up against the Sanctuary State perversion which has been overrunning the state of California.

We are winning the fight from one city to the next, and our efforts are picking up momentum like never before.

San Juan Capistrano turned into another epic victory for the rule of law and the opponents of the corrupt, unconstitutional sanctuary state ordinance.

The Capistrano Dispatch reports:

In a symbolic resolution, San Juan Capistrano City Council condemned California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), also known as the California Values Act or Sanctuary State Law, in a 4-1 vote with Mayor Sergio Farias opposed on Tuesday, April 3.

The mayor threw a fit because it didn't turn out the way that he wanted to. He is obviously a Democrat, someone who thinks that the rule of law is optional.

Brought to the City Council’s agenda by Councilwoman Pam Patterson and amended by Councilman Derek Reeve, the resolution condemns SB 54 as a state law that “severely inhibits” law enforcement and brings a “threat” to public safety. SB 54 has been in effect since Jan. 1 and essentially gives state and local law enforcement agencies discretion in whether to use money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain or arrest persons for immigrant enforcement purposes.

“We have to send some kind of message (to Sacramento),” Councilman Brian Maryott said.

Absolutely, and We the People Rising and LA County for Trump were there to voice our support for the resolution and our opposition to SB 54.

About 30 people spoke on the resolution during public comments, with about half on each side of SB 54.

Most of the people who spoke in favor of SB 54 seemed like the uptight, elite type who never live with the consequences of their bad policy views. They spent more time shaming Trump supporters and the average American who wants the borders secured and our nation's sovereignty respected.

Some 15 people, many wearing “Make America Great Again” hats and donning other President Donald Trump garb, sat at the front of the audience supporting the City Council’s resolution to condemn SB 54. The majority of people who spoke in opposition to SB 54 were not from San Juan Capistrano, with some people traveling as far as Torrance to speak in favor of the resolution.

I was the guy from Torrance. YAY!

Kim McCarthy, one of about three San Juan Capistrano speakers opposed to SB 54, said she was the resident who brought the issue to the City Council’s attention via an email to the Councilmembers. McCarthy said the reason she brought the issue to the City Council is public safety.

Here's more proof to counter the false narrative of the mainstream media that the whole push against SB 54 in Orange County is coming from statewide activists like myself. It's simply not the case. The movement is a combination of fed-up citizens, conservatives of all shapes and sizes who simply want our government to uphold the oath of office and recognize the United States Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI, Sect. 2).

“My daughter was in a (car) accident with an illegal alien; it almost killed her,” McCarthy said. “This isn’t something that’s just happening now. It’s been going on 20 or 30 years.”

Her life matters, too. American lives matter. What are we going to do, however, about the Americans killed by illegal aliens? Their lives are gone, and the parents and children are separated forever.

The majority of the people in attendance in favor of SB 54 and opposed to the City Council’s resolution were from San Juan Capistrano. Resident Heather Chapman, who said she works for an organization that helps under-sourced residents of San Juan Capistrano, said she felt that the resolution paints her immigrant neighbors as criminals.

"Immigrant" applies only to men and women who enter this country legally; therefore, they are not criminals. Shame on these left-wing snowflakes. Do they have any shame?

“These mixed-status families are not the criminals some think they are, but they are often victims,” Chapman said. “That is exacerbated by (the notion that immigrants) won’t trust police unless police don’t have the power to rip their families apart.”

"Mixed status"? That's a thing now?!

Farias, a son of Mexican immigrants who was born and raised in San Juan Capistrano, said he sees SB 54 as a short-term political gain to Republicans and that, noting the resolution is symbolic, SB 54 did not directly relate to City Council business.

What a crock! Farias needs to be removed from office. If he thinks so little of his oath of office, then he should step down right now. The smugness of this guy was shocking. One member of the audience shared privately that his wife is an illegal alien still!

“As mayor of everyone who calls San Juan Capistrano home, regardless of their legal status, that is not my concern and I work for everybody that calls San Juan Capistrano home,” Farias said. “I wish I could have heard that from my mayor years ago.”

Legal status does matter, unless of course Farias wouldn't mind my moving into his house without his permission.

Of San Juan Capistrano’s estimated population of 36,006, an estimated 5,129 are not U.S. citizens, according to U.S. Census Bureau 2016 projections. An estimated 4,629 of those non-U.S. citizens are from Latin American countries, according to the projections.

Councilwoman Kerry Ferguson said the resolution is not intended to hurt immigrant communities in San Juan Capistrano, but it’s about public safety.

“This is about whether or not we have laws and whether or not the constitution means something,” Ferguson said. “To me, the constitution means something; and to me, this law is against that.”

Exactly: either we are a nation of laws, or we are not.

Final Reflection

It's been a while since I could look over all the events and reports taking place across the state for the efforts to rollback SB 54 and end the Sanctuary State insanity.

Orange County is turning over on this issue. Fullerton voted to do nothing, but more cities throughout the county are getting on board to stop this nonsense.

We will keep working to ensure that every city stands against this lawlessness and puts the rule of law first.

Trump vs. Amazon: What is Going On?

I didn't have a chance to comment on this article from March.

But I did want to share some thoughts about Donald Trump's targeted attacks against Amazon.

Why is Trump using his bully pulpit to SMEAR Amazon? Here’s why…

Here we go with Trump publicly attacking Amazon again, accusing them of not paying sales taxes and abusing the post office…or something.

I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2018

But as one reporter explains, Trump’s sales tax claim is not accurate:

The first claim is false. Amazon now pays sales taxes in every state where there is a sales tax. (There are still complaints about its tax practices, but it pays.) It has also lobbied for a federal law that would make other online sellers do so. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/nLeNSjxycE

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) March 29, 2018

That sounds right to me. When I purchase something from Amazon in my state, sales tax is applied.

CNN also backs this up with an article from exactly one year ago, where they start out by saying:

On Saturday Amazon (AMZN) will start collecting sales taxes on purchases in the last four states where it wasn’t doing so: Hawaii, Idaho, Maine and New Mexico. Four other states — Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon — have no sales tax, while a fifth, Alaska, doesn’t have a statewide tax, but it does have municipal sales taxes.

We also pointed out the last time that Trump unfairly attacked Amazon that their agreement with the Post Office has nothing to do with their losses. In fact their package delivery service is profitable enough that it helps subsidize their letter and rural delivery service.

Amazon keeps the federal post office in business? Maybe it's time to privatize the whole thing. People want their mail delivered on time and with efficiency. Private firms have to compete in order to stay afloat. Government firms get money no matter how well or poorly they do.

Was Trump Amazon so that they would become a cheaper alternative to the United States Post Office?

I wonder ....

So yes, once again it sounds like Trump is lying again to smear a private company. Ugh.

Why all the hate for Amazon? Here’s why:

Almost too obvious to say, but Trump's Amazon-bashing has always been inseparable from his media-bashing. The president is going after the owner of a newspaper that aggressively investigates him. pic.twitter.com/5dsRIXHBMO

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) March 29, 2018

Yep. That makes perfect sense.

This is a plausible reason, too--and praiseworthy. I have nothing against the Washington Post slamming the Fake News, left-wing media which spends more time pushing a narrative than telling a story. WaPo lied about Judge Roy Moore and smeared President Trump repeatedly to knock him out of the Presidency.

The press is so corrupt, so untrustworthy, one wonders when more major newspapers are going to collapse.

Here’s the bottom line for me. If Amazon is doing something illegal then the DOJ needs to investigate and prosecute them.

We are still waiting for the Department of Justice to prosecute Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mendacious Bob Menendez

But if they aren’t, then Trump needs to STOP smearing a private company. Period. It’s ridiculous that we would even have to say such a thing because it’s absolutely not how a president should behave. He sounds more like a Thug-in-Chief when he does this.

I disagree. Jeff Bezos deserves to get kicked around. It's time for our elected officials to target and punch back at industries who actively undermine our President and the country, especially when the President wants to do what is best for the country.

Final Reflection

President Trump does not play by Queensbury Rules, everyone. This country needed a street fighter who would win, and Trump is doing exactly that. We need more winners and more winning, however, and that means a get-along Congress that wants to make the MAGA Agenda happen.

Right now, it's not happening. Private firms of all kinds are starting to erode and undermine the rights of citizens, however, so for me I have no problem with President Trump punching back twice as hard. Banking interests want to bankrupt gun owners and gun manufacturers. Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley think it's OK to censor people whom they don't agree with on their social media platforms. There is nothing wrong with the President taking on crony capitalism and bad businesses who want to undermine the rights of others and push false propaganda in the name of news.

GOOD NEWS: Arizona's Nightmare Kids Can't Get In-State Tuition

I wanted to comment on this article for a long time.

After all the work that patriots in California have been doing to stop sanctuary cities and stand up to Sanctuary State Law SB 54, it's nice to know that there are other states, and institutions within those states, which are also standing by the rule of law

Roberts: Arizona Supreme Court got it right (sadly) on in-state tuitionfor dreamers

In a ruling that should surprise no one, the Arizona Supreme Court has decreed that DACA students don’t qualify for in-state tuition.

YES! No one in this country illegally should qualify for anything paid for by the taxpayers.

The ruling is, of course, is a disaster for "dreamers," many of whom will be shut out of a college education. (Or maybe not. More on that in a minute.)

It’s also bad for Arizona’s economy, which needs more college graduates, not fewer, if we’re going to attract quality employers.

But if you believe the law matters, it’s the right ruling.

This "rule of law" thing has turned into an inconsequential set of beliefs, as though we can just kick aside whether we abide by a general agreement of laws, rules, and due process for all. The Obama Administration routinely fought against this issue

Sickening, but right.

Voters in 2006 decreed that Arizona residents must have “lawful immigration status” to qualify for the in-state tuition or any financial assistance “subsidized or paid in whole or in part with state monies.”

DIAZ: Blame Gov. Ducey, not the court, for Arizona's DACA tuition ruling

How about we blame the courts, since the lower courts took the arrogant, unfounded view that

It was the era of Russell Pearce and Joe Arpaio, when bashing undocumented residents was a statewide sport and no distinctions were made between those who broke the law and those who toddled along beside them, mere babies who had no say in their fate.

Human beings in this country illegally are not pieces of paper, and therefore they are not "undocumented." If you are in this country illegally, you are an illegal alien. No debate on that. The shrill, perverse determination for people to reduce illegal immigration to a set of verbal niceties and moral relativism is really disturbing. What would they say if someone broke into their homes and took their property. Would that make them "undocumented guests and borrowers"?

In 2013, the Maricopa Community College District began offering in-state tuition to undocumented students who qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Community college officials contended their newfound DACA status afforded them "lawful presence" that made them eligible for subsidized tuition.

Of course the state sued, and we can thank Jan Brewer for doing exactly that. Shame on these arrogant little college districts, which think that they can draw out their own rules for limited gain.

Shameful.

Naturally, the state sued.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that in-state tuition was legal. Judge Arthur Anderson said the federal government, not the state, decides who is “lawfully present” and the Board of Regents joined the community colleges in offering DACA students the subsidized tuition rate.

The state cannot ignore the fact that people are taking DACA, a federal program which should have never been implemented to begin with. The judicial tyranny of state and federal courts must be confronted at every level. This is outrageous.

But Anderson’s ruling seemed doomed from the start, making Attorney General Mark Brnovich's decision to appeal a no brainer.

Even the Department Homeland Security was careful to say that while DACA students are “lawfully present,” they don’t have “lawful immigration status” – the requirement imposed by Arizona voters.

The Department of Homeland Security had no right to declare those younger illegal aliens as "lawfully present" either. This is beyond outrageous. I don't care if their illegal alien parents brought the children into this county before they could discern right from wrong. That is not our problem, and we the people of the United States should not be saddled with the cost or the cultural drain on our sovereignty.

A three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Anderson’s ruling last June, writing that DACA doesn’t give the students lawful immigration status and thus state law applies.

No, it sure does not. Thank goodness that there is some sense reigning on certain higher courts of jurisdiction in certain states.

Now the seven justices of the Supreme Court also have ruled that DACA students don't qualify for in-state tuition. (Disclosure: one those justices is a relative of mine.)

We haven’t yet seen the Supreme Court’s full ruling, but there's been no suggestion that DACA students must pay the out-of-state rate.

How about these nightmare kids shouldn't be in the country to begin with? Why are we debating what amount of money they will pay for college? College seats belong to citizens, to legal residents, to the children of hard-working, law-abiding, lawfully present parents.

I am so tired of debating how much should be offered or available to illegal aliens in our country. They should not be in our country to begin with. The real debate should be: "How best to remove illegal aliens from the country?"

Shortly before offering in-state tuition, the Regents approved a plan to lower the tab for DACA students while respecting the will of voters.

Under that Regents' plan, eligible undocumented students beginning this summer will pay what’s called the Non-Resident Tuition Rate for Arizona High School Graduates – 150 percent of in-state tuition. Instead of paying well over $26,000 a year in out-of-state tuition, they will pay closer to $16,000 – the actual average cost of an undergraduate education.

Not acceptable. These regents should be fired from their jobs.

The idea was the brainchild of Regent Jay Heiler, a lawyer and former Republican political operative who now runs a chain of charter schools. He told me at the time that such a plan should pass legal muster and makes sense in a state where the average high school sees only 18.6 percent of its graduates earn a college degree within six years.

Oh brother. A "Republican" approved this harebrained perversion. What about American students? What about legal Arizona residents and their youth? Don't the deserve a chance? They should have the first, foremost, and final dibs on any seats in college.

"Here we are setting up barriers for a group of kids who by definition are trying to go to college and qualified for admission," he said at the time. "It doesn't make any sense for the state."

These "kids" are not kids at all. They are young adults, and they should not be in the United States. Higher education has not only turned into a government-subsidized scam

It doesn’t make sense for the state. But then, the 2006 law sticking to kids who did nothing wrong was never about making sense.

This writer needs to read Ann Coulter's sage response to this "the kids did nothing wrong" argument. The truth is that the younger generation pays the price, too, when the parents commit crimes and are convicted and sentenced. That's life.

It's not our problem that the illegal alien kids are now adults and living in this county. They have been blessed to live in the United States as long as they have already. They must return to their legal countries of origin and come in legally. They certainly have no right to protest, abuse others, and demand "a right" to be in this country illegally.

It was about spite.

Now, with the in-state tuition question settled, two questions confront us:

1. Will the Regents have to repay the state for this year's in-state tuition subsidy for dreamers, having decided to disregard the Court of Appeals ruling last year?

The Regents should refund the money back to Arizona taxpayers. And please stop calling those young illegals "dreamers". That is very offensive.

And far more importantly, 2. When are we going to quit parsing language – "legal presence" v. "lawful status" v. "lawful immigration status" – and come up at long last with a sensible immigration system that works?

Three words: Deport All Illegals.

Three more words: Build The Wall.

And here's three more: American Dreamers First.

Oregon Man Refuses to Pay Taxes Because of Abortion -- He Beat the Feds!

Here's something in the news from about two weeks ago.

I think more pro-American conservatives should follow this pathway, this process.

Why should we continue to pay taxes to a federal or to state governments which are routinely undermining our rights and refusing to honor their oaths of office to protect the citizenry who pay their taxes?

He refuses to pay taxes because heopposes abortions. He just beat the feds in court

Michael Bowman, a 53-year-old self-employed computer software developer from Columbia City, Oregon, hasn’t paid his federal income taxes since 1999.

He says it’s because his Christian ideals don’t allow him to pay into a system that funds abortions. In a YouTube video explainer [SIC, how about "explanation"?] of his defense, he likened paying taxes that then go toward funding abortions to German citizens under Nazi rule who outed Jewish citizens, sending them to their deaths.

I have heard this argument from others. This is a just form of social protest against the government. Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his poll tax because of his opposition to the Mexican-American war. Californians should stop paying taxes, too, since their tax dollars go to illegal aliens, special interests, and public sector unions, all of which are more interested in stealing from us and enriching themselves. And the public sector workers are not even serving the public!

And according to The Associated Press, he beat the feds in court this week.

To be clear, Bowman won the battle, not the war he’s fighting with the IRS and the Oregon U.S. District Court, when federal Judge Michael W. Mosman dismissed a felony tax evasion charge against Bowman.

This passage proves the level of click-baiting which the media will engage in. How shameful is that? Still, Bowman won a court case against the federal government to hold onto his well-deserved tax dollars.

Mosman ruled that the government’s indictment failed to provide any evidence that Bowman tried to conceal money from or misled the IRS by cashing his paychecks instead of depositing them and keeping a low bank balance so tax collectors couldn’t garnish wages from it to pay what it says are back taxes owed.

“Not everything that makes collection efforts more difficult qualifies as evasion,” Mosman said Wednesday, according to the Oregonian.

More tax evasion needed, then? Or should all of us resort to having as little money as possible in our bank accounts? How many of us feel confident about leaving our money in our homes, locked in a safe or in a can under our beds? Not sure about this approach, but oh well.

According to Bowman’s federal indictment, the self-employed computer software developer owes back taxes on at least $800,000 of income and falsely claimed he was owed several refunds. The feds claim he started using the religious argument for not paying his taxes only after his “’Claim of Right’ tax avoidance scheme failed.”

The taxes and penalties due associated with that income is $356,857.

That indictment came down in February 2017, and Mosman dismissed it without prejudice Wednesday, which means the prosecutors could seek a new indictment to replace it. Bowman still faces four misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file tax returns.

Uh-Oh!

Bowman allegedly also left voicemail messages for the IRS revenue officer assigned to his case in 2013, where he stated that he refused to pay his taxes. He says he’s been up front with authorities all along.

At least he was honest about not wanting to pay his taxes, and why he doesn't want to pay.

When the Oregon Department of Revenue began taking money from Bowman’s bank account in 2012, Bowman began cashing his work checks instead of depositing them, leaving a minimal balance in his account through at least September 2014, according to the Oregonian.

Yes, I guess this is the process which we conscientious-minded activists may have to follow. Someone should forward this to as many people as possible. Perhaps Milton Friedman's dream of "Starving the Beast" can still come true.

“Defendant’s altered bank behavior removed his income from the reach of taxing authorities and allowed him to avoid payment of assessed taxes,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Donna Brecker Maddux and Rachel K. Sowray wrote in their defense of the felony tax evasion charge.

But Bowman’s lawyer argued that simply cashing checks in his own name did not constitute tax evasion. Mosman agreed.

Of course it does not count as tax evasion! Lots of people cash their checks and take the money to purchase goods are engage in other forms of trade. Civil asset forfeiture has turned into a manifold abuse in part because the feds target farmers--who do their deals in direct cash!

No one would dare call a farmer a tax dodger, would they?

I sure hope not!

Bowman’s defense in the larger scope of his refusal to pay taxes comes from a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrates a compelling government interest and does so through the least restrictive means.

Good argument. Let's build on it!

In April of 2017, though, President Donald Trump signed a law that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape or to save a woman’s life. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for the years 2014 and 2015, $450 million in government funding was distributed to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions as well as education, contraception and other forms of reproductive care.

I am glad that more people are fighting for life and taking a stand against the federal government's abuse and misuse of taxpayer dollars.

CALL TO ACTION! Kill Last Minute Amnesty NOW!

We The People Rising http://wethepeoplerising.com EMAIL robinhvidston@wethepeoplerising.com or  rhvidston1@yahoo.com Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: Eagle Forum, Eunie Smith President on behalf of Eagle Forum, Eunie Smith President Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 6:03 AM To: HotAugust1914@outlook.com Subject: 🚩 Take Action Against the Amnesty Resolution in Congress!   View this email in your browser Share Tweet Forward April 30, 2018 Contact Your Representative Now: The Denham Resolution is an Underhanded Scheme to Provide Amnesty to Millions   Congress has seen its fair share of shady deals, but the most recent is on the topic of immigration. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) has introduced a resolution (H. Res. 774) to force several votes on immigration-related bills that take a 218 vote threshold to pass. Rep. Denham already has the full support of all Democrats in the House. If he were to gain the support of 41 Republicans, the vote to proceed to the resolution will not need a committee vote or approval from Leadership. Four votes would take place as a result of this resolution. The first vote would be on Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) Securing America’s Future Act (H.R. 4760) which, despite its extensive border security measures, does not currently have the 218 votes needed to pass. The second vote would be on Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard’s (D-CA) Dream Act (H.R. 3440) which provides massive amnesty to 3 million immigrants. This may have a chance of passing with the overwhelming Democrat support. The third and fourth votes would be on amendments of Rep. Denham’s and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) choosing. Many Members have co-sponsored this resolution because they have been told that President Trump supports it. This is a lie!  Speaker Ryan has publicly said that he will not support this resolution and that the President would likely veto it. Considering a vote on H. Res. 774 is a waste of time and taxpayer money. Call or email your Representative now to tell them not to co-sponsor or support Rep. Denham’s H. Res. 774! Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 Contact Your Representative Share Tweet Share Forward Make a Donation to Eagle Forum Please visit our website often and share with others for information, resources, By-Laws, coming events, alerts, etc. Please be sure that you have "liked" our Facebook page - Eagle Forum and that you visit the page regularly to review the articles shared, then please share them with your Facebook friends and other networks! Our Twitter Handle - @EagleForum - Follow us here, too! Copyright © 2018 Eagle Forum, All rights reserved. You registered to receive email from Eagle Forum. Our mailing address is: Eagle Forum 200 West 3rd Street, Ste. 502 Alton, IL 62002 Add us to your address book  618-433-8990

Twitter Changes Privacy Settings, But the Damage is Done

The social media giants are finally feeling major push-back from the David-like social media users all over the world.

Did they really think that they could get away with siphoning off and misusing people's private data?

This is beyond outrageous. Still, social media presents a two-edged sword of sorts. Conservatives want to get their message out, and yet the new platforms, like Gab and Minds do not have the widest reach yet. What should we do?

One thing is clear for me, though -- I can't use Facebook anymore, since they disabled my accounts completely. Other conservative activists have enjoyed more success pushing back against the Big Tech tyranny. Individual users like me, however, don't have the time or the tech following to fight endlessly against Facebook and its 1984-like censorship squad.

The uprising against Big Tech bullying is having some influence, I suppose.

Let's hope that other platforms promote real discussion, and not just among conservatives, nationalists, and other pro-right, anti-globalist forces.

Here's what Twitter was forced to do in light of Congressional oversight hearings:

Updates to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

We believe you should always know what data we collect from you and how we use it, and that you should have meaningful control over both. As part of our ongoing commitment to transparency, and in preparation for new data protection laws that take effect next month, we’re updating our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to empower you to make the best decisions about the information that you share with us. 

These updates will take effect on May 25, 2018. By using our services on or after that date, you’ll be agreeing to these revisions. You should read the documents in full, but the key updates in our Privacy Policy include:

• More focus on the controls we offer you over your personal data;
• More focus on how Twitter shares your public data broadly and instantly, including through our developer tools;
• More transparency and control over how we share your data with business partners; and
• More clarity about how we share your data to prevent harm, comply with law, serve the public interest, and keep Twitter safe and welcoming for everyone.

We’ve also updated our Terms of Service so that we have one set of terms for both Twitter and Periscope, and to clarify that you must have rights to the content you share on our services.

Remember, you can use the controls we highlight in our updated policy to limit the information we collect about you or how we use it. You can also choose to deactivate your Twitter account. You have the final say about whether and how we process your personal data. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Bookmark or share this article

Notice a tinge of arrogance from the Twitter team: "You can choose to deactivate your account."

I just might do that, as have millions of people, who are disengaging from Facebook already.

Democracy Does Not Protect Liberty: Constitutional Republicanism Does

The best way to ensure freedom is not through democracy.

The rule of the majority undermines the rights of the minority.

Natural rights belong to everyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Natural rights drawn from a Divine Creator provide for our safety and security. We have a final identity in Him.

As for proper governance, democratic processes are not the best assurance for liberty.

The marketplace is, the forum of private, voluntary exchange provides the best means and medium for effective distribution of resources.

I was pleasantly surprised to find an article making this case for the marketplace vs. the democratic process right in the local paper!

If democracy is in ‘crisis,’ we should turn to the marketplace

Recently, catching up on email brought me across several references to a crisis in democracy. Clay R. Fuller had written that “One could fill a library with the books and reports regarding the ongoing ‘crisis’ of democracy.” In most, political democracy is treated as an ideal. Yet it is a seriously flawed ideal. In fact, as F. A. Hayek noted long ago, “all the inherited limitations on government power are breaking down before it … unlimited democracy … is the problem today.”

Democracy has been a necessary evil in certain ways for decades, for millenia. Who can forget that Socrates was put to death by the vote of the majority?

Democracies are bringing in more socialism, which is undermining liberty and freedom of property. Arizona had a state-wide initiative to force up the minimum wage, and for what? So that more robots would take jobs away from entry-level workers? Someone tell me how any of this is a good idea?

Perhaps the most blatant evidence is the frequency with which policies and candidates claiming majority support advance coercive measures that take from some to give to others. Such piracy violates universal moral and ethical condemnations of theft, so it cannot be an ideal.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. A Republic ensures that the lamb has a firearm.

There are, in fact, several ways political democracy falls short as an ideal. To be ideal, it would avoid violating individuals’ established rights. It would be responsive; people’s votes would have to matter. It would give people incentives to become well-informed and think carefully about policies. It would require powerful incentives to deter dishonesty and misrepresentation. It would also have to be limited in scope, as no one wants every issue that concerns them subject to majority determination.

This issue of voters' submission of voting--yes, people's votes tend not to matter in too many cases. If a majority, however slim, is the final factor for an electoral victory, what does one say to the 49.9% of people who voted one way and lost?

It is hard to think of government policies that do not violate some people’s rights. In fact, such  violations are often the main driver of policy (e.g., price controls). And those violations eviscerate the central function of a government advancing its citizens’ well-being–defending existing rights.

Policies imposed by majority violate not just the rights of the minority, but the rights of all citizens! How true that is.

Despite volumes of democracy-extolling rhetoric, virtually no one’s vote changes the results. Name one time your vote for or against a candidate or initiative altered the electoral outcome. Results are not responsive to individual preferences.

I would disagree with this argument on a surface level. I voted for President Trump, and President Trump won. I voted for Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance) in 2014, and he won. I voted for him in 2016 and he lost. The issue has a lot to do not just with voting, but how many people are voting. With those outcomes in mind, other factors play such a large factor in outcomes, not just my own voting.

Further, voters face binary yes/no votes on initiatives or A/B votes on candidates representing bundles of policies and promises. That is far from giving voters power to effectively exercise their desires. The least harmful option, not the most preferred, is frequently chosen.

Good point. The lack of choice, the lack of chosen outcomes, the lack of specific preferences is a problem. Every voter, if the individual chooses to vote, gets boxed into some pretty meager choices. That's how many voters felt during the Presidential election.

Most voters also face very limited incentives to consider policies carefully, illustrated by vast numbers who don’t even know their political representatives’ names. That is largely because individuals’ market voting with their dollars changes their outcomes — better matching their circumstances and preferences — while public policy voting almost never does, but also because more complex policy issues are more difficult to evaluate than private choices.

This part of the article is the most enlightened, the most profound. A voter must spend so much time, energy, and resources figuring out who to vote for, and yet one's exercise of the voter franchise by itself is quite slight.

What's the point of voting when you perceive that your one little vote amounts to just about ... nothing?

Politics also imposes fewer effective constraints on dishonesty and misrepresentation than market arrangements. Beyond greater “customer” ignorance, politics has no truth-in-advertising laws, money-back guarantees or effective warrantees. Politicians’ wares are not easily evaluated. They are primarily plausible-sounding stories about candidates’ intentions, which they cannot accomplish alone, backed with the every-ready excuse that failures represented the best deal actually possible. There is frequently no more than one “electable” competitor to keep you honest, and that is frequently limited only to election season.

Wow. So profound and so sad at the same time. People say just about anything to get elected, but they never follow through. They don't have to follow through! They got elected, and I as a voter cannot recall them or get my "money" back, so to speak!

In political democracy, a majority can also force its preferences on any issue upon all those who disagree. That is why our founders adopted constraints on majority abuse, such as limited, delegated powers and the Bill of Rights. However, those constraints have largely been undermined today.

And a reminder: we are not a democracy, but a republic! Christopher Buskirk wrote in the Washington Post how we are witnessing a restoration of Little R republicanism, a true restraint on the power of the state, specifically the federal government.

We need more of this, not less.

In contrast to political democracy, free market capitalism, which reflects democratic self-government, represents a far better ideal.

The final government ideal would be to have as little as possible decided by the government, and as much as possible in our lives settled by personal choice and marketplace engagement.

Its system of exclusively voluntary cooperation based on self-ownership requires that property rights be respected; no majority can violate owners’ rights. Individuals’ dollar votes change their outcomes, even when their preferences are not the majority’s preferences, generating the further advantage of making them far better informed than about politics. There also are more mechanisms providing honesty and accountability.

Markets, freedom are a better metric for change and accountability. We need more of that. One of the most important aspects is that efforts and outcomes must respond to what people want. Government does not do that well, unless there is a lot of mobilization and force.

Holding out democracy as an ideal overlooks the question of whether market democracy or political democracy better serves citizens. A very strong argument can be made that a superior form is to remove virtually all decisions and policies we need not share in common (almost all of them, beyond the mutual protection of our rights) from government dictation, and let people exercise self-government, protected by their unalienable rights.

Which decisions do not belong to the government? Decisions which we do not share with others. We all share a need for public safety, water, street services, etc.

But not much else. In the end, the best safeguard for our liberty is not democracy, but constitutional republicanism, precisely because it limits the power of the government no matter who enters into power.