BECAUSE THE UNAWARE ARE
UNAWARE THAT THEY ARE UNAWARE:
NWO
MAIN
PAGE
Walrus
Wire
News
NWO
Features
911
Amerika
attacks
Watching
BIG
BROTHER
MIND
GAMES
Creed
of
Greed
Info
War
Room
Ordo
ab
Chao
Don't
Be a
Sheeple
Wake
Up
B-4
It's Too
Late
The
Hell
You Say
Is There
A Way
Out
Take
Back the
 Power
Global
News
Links
WILL BE WAS: PROPHETIC 911 IMAGES
Banner Exchange 
Partners
News World Order
Main Archives & Search
Link to
News World Order

News World Order
Mirrored Articles
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.

THIS IS A MIRRORED REPORT:

REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY?

By Ed Lewis
elewis@shighway.com

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
-- Thomas Jefferson
This could just as well have been titled “Liberty (Freedom) or Servitude” because to answer “Republic or Democracy?” is exactly the same as answering “liberty” or “servitude”.

How can such questions be answered, with the full import of the difference between being free (Republic) and NOT being free (Democracy)?

Let us assume you have just purchased your home, a home you are proud of except for the color. It is white, as is all others houses on your street. But, you want to paint it colonial blue with darker blue trim and shutters.

You also have the funds to build a garage for your autos, pick-ups, and whatever other motorized means of conveyances you and your family own. Your lot is large enough, so you and your wife/husband design a building suitable for your needs. You begin building.

You elect to paint the house and the new garage being built to match, and to plant a variety of landscaping plants to go along with the house’s basic appearance and your garage that is being built.

So, you begin your projects on the property you bought.

Suddenly, law enforcers are down upon your back. You are issued citations for breaking city/county ordinances.

You did not get permission from City/County Government to build a building.

You are not leaving your house white, which is an ordinance that all houses be painted white.

You are landscaping with plants not approved by City Ordinance.

And, to top it off, both the City and County send you a bill for taxes owed on the property, in effect making you pay rent to them on “your property”.

What is wrong with this scenario and how does it relate to the difference between a Republic form of government and a Democracy? I.e., if you are free and living in liberty, can any other people tell you what to do with your property, whether in the governing body or not?

First, let’s consider liberty or freedom as they are essentially the same. Also, contrary to political correctness, English is the language of this union of states. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed., 2000, “Liberty” means –

1a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
Second, we must be aware of the document that established this union of states, “The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America”. This document established not only the union of states as a separate and sovereign entity from England, but also established the people as the sovereignty, or equally holding the authority of each being sovereign to one another and to the whole. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Read this beginning of one of the very most important documents the world has ever witnessed.

“WHEN in the Course of human Events,

it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.”
Although many people in our society have denied that we are a union based on God’s laws, the founders did not. This – that all is based on God’s laws – is apparent from this opening statement. Furthermore, it establishes that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God are entitled to each and every man, woman, and child.

Thus, “The unanimous Declaration…” then continues with –

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Therefore, this union of states was established with all men being equal to one another, with no men holding sovereign powers over another, and with government established only to secure the unalienable Rights of Man bestowed upon them by Nature’s God.

My gosh, why would the founders have desired anything contrary to this when they were preparing to battle against the mightiest country on Earth at the time – England and the King of England. Does any reader honestly believe the founders wished to replace one monarch 3000 miles away for an undetermined number of tyrants amongst them? As stated by one of our most renown and respected founders –

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
- Thomas Jefferson
That the Declaration did establish the people as the sovereignty has been ruled on in many cases, but one of the earliest was in Chisholm v. Georgia. This case is important enough and clear-cut (easily read) that every American should read it. You may do so at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=2&invol=419
[CLICK HERE for case].
“No such ideas obtain here [that the State is sovereign to the people]: at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African [472] slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793)
Why the emphasis on the “sovereignty” or the people each being sovereign to each other and any political creations of the People. Sovereign means the “supreme or highest authority”, and this places all men/women above the orders of governments and other artificial (man made) creations.

To help assure that Rights were not violated, and that government was limited and meant to protect and keep inherent Rights secured, the founders eventually ratified the “Constitution for the united States of America”. It is noteworthy that the Constitution does not establish rights but instead limits government against the infringement upon Rights.

To help insure the protection of Rights, and to assure no mistake in their intent, the founders also wrote and the states ratified unanimously the Bill of Rights, taken as being the first ten amendments to the Constitution. If not specifically enumerated (named), such inherent Rights are secured by the 9th Amendment.

The original text, with capitalization as done originally, begins with –

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united states of America.
Thus, the unanimous Declaration of Independence established the union with the People as the sovereign authority, and the Constitution for the united states of America established an extremely limited government. The duty of government boils down to providing defense and securing the Blessings of Liberty.

Within the Constitution is this provision –

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Article IV, Section 4 (My emphasis)
The framers knew the failings of a Democratic form of government as all that have ever existed have in the end failed. They were establishing a “Republic” made up of states joined in union to provide common defense and to secure rights.

So why did they NOT want a democracy? In a democracy, the few can control the many or the one. In a Republic, no one nor any group can control the one, and the one remains free to exercise his Rights without government interference or interference from the many.

To explain, let us go back to the beginning scenario concerning private property. In a Republic, each has control over himself and his property. You see, “private” means “not under government control.” There is only one bottom line law to obey, and that is that one is free to do as he wishes so long as he doesn’t injure another or damage his property – this is, to infringe upon another’s equal Rights.

You will never find a law or provision in any state constitution or the U.S. Constitution that states that Rights can be interfered with as long as the majority deems it so. In other words, Rights cannot be voted away in a Republic while they can in a Democracy.

A governing body cannot make any law – actually a rule or regulation meant only to control artificial creations of the State, not flesh and blood people – infringing upon the Rights of the People. No fees and no licenses can be demanded for the exercising of Rights, as these are privileges granted to artificial persons, such as corporations.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law, because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson
Although there are literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions stating the same, one of the most famous in that it has been cited in over 1600 hundred cases, is Hale v. Henkel. Read this excerpt carefully.
"He [the citizen] owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (My emphasis)
Also, we have a decision that I suppose atheists or those who support Talmud Law may not like, but it is the truth as far as the Republic established by our founders is concerned and should be used by all, whether a belief in a Supreme Being is held or not.
“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)
So, what is the purpose of government? Is it to regulate your Rights and convert them to privileges granted by the majority or on the mere whim of legislators and enforcers of de facto laws (man made laws)?

No, the only purpose of government in the final analysis is to secure and, hence, protect Rights. Otherwise, we have no need for government. As stated by Jefferson, “Our government exists only to defend our pre-existing rights” AND “It is to secure these rights that we resort to government at all."

Thus, your Rights can be converted to privileges by the will of the majority or by the few in government in a Democracy, and thusly we end up with unconstitutional City/County ordinances and direct tax placed on your property.

In a Republic, you could do as you wish with your property so long as you do not injure another or damage his property, and no level of government can charge you tax for owning your property or exercising your Rights. Understand that all such ordinances and rules placed on people are nothing but fraudulent revenue generating schemes for the government.

Does the US Government know this, that there is a great and extreme difference between a Democratic and Republic form of governments? Of course. However, they fail in their duty to the people that is demanded in a Republic, since they have caused most of our people to believe we are a democracy and not a Republic so as to defraud the People. Here it is straight from the horse’s (actually jackass’s) mouth -

REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY
(Definitions by US Government)

The following was taken from U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 dated WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff.

DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principals and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

The reader now has the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. In the beginning scenario, you could in a Republic build anything you wish on your property, paint any buildings any color you wish, landscape as you wish, and you most certainly could not be charged rent on property you own. (By the way, the ordinances are not made up but exist in many cities or parts of cities across this land.)

In a Democracy, all are subject to the whims of the few or the majority, although it is usually the few dictating what cannot be dictated when one is free and living in Liberty. After all, it is seldom that the majority of People even vote. If not, then the majority is actually a minority of all the People.

The writer hopes that the reader understands that Liberty – the free expression of all Rights – exists only when Rights cannot be voted or legislated away. Republic is the only form of government that demands this.

You decide. Do you want a democracy in which the many or the few can tell you what to do, or do you want a Republic in which the individual man and woman are the sovereign, with all Rights and expression of Rights defended?

Our founders wanted nothing but a Republic and that is what they founded but, as Jefferson noted when asked, they were forming a Republic if the People could keep it.

Often one will hear when one writes of the fact that our People are to be self-governing in essence, with government only governing civil servants and other artificial creations, that men must have man made laws to guide them. Well, one might ask as Jefferson did, if men are not capable of governing themselves, then just how the heck can they be capable of governing other men?

After all, just because a man is elected to represent people does not make him any more knowledgeable of Nature’s Law and Liberty than any other man, nor does the will of the majority necessarily, now does it?


Original (pre-Orwellian) Definition of the Word "Terrorism"
Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946)

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
--FBI Definition


original report located at
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/03/Ed_Lewis/66.htm
 
 

In recognition of creativity,
integrity and excellence on the Web.

"You'll find news links on this site
you didn't even know existed"..
NWO
MAIN
PAGE
Walrus
Wire
News
NWO
Features
911
Amerika
attacks
Watching
BIG
BROTHER
MIND
GAMES
Creed
of
Greed
Info
War
Room
Ordo
ab
Chao
Don't
Be a
Sheeple
Wake
Up
B-4
It's Too
Late
The
Hell
You Say
Is There
A Way
Out
Take
Back the
 Power
Global
News
Links
WILL BE WAS: PROPHETIC 911 IMAGES
Banner Exchange 
Partners
News World Order
Main Archives & Search
Link to
News World Order

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
 

published by tusk36: Altoona, Pennsylvania, U.S.A
email
newsworldorder@hotmail.com