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