San Diego Mayor Calls for Jury Nullification | Tenth Amendment Center Blog


Freedom in a Democracy v. Liberty in a Republic

The word democracy is used to describe and identify our country all too often by politicians from both the left and the right and everyone in between. Democracy is not even mentioned in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Our founding fathers made it very clear that they thought a democracy was not the right form of government for our country. Politicians truly show their ignorance when they refer to our country as a “great democracy”.

The fact is that we use democratic principles to administer our “Republic”. Article IV Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government….”.

So what is a republic and how does it differ from a democracy? Both forms of government can utilize a representative elected body but the difference is that a republic recognizes the rule of law is supreme. A system that protects the rights of the individual. A democracy is by majority rule, where the laws can change with the emotions of elected officials and pressures by the people who elected them, regardless of written laws because the laws can be changed to suit the majority, while ignoring the rights of the individual.

A Democracy produces a society where standards, morals, and the rights of the individual are overlooked to appease a majority that seeks to cure the ills that plague the people from the intrinsic characteristics that make them who they are in the first place. This is not to say that republicanism is a cure-all, but it provides a standard that stands the test of time by protecting the individual from the one thing that has never changed and will never change which is; human nature.

Human nature seeks righteousness, respect, happiness, justice, kindness and other fine attributes while it also creates  power, greed, sloth that tear apart a society. Our Constitution provides a stable foundation that protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In a society where the people are ruled by a democracy and the majority always gets their way, how would your individual rights and property be protected? Could you enjoy a sugar saturated drink of any size you desire without harassment or penalty? They can’t in New York City. Could you own a weapon to protect yourself and family against harm, that has far more power and capacity than a would-be assailant? In New York State they cannot. What goes around comes around, and the Ohio State Legislature is considering this type of bill now.

Do not confuse liberty with freedom. They are not the same thing. True freedom is the ability to do whatever you please regardless of the consequences. Liberty is freedom coupled with morality. It is the conscious awareness that you are free to conduct your lives as you see fit, so long as all others can do the same without infringement on the rights of other people.

Our elected officials currently serving us at the state and federal levels (regardless of party), are not concerned with Article IV Sec. 4 of the Constitution. The passage of all legislation is based on the effect it will have on re-election and which party will retain power while under the guise of giving the people what they desire and need.


Some wanted me to let it out…. « Foundersfreedom Blog

Some wanted me to let it out…. « Foundersfreedom Blog

via Some wanted me to let it out…. « Foundersfreedom Blog.

Jan Morgan Media » America: Land of Opportunity or Sanctuary of Security?

August 21st Meeting

During a July 14, 2009, address in Warren, Mich., Obama said, “Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That’s my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy.’ That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe.

All too often we have heard the current administration point the finger of blame at their predecessors. Obama asked for this economy. He campaigned for this economy. He spent millions to get it and was chosen to fix it just as he had promised. Promises like cutting the deficit in half, cutting wasteful programs and closing Guantanamo Bay to name a few. We are all still waiting. Pundits on the left have ignored these promises and now gladly perpetuate the class war and demonization of their opponents. Clearly the main-stream media has a leftist agenda.
At the 2008 DNC in Denver, Barack Obama said “If you don’t have a record to run on then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” This has been the strategy of the left for the last several months and will only get worse as we approach election day.
The selection of Paul Ryan by Mitt Romney may shift the mudslinging back to the real problems facing our country today. Paul Ryan serves on the House Committee on the Budget, and Ways and Means Committee. He understands the fiscal problems we face, but his voting record speaks for itself about how he views the role of the federal government. The bills he has voted for listed below have significantly added to our debt or grown the size of government.
FOR the No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
FOR the Iraq war (2002)
FOR the Medicare prescription drug entitlement (2003)
FOR Head Start reauthorization (2007)
FOR Economic Stimulus Act (January 2008)
FOR extending unemployment benefits (2008)
FOR TARP (2008)
FOR GM/Chrysler bailout (2008)
FOR $192 billion anti-recession spending bill (2009)

That is the record that could “blur his image as deficit hawk.”

The notion that either party is dedicated to solving our fiscal crisis is absurd. They have proven time and again that the policies and bills presented for a vote are purely political posturing that looks no further than the next election cycle. This is a symptom that only term limits will cure. This You Tube video explains the sinking ship we are all on (at least for now).

This is why the answer to our country’s problems will not come from central government, but from the people.

Alexis De Tocqueville was a French philosopher who lived from 1805 to 1859. He wrote Democracy in America, based on his travels around the country. He made very insightful observations about democracy and the American Republic.

Tocqueville stated that the sovereignty of the people is deep-rooted and widespread. By this he meant that Americans have a say in, and are actively involved in, all aspects of their society. The sovereignty of the people includes their influence over their government, but it is bigger than that. It resonates throughout the culture. It is a mind-set. “Whenever the political laws of the United States are to be discussed, it is with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people that we must begin….In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is neither barren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognized by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. If there is a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in its application to the affairs of the society, and where its dangers and advantages may be judged, that country assuredly is America”.

Tocqueville observed, the American government is nothing like the government in Europe, where the latter governments are central to European societies and lord over them, where their societies are formed and directed by their governments, and where their histories and experiences are far different in that they include life under tyrannies. In America, the government is innocuous and dispersed – that is, society does not evolve around the government. “Nothing is more striking to a European traveler in the Unites States than the absence of what we term the government, or the administration. Written laws exist in America, and one sees the daily execution of them; but although everything moves regularly, the mover can nowhere be discovered. The hand that directs the social machine is invisible”.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation of our society was the type of country our founding fathers envisioned. The sovereignty of the states and the people was the goal of a limited government with enumerated powers.

The behemoth government that has grown while we have been asleep at the wheel of the republic is in essence our own fault. The question remains as to what you will do about securing your liberties and freedoms as an ever increasing federal government seizes your pursuit of happiness right from under your nose.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

 Alexis de Tocqueville

House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments

House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments.

How Do We Maintain American Exceptionalism?

American exceptionalism refers to the special character of the United States as a uniquely free nation based on morals, ideals and personal liberty. These ideals are defined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. In order for these ideals to remain a constant guiding light, they must be taught to others and passed from generation to generation.

Imagine your favorite restaurant, with all its special character and flair. Think of the things that this particular establishment does best. It may be the welcome you receive at the door or the decor of the dining room and its lighting, the quality of food and the experience of the staff. All of these combined create an atmosphere to your liking.

But how could this restaurant maintain a quality experience if the chef was just hired moments before she cooked your dinner and received no instruction on how it was to be prepared? If the wait staff had no knowledge of how to welcome you and ignored your calls for service, would it be an exceptional restaurant?

What makes the restaurant and America exceptional is the ever yearning passion that bonds us in a common goal combined with the people who are willing to make the effort to keep the best thing that mankind has ever known, personal liberty and a good steak.

How can we expect the visions of our Founding Fathers to last into perpetuity unless we undertake this role?  Just as important, is the education of those already here to teach those visions.

If we, are as a country, willing to let anyone cross our borders to remain here illegally, we will surely dilute the vision of this nation just as a restaurant cannot survive with a revolving door staff.

Can we then truly exist as a nation? One of ever-changing values, morals, laws that are decided by people with no skin in the game? No real ties that bind us in a common vision of personal liberty?

Our current administration believes we can. On June 15, 2012 the Obama administration issued an executive order halting the deportation of illegal immigrants brought here as children.

Did Obama always believe he had the authority to end-run Congress and grant administrative amnesty?

Here’s what Obama had to say in March 2011 in front of a Hispanic audience at Bell Multicultural High School.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Barack Obama has clearly flipped on his previous opinion of his powers through executive order. This is a move of political expediency, nothing more.

Does America mean the same thing to the people who come here illegally as it does to those who arrive through legitimate methods? Are they interested in preserving the vision of our Founding Fathers?

How do we maintain American Exceptionalism?

Please visit the following link about Nullification  What If The States Refuse To Comply?

%d bloggers like this: