Wednesday, March 28, 2012

100 DEMOCRACY or REPUBLIC - Which is IT? ... ... Not Presented or Published

Benedict D. LaRosa

Benedict D. LaRosa is a historian and author. He earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in history from the U.S. Air Force Academy and Duke University, respectively. During the Vietnam War, he served as a pilot and unit historian in Southeast Asia, and later as a civilian historian for the Department of the Air Force. He is the author of GUN CONTROL: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, published by Candlestick Publishing Company.
Copyright (c) Benedict D. LaRosa
5606 Peacock Ridge
San Antonio, Texas 78228

Several years ago, a caller to the Larry King television talk show asked the guest, a Congressman, to explain the difference between a democracy and a republic. The Congressman responded that there was no difference; the two words were synonymous. Intrigued by the ignorance of this apparently intelligent, well meaning man who had sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, I consulted several dictionaries. None of them considered the two words synonymous, though all described them in similar terms. Little wonder, then, that the words are used interchangeably today. To the founders of this country, however, there was a world of difference between the two. Even Heinrich Muller, Chief of the Gestapo, recognized this. In an interview given to the Central Intelligence Agency in 1948 at his home in Switzerland, Muller said:

Here, in Switzerland, is the only real democracy in the world You in America have a republic, not a democracy. There is a real difference there.
Is the distinction merely the rambling of politically incorrect 18th century tax protesters, or are there real differences between the two forms of government?

Although we hear the term democracy used constantly in reference to our form of government, the word does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States, our two fundamental documents. Indeed, Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every State in this union a Republican Form of Government." In addition, we sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and pledge allegiance to the flag of "the Republic for which it stands."

On the contrary, the founders saw great danger in democracy. Tom Paine, that firebrand of the American Revolution, considered democracy the vilest form of government.

In describing the purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph commented: 
The general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.

Thirty-eight years after the Declaration of Independence, John Adams warned:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide. 
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 observed: 
Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos. 
As late as 1928, the "Citizenship" chapter of U.S. War Department training manual TM 2000-25 expressed the opinion:

Democracy . . . has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers . . . made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy . . . and said repeatedly and repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

One of America's outstanding historians, Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948), put it succinctly:

At no time, at no place in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it. . . .

Why, then, do we call ourselves a democracy, and does it really make any difference?

The origin of the word democracy comes from the Greek demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning government. Literally, democracy means government by or of the people. 
In a democracy, the majority rules either directly, or through elected representatives or appointed officials, without the restraint embodied in a fixed body of law. The law is whatever an official organ of government determines it is.

("The law is in their mouth," as was said of absolute monarchs.) It is rule by whim rather than law, by emotion rather than reason. Individuals have no inherent rights, but are considered the products of history (slavery, the renaissance, dark ages, etc.), culture (western, oriental, etc.), class (nobility, merchant, artisan, peasant, etc.), gender (male or female), race (Caucasian, Negroid, etc.), religion (Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Moslem, Jewish, etc.), etc., and are classified and categorized accordingly. Rights emanate from the mass will or power. The purpose of government is to satisfy needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.). It is government by conflicting biases with the result that members of politically powerful constituencies receive privileges because of their classification within certain categories rather than on merit at the expense of everyone else. The racial and other quotas under Affirmative Action are an example.
The laws are political or man-made, and reflect not truth and justice, but power. They are a mass of ad hoc decisions produced through lobbying, geared to expediency, concerned more with immediate consequences and less with consistency or continuity. Gun control and drug laws are prime examples. They are based on the emotional reaction to societal problems for which the misuse of guns and drugs are merely the symptom. Despite overwhelming evidence that such laws not only don't work, but actually encourage lawlessness, those who support them demand more draconian measures in the face of their repeated failures.

As a consequences, our prisons fill with peaceful people who merely want to defend themselves or relax with a drug which is, at most, harmful only to themselves while murderers, rapists, and robbers are set free to make room for these political prisoners.

Political law creates advantage. Therefore, political factions compete to control the lawmaking process. Government power is a prize to be won for the benefit of the winners at the expense of the losers. The law becomes an instrument used by the winners against their opponents. Officers of the law are appropriately called law enforcement officers or policemen (from the Greek, Latin, and French to regulate, control, or cleanup). Their primary role is to enforce the corporate will, and protect the power of the state. The military is an instrument of foreign and, at times, domestic policy. Taxes are imposed without the individual's consent, and are used to reward and punish as well as pay for legitimate government functions.

People vote for what they want, not what is right. The public looks to the political class for moral leadership. Public and private morality are considered the same which justifies making private morality public policy. Thus what one does in the privacy of his own home with consenting adults (gambling, for example) must meet the same standard as for public behavior. As a result, vices become crimes, and the exercise of certain freedoms become criminal activities. What is lawful today, may not be tomorrow, and an individual considered law-abiding one day, may be a criminal the next, though his behavior has not changed.
Restraint is upon the individual. Rights are relative and take the form of privileges granted through government licenses and permits, or simply permissions revocable at the whim of those in power. The will of one segment of society - the majority - is imposed on everyone.

Government acts like a hammer punishing violations of majority standards as enacted by legislation. Consent of the governed is meaningless, for such governments exercise their powers over anyone they choose.

Democracy concentrates power into the hands of the few organized and clever enough to manipulate the masses. It is characterized by a communistic attitude toward property and monopolistic enterprises. Government thus becomes an instrument for the redistribution of wealth as well as the security of the state. It is the will of men, the dictatorship of the majority without regard to the consequences upon individuals or society.


The word republic is from the Latin res, which means thing, affair or interest, and publica which means of everybody. It literally means everybody's thing or interest.

The Declaration of Independence contains the principles of republican government: that all men are created with equal, unalienable rights, that governments are formed by men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Upon these principles, our forefathers established a body of law called the Constitution of the United States to which they added a Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to further restrict majority rule.

The essence of a republic is the rule of law, by which is meant the common or scientific law, which is certain and unchangeable. This law is discovered, not made, in that the tendency is to find the freedoms and restraints imposed by natural law, and base decisions upon them.
(Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them,"
wrote Tom Paine.) Since human nature doesn't change, what was right yesterday should be so today and tomorrow. Courts seek out and enforce a higher law as opposed to political or man-made law. As a result, the law seeks truth, transcends politics, is reasonable, consistent, predictable, and reflects or approximates natural justice.

Government acts like a shield punishing the abuses of freedoms assaults against the life, liberty, and property of innocent people - not the freedoms themselves. For example, the misuse of a firearm which results in injury to an innocent party would be punished rather than the mere possession of such a weapon. Officers of the law are appropriately called peace officers, for they do not enforce political law, but protect everyone equally from force and fraud. The military is used as a last resort to protect the nation. Moral authority rests outside the political class who are held to a high moral standard through public pressure.
Government's purpose is to protect rights and defend freedom. Taxes are voluntary assessments used to fund legitimate government functions serving the common good (in obedience to John Adams' dictum that "No man may be taxed against his will. . . .").Under this form of government, individual freedom and responsibility are maximized. The individual is sovereign and his rights are sacrosanct. Individuals are free to act without permission, but must never impose without consent. Everyone has an equal right to compete in the marketplace, succeed or fail on their own, and pursue their own happiness restrained only by the rights of others to do the same. Republics reject as a danger to liberty the public interest doctrine espoused in democracies, because, as John Adams articulated:
have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.

In a republic, the government has just enough power to carry out its proper functions, but is otherwise limited, inhibited and restricted.
According to political historian, Thomas Molnar:
The prevailing concept
[of 18th century liberalism] was . . . that the State should concern itself with public safety, and should be called out - in the form of its armed forces only to restrain the disorderly and crush the rebellious. 

Power is decentralized, divided, and regulated by an elaborate system of checks and balances, with the ultimate check held by the people in the form of free and open elections (the ballot box), trial by jury (the jury box), and an armed citizenry (the cartridge box). The law is neutral. No one is exempt; everyone is equal before it. All are held fully accountable to an injured party. 

Republican government is based on Tom Paine's premise that:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, gave perhaps the best description of republican government:
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another . . .
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned This is the sum of good government. . . .
In a republic, government is an instrument solely for collective security in which the people are served rather than regulated, represented rather than ruled. When the principles of republican government are followed, free markets spring up automatically followed by a growing middle class, abundance, harmony, a high degree of liberty, and ethical behavior. The emphasis is on the creation of wealth, not the accumulation of power as in a democracy.
John Adams summed up what a government of men brings:Passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves; nations and large bodies of men, never.Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler, writing when the states were still colonies of Great Britain, explained why democracies always fail:

Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
James Madison, father of the Constitution, wrote in THE FEDERALIST No.10:
In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.Even Plato warned, in his REPUBLIC, that, as a rule, tyranny arises from democracy.
For these reasons, the founders of our Republic avoided a government of men and established a government of law.

The confusion is not new. James Madison, writing in THE FEDERALIST No.14, refers

The error which limits republican government . . . seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter.
Madison blamed "celebrated authors" for the confusion because they placed:
in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only.
Widespread use of the term democracy began with the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1912. It was during this administration that the anti-republican amendments - the 16th (income tax) and 17th (popular election of senators) were added to our Constitution and a central bank - the Federal Reserve - was established. All three acts centralized power.

The U.S. War Department manual mentioned above defined democracy and republic, and explained the difference between both. Sometime in the 1930s, during the Franklin Roosevelt administration, all copies were withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and Army posts, and destroyed without explanation.

Confusion between the two forms of government lingers today to the detriment of not only the American people, but also all those who look to us as an example of how to structure a just and free society. When we understand the difference, many of the issues which divide us will melt away. We will then make better choices in our leaders, and demand that government become less intrusive, abusive, and expensive, and more responsive to our collective needs for security, harmony, and abundance. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the very survival of our civilization depends upon knowing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

]36-People or Citizen - Which Are You? ... ... ... ... ... Presented 3/4/2012 ... Printed 3/8/2012

People or Citizen, Which Are You?

For further discussion of this possibility log onto my Blog:
Blog address:
Blog Email:

Eric Williams, Yellville

I endeavor to respond to all communications promptly.

Last week Jim Smith criticized me for questioning Obama’s citizenship, however I have never done that.

I explained that no one could be born into citizenship because citizenship is irrefutably a condition of servitude so citizenship by birth is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. I did not limit this to Obama, I clearly indicated such applies to everyone.

However, being born "in" the United States is recognized as a birth acquired right to claim citizenship upon maturity (without naturalization), which is why otherwise Sovereign school children are fraudulently indoctrinated to "voluntarily" present a birth certificate when applying for a driver license.

U.S. citizenship is defined in the Fourteenth Amendment, wherein the first clause establishes that U.S. citizens have no rights, only privileges accorded by Congress. It is not worded quite that clearly but what else can the words "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ..." possibly mean?

If you don’t like that then munch on the Fourth Article, which provides that citizens shall not complain about the validity of the public debt - which means - citizens, shut up and pay up!

The word "citizen" is inherently a political word and constitutes an inherent acknowledgment of political subservience, no matter the context. However, there is no manner of political implication inherent in the word "people", but a political application can be imbued into it depending on the context, which we find in the Preamble and Amendments 1,2,4,9 and 10, however such implication is of Political Superiority, NOT subservience!

The Preamble very clearly establishes that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the blessings of liberty to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity - citizens are not mentioned or intended to be included!

Please take note that neither is the word citizen included in any of the first Ten Amendments, and that the First Amendment is divided into two parts, the second part protects the People’s right to redress - does not apply to mere citizens! Please pay attention to the words!

Citizens have no gun right protection in the Second Amendment! All court opinions recognizing Bill of Rights applications to citizens are mere window dressing. Pay attention to the overall reduction of the citizens ability to control any aspect of his life! All gradually done beginning with the Preamble, the reconstructing of the Bill of Rights by the "Former" Aristocrats and the imposition of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, after all of the commoners of the Revolutionary era had died.

Remember, when Patrick Henry read the Constitution he said he smelled a rat and would have no more to do with it.

The Constitution is vaguely written to be applied by honorable scholars, among whom, sadly, we will not find Barrack Hussein Obama!

So, which are you, of the Sovereign People or a mere subservient citizen?

]35-What Is Freedom?... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 2/24/2012 ... Printed 3/1/2012

What is Freedom?
We all use this word with a presumption that everyone agrees about what it is that constitutes Freedom, but when we vote the outcome is usually within 5 points between the yeas and nays; and this is even true with many of the votes of the Supreme Court - If those Justices can’t agree on how the law works under Freedom then how can we commoners be expected to figure it out?
Our country’s financial condition is in shambles and everyone agrees that government spending must be reduced but no one agrees where the cuts should be made, so how can we ever modify our Freedom based government so that it will not degenerate into these disastrous conditions?

How do we determine how much government is the right amount? How should laws be written and where should the money to support government come from and where should it be spent, in order for all the foregoing to enable Freedom to flourish?

How do we determine where to draw the line?

What is the fair amount of tax you should pay? And, who gets to decide?

Everyone has a different idea -

Where do we draw the line? Or more to the point - How do we determine where to draw the line - so that everyone must agree the line is properly drawn?

If we are to ever be truly Free the line must be drawn with a mathematical certainty, so that everyone must agree, otherwise we will have failed and we will continue making the same old mistakes that always lead us into to the same mess.

I read the following definition of Freedom some 40 years ago: "Freedom is the societal condition that exists when everyone has full, 100%, control over their own property".

The question is, "How do we implement that and still provide a means of funding government?"

The men who created our government were men just like us - they had no magic wand and neither do we, but neither did they or we have an ability to transfer authority we do not individually Naturally possess, to an entity created through our intellectual endeavors just because we call it government.

The foregoing clearly indicates that neither we nor the Founders could have any proper authority to imbue our government with any more authority than the authority Nature imbued into each of us individually. To go beyond that is to create the police state we now suffer under.

Mortgages and finance purchases were not common at the founding of our country but such is quite prevalent now. Why don’t we Federalize the Central bank and credit all the interest on the millions of mortgages, auto loans and credit card purchases to the four levels of government, thereby allowing us to totally eliminate all taxation at every level of government.

For further discussion of this possibility log onto my Blog:

Blog address:

Blog email:

I endeavor to respond to all communications promptly.

Eric Williams, Yellville

]34-Response To Critics ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 2/19/2012 ... Printed 2/23/2012

Last week two writers wrote critically of my contributions to this page; one wrote of my comments about the natural born citizen provision for a presidential candidate and mentioned several "expert"opinions purporting to explain the meaning of the vagueness of the constitutional wording, which was exactly my point. When the wording of the Constitution is vague, as so much of it is, then we are all vulnerable to various interpretations of "experts", all of which are nothing more than their opinions and do nothing to change the fact that the wording is vague. My comment that there can be no such status as a natural born citizen is irrefutably true. No matter that "everyone" born in this country has been indoctrinated to believe they were born into U.S. citizenship such indoctrination does not change the fact that it is impossible for anyone to be born into a condition of political servitude to an artificial political organization for at least two reasons:

(1) It would be a violation of Natural Law. How could it be that those born prior could have proper authority to declare the subservience of those born later? How do I arrange to be born first?; (2) The Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. The public schools of America teach that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that everyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen due to such birth, however a careful reading of that Amendment reveals there is no such establishment in that Amendment. Please pay attention to the words, "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...". My substantial research into this subject indicated that citizenship is actually entered into when the native born individual presents his or her birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license, which constitutes the applicants voluntary application to enter into a subservient citizenship relationship to the state by applying for a license to use the name on the birth certificate that became owned by the state, under Arkansas Title 18,28,202. Ask any naturalized citizen, citizenship is a political contract entered into voluntarily. Children cannot contract due to intellectual immaturity. The state considers a sixteen year old as a young adult, being able to contract with the state in regard to a driver license, however until the young adult voluntarily applies to enter into that relationship the state has no political dominion over that individual. Why else would the state require the applicant to present a birth certificate.

Please understand that there is no information on a birth certificate that can connect it to any particular individual, however, in order to understand that you must put aside a lifetime of indoctrination. This is very difficult to do which is why some readers of my letters perceive my presentations as convoluted. Due to the topics I write on it is impossible to respond to generalizations claiming my presentations are convoluted. It is difficult to fully present these Freedom based presentations due to reasonable space limitations which is why I started my Internet blog:
Blog address:

Blog email:

I endeavor to respond to all communications promptly

Eric Williams, Yellville

]33-Health Care Abortion ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 2/12/2012 ... Printed 2/16/2012

Health Care Abortion?

There is great concern at this time about Adolph Obama’s health Care requirement that Christian health care facilities provide abortion paraphernalia to patients against the moral convictions of the health care providers.

Many people are complaining that such requirement is a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of Religious freedom.

And then Adolph comes out with his claim that this is not a religious violation because the care givers are business organizations - and the fact that they are operated by Christians or others with moral convictions, Adolph claims that is irrelevant.

He could also make the argument that those calling themselves churches are not actually churches because they have incorporated in order to allow their congregations to deduct their contributions from their income tax, a "right" not accorded to churches that have not applied for 501(c) exempt status.

But what about the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude? I contend that the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition precludes Adolph Obama’s entire Health Care Plan! Why stop with halfway measures? Let’s go full bore and get rid of the entire package on the basis of its violation of the Thirteenth Amendment!

And, a Thirteenth Amendment claim could not be attacked later under IRS 501(c) violations.

All to many times when people are upset they jump to an emotional response instead of thinking it properly through.

Every time the government does something that seems fishy - stop and ask yourself if you have the Natural God given authority to do whatever it might be that you are upset about that the government is doing.

We are taught as children that all government authority is delegated to the government by the people - stop and think about that - if you don’t have authority from Nature to do whatever the government is doing, then neither does anyone else and if no one has the Naturally imbued authority then no one can possibly delegate what they don’t have to the government so neither can the government properly claim to have it - except in a police state.

Please join my letter blog and comment on my letters, all of which are posted there for you.

Eric Williams,  Yellville

]32-Is Obama A Natural Born Citizen? ... ... ... ... ... Presented 2/5/2012 ... Printed 2/9/2012

Is Obama A Natural Born Citizen?
Article One of the Federal Constitution provides that in order for a candidate to be eligible to serve as President the candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, which begs the question, "What is it that constitutes being a Natural born citizen?"
There is much discussion as to how such status may be determined - did the Founders mean that one or both of the candidates parents must have been natural born citizens of the United States or would the candidate’s natural born citizenship status be determined entirely on the location of the candidates birth, with no consideration of where either of the candidates parents were born?
The clear implication inherent in any form of the word "nature", in regard to the cause of the origin of anything, is that whatever it might be, that its origin was caused by Nature, without any artificial influence of mankind.
As governments are artificial political creations of men, having no physical existence, it is not possible for anyone to be born in any such artificial political physically non-existing entity, or to be born into citizenship of any such artificial political physically non-existing entity.
The voluntary claiming of citizenship clearly acknowledges a voluntary political subservience by an individual with intellectual cognitive ability, which human children do not yet possess.
As Natural Law and the Thirteenth Amendment both prohibit involuntary servitude of any description, it is clear that in order for an individual born politically free and independent to become a citizen of the United States, the individual would have to mature to the age of accountability in order to volunteer into such subservient status, therefore, there can not possibly be any such status as a natural born citizen of the United States.
Additionally, as humans at birth are totally devoid of any ability to take cognitive notice of the conditions of their birth, it is impossible for anyone to know when or where they were born, or who their parents were, or whether or not a birth certificate was created at the time of their birth.
It is reasonable that the Founders intended that a presidential candidate must be born in close proximity to adults well schooled in and knowledgeable of the English Common Law, with a strong loyalty to the individual Freedom based political and economic structure of the United States in order to avoid electing a president who would have been imbued as a child with a foreign political structure contrary to individual freedom, who would be morally inclined to destroy such individual Freedom, such as has been and is being manifested by President Barrack Hussain Obama.
The clear intent of the Founders was to require a presidential candidate to be eligible to claim United States citizenship due to native birth, without the necessity of renouncing any previously acquired political obligation to any foreign political entity or naturalization requirement.

Eric Williams,  Yellville

Saturday, January 28, 2012

]31-Teen Vandals Caught - Parents Arrested!!! ... ... Presented 1/28/2012 - Printed 2/2/2012

Teen Vandals Caught
Parents Arrested!!!

No, that is not hat we read on the front page last week, what we read was “Teens Arrested for Vandalism”, however I contend that the caption of my letter would have been more appropriate, or perhaps, even more to the point would have been, “Teen Vandals Caught, Marion County Quorum Court Arrested”, or “Arkansas State Legislature Indicted".

Given the Twilight Zone our society has degenerated into  I am not at all surprised that teens commit such acts, what else is there for them to do?

When I was a teen, way back before government undertook to totally micro-manage our lives, we teens all had jobs after school and on weekends. With home work and after school jobs teens back in the stone age where I was raised did not have time to be bored and get ourselves into trouble.  However there were ZERO restrictions on us being employed.  We did not have to maintain any certain grade level or get permission from the school in order to be employed, and there were no minimum wage laws or child labor laws to get in our way, and neither did our parents purchase cars for us - if we wanted a car - and we all did - we had to get a job and save up money and pay for it ourselves, and maintain it also.

The high school I attended had vocational machine shop, auto shop and wood shop - we did not have time for vandalism - we were too busy learning how to be adults to engage in such childish behavior.

I don’t blame the teens - NO - I blame their parents, and the legislators for enacting child labor laws and minimum wage laws.

There were no adults bagging groceries at the super market - we teens did that and we did not get paid by the store - we worked for tips - and we better show up dressed properly, no blue genes, and we better be wearing a tie - what happened to that? Now either the cashier or another store paid adult employee does all the bagging, causing prices to be higher than if teens were still allowed to bag for tips.

When I was a teen I had as many as three part time jobs at the same time and still had time to be on the football and track teams and got straight A’s in Vocational Machine Shop - and there was no sex ed either, we were to busy learning how to be adults by doing what adults did - being responsible - earning money to pay our way - my folks required me to pay a percentage of what I earned to them, and I had to buy my own clothes too! And do chores at home, mow the lawn and tend the garden and feed the rabbits my dad was raising for pelts.

What happened to teaching/expecting teens to emulate adults?

I am glad I am now 78 - and NOT 7 or 8!
Eric Williams - Twilight Zone. Arkansas

]30-Anchor Baby Fraud ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Presented 1/23/2012 - Printed 1/26/2012

Anchor Baby Fraud

As strange as it may seem, there is no such thing as citizenship by birth. The wording of the 14th Amendment does not establish US citizenship by birth and if it did, it would constitute a violation of Natural law.

As strange as it may seem, no one has ever been born in the United States. This is true because the United States does not physically exist. The US exists only as an artificial political entity. This is not a complaint or a denial of the existence of the U.S., only a statement of undeniable fact.

The U.S. exists only in its Constitution and in the minds of those persons who agree to accept such existence. However, just because I agree that the US exists such agreement does not make me obligated to the U.S. government, as is recognized by the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.

As no man has authority to bind or command another man to service, the 13th Amendment does not prohibit voluntary servitude. What the 13th does is prohibit involuntary servitude and proclaim and acknowledge the natural free condition of man at birth.

It must be acknowledged that citizenship is a condition of political servitude, again, this is not a complaint, merely an acknowledgment of self evident fact.

Because citizenship is a condition of servitude, in order for citizenship to be acquired, it must be entered into intentionally as the voluntary act of each person. Until a person grows to the age of accountability the person cannot volunteer into citizenship. A baby's mother has no ability to in any way place her baby into a condition of servitude (children are NOT property), therefore, there is no such thing as an "anchor baby".

Citizenship by birth is a fraud perpetrated by the government in order to fraudulently induce people, born free, to believe they were born into a condition of political servitude - known as "taxpayer".

The birth certificate plays a critical role in the perpetration of this fraud. No person can identify "their" birth certificate from their own knowledge.
Under Arkansas statutes, the "name" on the BC is assumed to have been abandoned by the parents and thereby owned by the state.

At the age of 16 the "properly" indoctrinated "child" presents "his" or "her" BC to the State and officially requests permission from the state to use the state owned "name" as the applicant’s "true legal name", the state agrees, issuing a state issued ID card (or driver license), and the applicant thereby becomes a licensed franchise of the State, very similar to a McDonald's franchise.

Thereafter, every  time  the franchise holder used the true legal name the franchise holder must do so in conformity to the rules set down in the codes of Arkansas, which the individual would not be obligated to do if he or she had not applied for such franchise license.

The franchise agreement is known as "citizenship".

Why don't they teach these details in the public government controlled schools?

Eric Williams, Yellville

]29-The United States is NOT a Nation!; ... ... ... ... Eric Williams New Blog ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 1/15/2012 - Printed 1/19/2012

The United States is NOT a Nation!; Eric Williams New Blog

We continually hear high ranking government officials and TV talking heads and radio talk show hosts refer to the United States using the word "Nation".

A Nation is a societal organization where there is one central government in charge of everything at every level of the society. This does not mean that a nation is a dictatorship - it could be but not necessarily.

In the U.S., in all official references, we find the official wording refers to a Federal status , not a National status. We have a Federal Bureau of Investigation NOT a National Bureau of Investigation.

The United States is a Federation of Fifty Independent Sovereign Nation States. Each of the Fifty states is a Sovereign Nation, because the State government has political dominion over everything political that happens in that state.

Each of those states is Sovereign and independent from each other and each of them have individually agreed to surrender certain limited authority to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has no proper authority to interfere with the internal affairs of any of the states.

When the U.S. is referred to as a Nation such reference serves to undermine the Sovereign Independent status of each of the Several States. Over the years this has had the effect of causing the purported Sovereign States to be treated as though they were counties of a National government. This is one of the reasons we have so many Federal Socialistic agencies and programs in this "former"Federation.

And neither is the United States a Republic! Communist China, North Korea and Cuba are all republics, but further explanation of that will have to come later.

My New Blog:

As all regular readers are aware, I have had many letters printed here on this page. Due to reasonable space limitations many of my letters are much shorter than necessary to properly set forth the topic, therefore I have created a Blog where most of my previous letters are posted (all that I could find), where I will expand on many topics and answer questions posted there by readers of this newspaper.

It must be clearly understood that my Blog is totally independent from the Mountaineer Echo and that the Editor and Publisher of the Mountaineer Echo have no responsibility for anything I write there or for the content of my letters published in this newspaper.
To access my Blog the address is:

My Blog email address is:

I will endeavor to respond and answer all questions promptly;

And, my Monday evening Talk Show on Talkshoe, 8:00 PM, Central;

Internet address:

Show ID# 27767, and/or call in at (724) 444-7444

Eric Williams, Yellville

Friday, January 13, 2012

]28- Finally, 9/11 Truth Outed ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 1/5/2012 - Printed 1/12/2012

Finally, 9/11 Truth Outed

A few weeks ago I wrote asking why we couldn't get the truth about 9/11, well now we've got it, in SPADES!!! And, it is nothing of what most of us expected. There was no standard building controlled demolition, C-4 explosives, thermite demolition and certainly NOT the official government cover-up claim that the buildings were brought down by burning jet fuel.

One of my Talk Show listeners sent me links to two extensive interviews, one in England. the other Australia, of a marvelous woman, Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D., who is undoubtedly the world's foremost expert in the physical properties of building materials and physical materials in general.

In these interviews Dr. Wood insisted the hosts concentrate on known scientific facts and not engage in premature speculations and conclusions, especially when such speculations and conclusions were based on what we think we know rather than on what we know we do not know. Dr. Wood insisted that the only proper way to determine how the buildings had been destroyed was by examining the evidence, NOT by trying to shoe-horn a conclusion based on our limited knowledge of how the structures might have been eliminated.

Unknown to most of us there was no huge pile of stacked up pan-caked floors of any of the seven buildings destroyed that day - that's right, there were seven buildings destroyed on 9/11.

Neither were there any steel beams shipped to China or any pool of molten steel under any of the destroyed buildings, as we had been deceitfully led to believe; neither have we ever been told there were approximately 1,400 vehicles destroyed that day, many of them several blocks distant from the WTC. Neither were we told that there were over a thousand building occupants that had in some manner been forced to exit through the upper floor windows of the buildings. I am not writing that they jumped because Dr. Wood postulates that the evidence does not indicate they left the buildings intentionally.

Neither were we told that there was very little solid physical debris and no bodies recovered, or that the observable factual evidence revealed that everything that was missing had been turned to dust, into a very fine powder, that continued its process of disappearing into nothing for several weeks, months and years.

Through scientific evaluation of the existing evidence Dr. Wood concluded that the buildings and contents, including  the bodies of the victims, had been "dustified", through some manner of molecular disassociation by some unknown form of Directed Free Energy Technology.

I encourage all readers to go to:


and click on the many links Dr, Wood has provided to her research material, and, to purchase her 540 page book "Where Did The Towers Go", I did, and I consider this book’s importance second only to my Bible!!!

I ask you, who could possibly have the technology to perpetrate this destruction and manage the cover-up other that our deceitful government?

Eric Williams, Yellville

]27- How To Eliminate All Taxation ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 12/22/2011 - Printed 1/5/2012

How To Eliminate All Taxation

Commerce is the means by which we transfer goods among ourselves. In order to enable such transfer between parties distant from one-another a convenient and un-corruptible medium is needed. How is it reasonable that this medium have an intrinsic value of its own?

Does this not constitute an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure of human energy? And would this not have a repressive effect on commerce if such intrinsic value medium were to be in short supply, perhaps, intentionally caused?

No one actually wants money, what they want is what they can get for the money. What is important in this is that the medium used be un-corruptible and universally recognized to facilitate exchanges between distant parties who never see or know each other; and that the cost of the medium itself be as low as possible. This last factor is certainly not met by either gold of silver.

It is well known that some Ron Paul supporters wanted to go back to gold backed money (including silver). That might sound good but a thoughtful examination will indicate that gold money is not a good idea in a refrigerated society.

Refrigeration of food causes mortgages on houses because it enables/causes/forces millions of families to live in Suburbia rather than on a family farm, where they would be required to live if it were not for the refrigeration of food. Traditionally, families acquired their farmland through homesteading, where money was not required, therefore, no mortgages, so gold could then function well as money, but would still be un- necessarily expensive.

Due to the nature of gold money, the lending of gold will always remain in private hands - the government of the United States  has  NEVER  ever  "issued"  gold  money  (whatever
"issued" might mean). The acquiring of gold takes considerable human effort - how could the government properly acquire gold to issue? Yes, the Government Mints create gold coins but only out of gold belonging to private individuals or entities who brought their raw ore to the Mint - none of that ore or the coins minted therefrom ever belonged to the government. The Mint charged a fee to cover minting costs but these fees were expended to pay the costs. So where would the government get gold, enabling the government to "issue" gold into circulation? And this also applies to gold backed paper money!

With privately owned lending of gold in a refrigerated society, with 70 to 80 million interest bearing mortgages funded with gold, where the borrowers used pre-existing gold to pay the interest on their loans, how long would it be before the private gold lenders became the owners of all of the gold in circulation? Then what would the borrowers use to make their mortgage payments? That is, how long would it be before the private gold lenders became the owners of everything and everyone?

On the other hand, using paper as money resolves all the issues mentioned above. It takes relatively little effort or cost, to produce the paper and print it into money. As I understand it, the cost of printing a Federal Reserve note of any denomination is less than one nickel.

The problem we are suffering under is not caused by using paper as money - the problem is in who owns the Federal Reserve, and in the Constitutional provision allowing Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States! (This borrowing Clause must be repealed!)

Ron Paul’s plan to end the Fed is a very BAD idea. As I stated herein above, what is important in this is that the medium used be un-corruptible. How many times are we going to make the same mistake in regard to the design of a monetary system before we come to realize what we are doing is stupid?

What we need to do is Federalize the Fed, assign its oversight to the Legislatures of the Fifty States, NOT to Congress! And assign its ownership to the People of the United States, NOT to the government! Both the President and Congress have proven they cannot be trusted with this august responsibility!

With the normal jealousy existing between the states. it would be nearly impossible for a corruption of the People’s Central Bank to occur!

In considering this design it is important to understand who it is that actually carries the loan no matter whether the medium be paper or gold. It is well known that the Fed loans none of its own assets in a mortgage contract - so then, who is actually carrying the loan if not the bank? Well, who winds up respecting the FRNs as though the FRNs had actual value? Is it not clear that it is the people of the community? How long is it after a loan is activated that a portion of the funds of the loan are in the pocket of every individual in the community?

Is it not clear that the facilitating bank has no just or proper claim on the interest paid by the borrower? Who is it that should be receiving that interest? Is it not clear that it is the people of the community who are properly entitled to this interest? If this interest were credited to the treasury we could eliminate all taxation in the entire Federation!

Freedom cannot possibly exist where taxation is used to fund government!

Where taxation is used to fund government a police state has been created!

Eric Williams, Yellville

]26- New Law Enabling Internment of Citizens ... ... Presented 12/15/2011 - Printed 12/29/2011

New Law Enabling
Internment of Citizens

Congress has enacted a new law empowering Obama to intern any United States citizen he or his underlings decide are a threat to the United States and keep them interned indefinitely, without charges being filed or being accorded a court hearing or trial, and without notifying anyone that the U.S. citizen has been interned.

This law is titled: National Defense Authorization Act 2011(NDAA2011).

Many citizens are screaming that this is unconstitutional, a violation of the Bill of Rights, however they are all wrong. Such internment is allowed under the 14th Amendment, and I contend the 14th Amendment allows such internment even without the passage of this new law.  I contend the purpose of this passage is for Obama to openly and flagrantly test the susceptibility, the resistence, of U.S. citizens to such unconscionable internment.
To understand this we must understand that the status, citizen of the United States, is NOT equivalent to People of the United States.   By right of birth everyone lawfully born in the United States is part of the Sovereign People of the United States, as was established by the Rebels of and on July 4, 1776!

Such Sovereign People are reduced to become mere subservient citizens of the United States when they voluntarily apply for a franchise to use the name on "their" birth certificate (such name having become owned by the State, in Arkansas this State  ownership is enabled under Title 18/28/202), when such People have been led to believe they are merely applying for a driver license, whereupon the name becomes the applicant's "True Legal Name", and the applicant is reduced from being of the Sovereign People to be merely a subservient U.S. citizen and, under the 14th  Amendment, thereby voluntarily becoming subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, thereby no longer having any protection set forth in the Bill of Rights, but only has “civil rights” as determined by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, meaning - Tyrannical Obama!

The 13th Amendment protects the People of the United States who do NOT apply for a “True Legal Name” franchise, from being subjected to the subservient domination of the Federal Government.  The problem is most of the population has been fraudulently indoctrinated in government schools to strongly believe that U.S. citizenship is the highest status of Freedom.   When U.S. citizens strongly scream, they may be ignored as they have no political standing to demand to be heard, they only have physical power - that is why Obama had this new law passed - to test the willingness of the citizens to use their physical power, if they do, Obama will then have the excuse he needs to intern all who resist, both physically and intellectually.
If we are to secure our Freedom we must do so peacefully, by electing a Constitutionalist who has  a record of reducing government intrusion in our lives, such as is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, even though he is a Republican.

Eric Williams, Yellville

]25- Government Socialism ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Presented 12/10/2011 - Printed 12/15/2011

Government Socialism

In Governor Beebe's Address last week he explained the dire straits of Arkansas's poor children and seniors in regard to getting sufficient food. Beebe stated that some mysterious "we" believed that they "could invest public and private funds wisely and make the most of the available resources to get the best value for [their] efforts."

There could not be anyone in Arkansas who could be any more concerned about the hunger of children and seniors than I, especially as I happen to be one of the latter.

In his address Beebe stated "No child, senior citizen, man, or woman deserves to go without food any day, not just holidays.". How does the word "deserve" play into this issue? However, more importantly, how does their "deserving" cause the government to be responsible for providing sustenance of any nature to anyone.

When I was in school sixty-five years ago we were taught how Congressman Davy Crockett was held in very low esteem by his Tennessee constituents because, Congressman Crockett had voted taxpayer funds to help victims of a huge home burning fire.

Crockett was subjected to substantial criticism for his vote - the people of Tennessee told Crockett that if they wanted to contribute to help the needful that they would do so themselves out  of  their  own  pockets, individually, not  through their elected public servants. Crockett was motivated to make a public apology, promising to never make such a vote again, and  was  thereupon re-elected.  During  his  second  term  a similar bill was introduced to give $10,000 to a military hero widow. The Bill was assured of easy passage until Crockett spoke against the government's authority to spend government money for such socialistic purpose, whereupon the Bill was defeated. During his argument Crockett had stated all the members had authority to contribute their own money; Crockett pledged one week of his Congressional remuneration. When the collection was counted the amount contributed from their own pockets amounted to one week of Crockett’s pay.

Likewise, there is no proper authority for Governor Beebe to take taxpayer money from one group and give it to another, no matter how needful or deserving they might be.

Our society has been consistently recognized as being the most giving that could be expected, that is why we have the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries and the hundreds of churches in Arkansas. It is NOT the duty or responsibility nor a  proper  use  of  the  authority of  Governor Beebe  to  use taxpayer funds forcefully extracted from the people of Arkansas, to finance such socialistic endeavors!

It is NOT socialistic for private entities and private individuals to voluntarily contribute to help the needful.

In his address Beebe calls upon the generosity and compassion of "our entire population", I totally agree, however I totally disagree that one cent of government money may be properly contributed to this effort. Every government in this Federation is in financial straits - partially because of improper socialistic expenditures such as this.

Eric Williams, Yellville

]24- Why Immigration Must Be Restricted ... ... ... ... Presented 11/23/2011 - Printed 12/1/2011

Why Immigration Must Be Restricted

Please take note that the title of this article does not include the word "illegal". This Federation was, of course, founded by a people well schooled in the English Common Law, which was included in the constitutions of many states as basic state law. There are, of course, some provisions of the English Common Law that pertain specifically to monarchies, which would not apply to the governments created here, but otherwise, the English Common Law established over many centuries by the commoners of England demanding they be treated on a more just manner by their government, would apply here.One of the most important provisions of the English Common Law was the trial by jury, which has been all but destroyed in this Federation because of votes cast by immigration legally allowed from countries not founded on the English Common Law.

The Federal Constitution's provision that the president must be a natural born citizen was for the purpose of insuring that the office of President would always be populated by an individual well schooled in English Common Law, which is clearly NOT the case with Barrack Hussein Obama.

Due to the influences of legal and illegal immigrant voters from countries not adhering to English Common Law, our entire society has been politically corrupted to the extent that even the Supreme Court makes references in its decisions to the laws or principles of foreign countries.

It is critically important to understand that all governments are artificial, imposed on the general population by those who want to dominate and fleece the common people, to live off of them and suck out their sustenance. These tyrants worm their way into positions of influence and create indoctrination systems that they convince the general population is good for them, they call it public education, and, of course, it is all free, the price is the freedom of the common people.

This is what the commoners of England had fought against in order to gradually establish the English Common Law. When people immigrate here from countries not well schooled in these principles and such immigrants are allowed to vote, they are influenced by the wannabe tyrants to vote for more and more socialistic programs that gradually bring us to where we are now, on the brink of the total loss of the freedom that we never were actually allowed to fully enjoy.

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe has stated that he wants Arkansas to be the first state to fully embrace Obamacare, and this newspaper rums a long column by Governor Beebe every week where Beebe never mentions his fixation with Obama’s Socialism/Communism. It is clear that Beebe is not well schooled in the English Common Law!
Voting is a crime every time the outcome is purported to require the conformance of those who would otherwise object - such imposition is properly known as a police state!

A voter cannot delegate that which he or she does not possess.

Eric Williams, Yellville

]23- Why Can't We Get The Truth on 9-11? ... ... ... ... Presented 22/16/2011 - Printed 11/24/2011

Why  Can't  We  Get  The  Truth on  9-11?

During the earlier part of the Rusty Humphries show on Mountaintalk 97 on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, during which Humphries interviewed the author of a terrific book exposing how Congress members use their position to monetarily enrich themselves through insider trading and other monetary manipulations which are clearly a conflict of interest.

This author's comments and information was astounding, wherein he named names and the millions of dollars made by Congress members due to their inside knowledge in regard to how laws they were enacting would cause stock prices to fluctuate. During this interview Humphries comments helped present the author's terrific information, which made Humphries look like a very patriotic freedom loving conservative, however immediately thereafter, at about 10:20 PM, there was a caller into the Humphries show who said he had seen a bumper sticker that said that 9-11 was an inside job and below that sticker the caller said he also saw two more bumper stickers in support of Ron Paul for President, whereupon Humphries said that "9-11 was not an inside job", and the way Humphries presented this comment also served to ridicule Ron Paul.

Humphries then went on to say that the idea that 9-11 was an inside job was quite prevalent and widely talked about a few years ago, during which time Rosie O'Donnell had said that it was impossible for steel to be melted by fire, that such melting had never ever happened before, whereupon Humphries proceeded to ridicule Rosie O'Donnell and the idea that 9-11 was an inside job when Humphries said, "How does Rosie think they make steel?"

It would be clear to me that Rosie's statement was limited to the fact that steel had never ever before been melted by fire in a burning building - there was no possible way that Rosie could be so ill informed that she would not know that the manufacture of steel requires the melting of steel by fire. For Humphries to ridicule and twist Rosie's statement as he did is just another indication of how Humphries and all the rest of these totally phony CINO talk show hosts on Mountaintalk 97 use their position to mislead and lie to listeners, particularly, but not limited to, the incident of 9-11.

Any fair and unbiased examination of the 9-11 incident will indicate that it would be impossible for such event to have been perpetrated with out the full contrivance of the Executive branch of the Government of the United States. How about a reasonable explanation as to what caused building 7 to implode, when it was not claimed to have been hit by anything.

Eric Williams, Yellville