RSS

Democracy is a Collectivist Form of Government

04 Aug

English: communism fail

English: communism fail (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We live in a democracy.  Most nations in the western world are democracies.  We think so highly of democracy, that one of the rationales for invading Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis was to give the Iraqi people the “blessing” of democracy.  As Americans, we are prepared to fight, kill, and sometimes die for our beloved democracy.

Nevertheless, our national commitment to democracy is a little odd since the word “democracy” does not appear in The Constitution of the United States.   In fact, the only form of government that’s expressly mentioned in our Constitution is seen at Article 4 Section 4 which declares in part,

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.

So why did we kill all those Iraqis to give ‘em democracy?

Why didn’t we kill ‘em to give them a “republican form of government”?

•  The federal Constitution’s mandate for the “Republican Form of Government” is expressly echoed in some State constitutions.

For example, Article I Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares in part,

“The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

In other words, Texans can change their State’s Constitution any way they like, any time they please, with only one, itty-bitty exception:  we must preserve our “republican form of government”.  No matter what, we must maintain our “republican form of government”.  And yet, here on Texas, we live in a “democracy”.

Again, that’s odd since the word “democracy” does not appear in the Texas Constitution.

The word “democracy” does appear in four or five state constitutions, but it’s only been added in the past 20 or 30 years.  As originally written, all of our State and federal constitutions expressly or impliedly guaranteed a “republic form of government”—but made no mention of “democracy”.

Of course, if the terms “republican form of government” and “democracy” were synonymous, there’d be no problem.   Maybe the word “democracy” is merely shorthand for “republican form of government,” hmm?

But if the two terms are not synonymous, our love for “democracy” and our willingness to fight, kill and die to spread democracy are unconstitutional and treasonous.

•  I’ve been a casual student of the nature of governments for over a decade.  Trying to find precise a definition of the “republican form of government” is almost impossible.   Early editions of Black’s Law Dictionary defined “republican form of government” as “government in the republican form,” but that’s like defining the word “red” to mean “the color red”.  In both instances, the definitions break the fundamental rule of lexicography:  you can’t use the word or term that’s being defined as part of its definition.

I’ve yet to find a precise definition of the “republican form of government”.  I have no doubt that that definition is intentionally concealed.  The Powers That Be don’t want the great unwashed to understand the differences between the “democracy” we have and the “republican form of government” which we are guaranteed.

However, about ten years ago, I began to understand the difference between “democracy” and the “republican form of government” when I read the definition of “republic” in the 7th edition (A.D. 1999) of Black’s Law Dictionary:

“republic, n.  A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect rep­resentatives who exercise that power. • It con­trasts on the one hand with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an orga­nized whole wield the sovereign power of gov­ernment, and on the other with the rule of one person (such as a king, emperor, czar, or sul­tan). — Abbr. rep. — republican, adj. Cf. DEMOCRACY.”

That definition told me that in a democracy, the people hold sovereign power as “an organized whole”—not as individual men and women.

I believe that the term “organized whole” is synonymous with the word “collective“.

If so, Democracy must be a collectivist form of government.

•  In broad strokes, every form of government can be determined by answering one question:  Who holds sovereign power?

The question is important since the essence of “sovereignty” is authority.  Sovereignty offers a legally cognizable answer to the question, “Who duh boss?”

The authority and power of all nations are generally structured in the following hierarchy:

1.  Sovereign

2.  Government

3.  Subjects

The sovereign makes the law and gives the orders.  The government always serves the sovereign(s) and controls or even oppresses the subjects.

As Mel Brooks remarked in his movie History of the World, Part I, “It’s good to be the king [sovereign].”  Conversely, it sucks to be a subject.

If you’re a sovereign, the government is your servant.  If you’re a subject, the government (acting on behalf of the sovereign) is your master.   If you’re a subject, you have no meaningful rights to resist the action or even oppression of the government.

•  Broadly speaking, there are three fundamental forms of government:

1. Monarchy wherein one man—the king—holds sovereign power and is the “sovereign”; all others are subjects.

2.  Aristocracy (or a plutocracy, etc.) wherein a relatively small but elite group of men or families (the “aristocrats”) hold sovereign power; all others are subjects.

3. Republic wherein the sovereign power is held equally by all people.  Everyone is entitled to participate in the government by voting and/or holding public office.  All citizens of a republic are equal in terms of rights and obligations.

In every republic, the people are sovereign—and that’s theoretically better than having one man (a king) or a handful of men (aristocrats) be the sovereign(s) .  But not all “republics” are benign.

Therefore, whenever we deal with a “republic”—in addition to asking “Who holds sovereign power?”—we need also ask a second question to determine the kind of “republic” we’re dealing with:  In what capacity do the people hold sovereign power—as sovereigns or as subjects?

For example, in the “republican form of government” that’s expressly guaranteed by our federal Constitution, We the People of the States of the Union are sovereigns in the capacity of individual men and women.  I’m a sovereign, you’re a sovereign, the guy across the street is a sovereign.  Our status as individual sovereigns was born out in the A.D. 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm vs. Georgia which declared the American people to be “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”.   In the “republican form of government,” everyone is a sovereign—no one is a subject.

The resulting hierarchy of authority in the “republican form” looks something like this:

1)  God–the universal sovereign (all earthly sovereignty flows from God);

2) We the People as individual, earthly sovereigns by virtue of being endowed by our Creator with “certain unalienable Rights” and subject to God’s law;

3) Government (subject to the People’s law a/k/a the Constitution).

In the “republican form of government,” because the people are individual sovereigns, the government is our servant—not our master.  The people who work for government are our “public servants”.

•  The “republican form of government” is a very special and specific kind of “republic” where all the people are equal as individual sovereigns.  But there are other republics where all the are all equal as subjects.

For example, communism is a republic.

Don’t think so?  Remember the proper name for the former USSR?  It was the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics“.  There’s no mistake there.  The communists correctly described their form of government as union of “Republics“.

Socialism is also a republic.  In the case of both communism and socialism, any young man (or woman) who is sufficiently intelligent, ruthless or lucky can grow up to the “Premier” over a communist or socialist nation.  But, as “Premier,” he may wield maximum power, but he remains as much a subject of that republic as any street sweeper.  He is not the “sovereign” or even a “sovereign”.

The “republican form of government” and the communistic/socialist “republic” are both “republics” because all the people can participate in government by voting or holding public office.  However, while all are individual “sovereigns” in the “republican form of government,” all member of a communist or socialist “republic” are subjects.  As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king (sovereign).”  As I said, it sucks to be a subject.

There are no subjects in the “republican form of government”.

There are no individual sovereigns in a communist/socialist “republic”.

In the “republican form of government,” each of us can be “free” as individuals because we are each deemed to be a sovereign.

In a communist “republic,” we’re all individual subjects who are each equally liable to being oppressed by our government “master”.  In a communist “republic” subjects have no right to resist governmental oppression.  There is no individual freedom in a communist republic because there is no individual sovereignty.

•  If the foregoing commentary seems unclear, it’s probably because I haven’t yet answered the second question concerning “republics”.   The first question is “Who holds sovereign power?”

We know that in any “republic” the people are sovereign.  That’s always true.  But it’s critical to ask the second question:   “In what capacity are the people sovereign in a particular republic?”

In the “republican form of government,” We the People are each sovereign in the capacity of individuals.  Again—I’m a sovereign; you’re a sovereign; the guy across the street is a sovereign.  We are each sovereign in our capacity as individual men and women.

In a communist or socialist “republic,” we the people are also sovereign–but not as individual sovereigns.  Instead, under a communist or social “republic,” we the people are sovereign in the capacity of a single collective.   In the communist/socialist “republic,” I am not a sovereign.  You are not a sovereign.  The guy across the street is not a sovereign.  No living man is the sovereign or even a sovereign.  All are subjects.

So who/what is the sovereign in a communist republic?

Answer:  The artificial entity and/or legal fiction called the “collective” is the one and only sovereign.

That’s why communist and socialist systems are called “collectivist” forms of government.  In that kind of “republic,” you and I and the guy across the street are collectively members of the sovereignty, but each of us is individually a subject of that collective/sovereign.

In a collectivist “republic,” the hierarchy of authority runs like this:

1.  Sovereign Collective.  A legal fiction that consists of all the people acting together in the capacity of a single collective.

2.  Government (alleged servant of the collective/sovereign/people)

3.  Subjects.  We the people in the capacity as individuals.

Thus, in a collectivist form or government, the people who are presumed to comprise the collective-sovereign are also, in their individual capacities, subjects of that collective.

Tyrannical like collectivism because under that pretext, all of the individual people are subjects who have no right to resist government.

•  In a collectivist state, it is presumed that the will of the sovereign collective is expressed by the majority of the votes in any given election.  In a collectivist state, the people’s only way to express their small relation to sovereignty is by voting in elections.    But in every other aspect of their lives, the people are rightless subjects.  This is exactly why Stalin could send millions of subjects to Siberian gulags to die.  As subjects, they had no rights to resist the government’s tyranny.

In a collectivist state, the will of the sovereign is essentially unbridled.  That is, the members of the collective can do anything the majority (or their representatives) vote to do in any election.  The collective-sovereign is not bound by previous elections, morality or God’s law.  The collective is purely man’s unbridled law.

For example, today, the majority (or their representatives) can vote to free the slaves.  Tomorrow, they can vote to restore slavery. The day after that, they can vote to kill the slaves.  The day after, the majority (or their representatives) can vote to reward all the slaves who survived.  Then they can vote on whether to shoot, imprison or reward everyone who has blue eyes or was a Ron Paul supporter.

Whatever the majority votes to do at any particular time is perceived to be the “will of the collective-sovereign” and can be carried out brutally by the government (which always serves the sovereign).  If the majority voted to kill all the slaves (or voted to elect representatives who subsequently voted to kill all the slaves), the government will execute the slaves without any judicial process since subjects have no meaningful rights to litigate.  If the majority (or their representatives) vote to seize all property of people who have blue eyes, the government will so seize—and without any legal niceties.  For the individuals targeted by the majority, there’s no legal defense against the “will of the collective/sovereign” because subjects have no significant rights.

Thus, in a collectivist “republic,” at any moment, each subject is liable to be taxed, robbed, imprisoned, assaulted or executed by the government (acting under the guise of “servant” for the collective/sovereign).

All collectivist “republics” are stupid, ungodly and dangerous to every “individual”.

•  There’s an old joke definition of democracy:  Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Ha-ha.

We know that the two wolves will vote to eat the one sheep.  But we suppose that meal will be based on nothing more than mathematics.  Two wolves is greater than one sheep.  The majority rules.  Therefore, the two (majority) can vote to eat the one (individual).  Eating the sheep is deemed the irresistible “will” of the collective-sovereign.

If fact, that joke definition offers enormous insight into the reality of democracy.  Yes, the majority rules.  Yes, the majority can vote to “eat” the minority.  But the fundamental reason for this cannibalism isn’t mere mathematics.  It’s because each individual member of the democracy (be he sheep or wolf) has no right to resist the will of the collective as expressed by the majority of voters.  The two wolves can vote to eat the one sheep—not because two is greater than one—but because, in a collective, no member has any God-given, unalienable Right to Life (as declared in our Declaration of Independence and which laid the foundation for the “republican form”).   Within the democracy, the individual is merely a rightless “thing” (or, at best a subject) who can be lawfully deprived of his property, family, liberty or life any time the majority or their elected representatives vote to do so.

Democracy is another variety of a collectivist form of republic.  Yes, We the People are sovereign in a democracy—but we are sovereign in the capacity of a single collective—not as a multitude of individuals.  Democracy, is functionally identical to communism and socialism.  Thus, for most of a decade, we’ve fought, killed and died in Iraq to give the Iraqis a collectivist form of government fundamentally identical to the “evil empire” formerly condemned by Ronald Reagan.

•  Every subject in a democracy is constantly exposed to absolute vulnerability to government oppression.  Compare that vulnerability to the fundamental principles of the “republican form of government”:  That “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Under the republican form, each individual is deemed to have certain unalienable rights that can’t be taken away or even waived, but must be respected by the public servants of that “republican form of government”.  In the “republican form,” it matters not if two wolves, or 200 hundred million wolves are hungry–they can’t vote to “eat the sheep” since doing so would deprive the “sheep” of his God-given, unalienable Right to Life.

Where would you rather live—in a democracy where you have no real rights as an individual man or woman?  Or in the “republican form of government” where you have God-given rights to resist the will of the majority or the actions of the government?

And why has our government subjected us to a “democracy” when our Constitution mandates the “republican form of government”?

A:  Because our government wants to oppress the American people rather than serve them.

About these ads
 

31 responses to “Democracy is a Collectivist Form of Government

  1. Ben

    August 4, 2012 at 7:05 AM

    Right on Target !

     
  2. pop_de_adam

    August 4, 2012 at 7:39 AM

    Perhaps a solution to legal attacks in a republic is to charge the opposing party with treason, they are attempting to treat the sovereign as a subject thus diminishing the sovereigns sovereignty, up to and including the sovereigns elimination. Who in their right mind would pursue some lesser “civil” attack if doing so would result in the death penalty.

     
    • Adask

      August 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM

      If the “The State vs. this state” hypothesis, virtually everything that currently passes for government in “this state” constitutes an act of treason against the States of the Union.

       
  3. palani

    August 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    While the several States are set up as a Republic the District of Columbia is set up as a Democracy. They appear to be mighty proud of it as they bring it up all the time. In a democracy the citizens vote on anything and everything. The only citizens I see that have this privilege are congressmen and they certainly do it in a democratic manner.

    What these scoundrels are actually promoting is federation (including U.N.). When a Mexican crosses the border all anyone thinks of is another illegal wetback. But Mexico is a federation of 31 independent states (with one federal district to make a total of 32). If one of the citizens of one of these independent states raised the issue that he was, say, a Sonoran rather than a “Mexican” would he be shipped back to someplace he did not wish to be (Mexico), would he be shipped back to Sonora or would he be welcome as a man not involved with this federation battle that rages?

     
  4. Harry

    August 4, 2012 at 9:09 AM

    “The term republic, res publica, signifies the state independently of its form of government..” Bouvier’s Vol. 1, page 13 (1870)

    So is the “state” is the people considered independently of the form of government? If so then can the people live independently of the government?.

    The word “republic” is a shortened form of the Latin idiom “Libera res Publica,” meaning “free from things public,” I believe. I could be mistaken. In a true republic the heads of government are “titular” in authority, meaning that they held authority “in name only.” In a direct democracy, the majority elects those that govern the whole, while, in the republic, you only elected representatives with a limited authority and it appears that any legislation passed into law by those representatives would need the consent of the freeman to be applicable to him or to have authority to govern his activities.

    Madison said: “In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.” There is a type of civil rights that are NOT CONNECTED with the organization and administration of government that are available to free inhabitants. Citizens of the United States cannot enjoy these civil rights but they do have similar right secured to them by the 13h and 14th amendment to the US constitution and the acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof.

    The States are guaranteed a republican form of government, but it is up to the people in the states to set it up and once set up to keep it. Me thinks we have not done so good at keeping what was once set up for us.

    If we still have the republic, and I think we do, although most of its members are or are presumed to be members of the democracy also set up within this republic. The state or estate or status of freeman may be separate from the government. Search for the New American Creed and read it for yourself. We have a democracy within a republic and it looks like the choice as to where you live, move and have your being is yours. To be in the popular democracy depends upon your CONSENT to be governed by the majority rules body politic. If you do not consent I would presumed you would be presumed to by living in the grand republic. However, I could be mistaken about some or all of the above.

     
  5. SEM

    August 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

    After reading the text of the subject matter, I was inticed to examine the etymology of the various interconnect, familiar terminology.

    Please consider the following:

    col·lec·tiv·ism
       [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm] Show IPA

    noun
    the political principle of centralized social and economic control, especially of all means of production.

    Matching Quote

    “I don’t envisage collectivism. There is no such animal, it is always individualism, sometimes the rest vote and sometimes they do not, and if they do they do and if they do not they do not.”

    -Gertrude Stein

    Also:

    Demonocracy.info – Economic Infographics

    demonocracy.info/

    Visualize usually boring data stacked in €100 Euro and $100 Dollar bills.

    Derivatives – Who Loaned Greece the Money? – A World in Debt – US debt visualized

    Also:

    democracy 1570s, from M.Fr. démocratie (14c.), from M.L. democratia (13c.), from Gk. demokratia “popular government,” from demos “common people,” originally “district” (see demotic), + kratos “rule, strength” (see -cracy).
    Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own ‘rights’ against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters. [Ezra Pound, "ABC of Economics," 1933]

    Also:

    republic c.1600, “state in which supreme power rests in the people,” from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica “public interest, the state,” from res “affair, matter, thing” + publica, fem. of publicus “public” (see public).

    Wherfore:

    As a Star Trek buff; I cant help but invision ‘The Borg’ (resistence is futile…you will be assimilated!).

    Similarly, the ‘Borg’ is an example of all three elements combined. I wonder if the idea of the ‘Borg’ derives from mans current condition today?!?

    PeaceOut

     
  6. Anon4fun

    August 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    Another home run, Big Al. Some points to add:

    The sovereign is the source of the law. Or, more precisely, the sovereign is the source of the authority of the law. Therefore, insofar as one’s rights are unalienably endowed by the Creator, and those rights are so established in law, the Creator is the legally recognized sovereign. This is why the evil-doers prefer democracy, a form of the exclusive sovereignty of man, because the evil empire has technologies to control the masses.

    A couple of quotes from Edward Bernays, one of the founders of social engineering in general and popular culture in particular:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

    “We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

     
  7. SEM

    August 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

    This just-in:

    Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

    The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the U.S. Treasury Department is “auditing” the gold vaulted at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, most of which is held in custody for other countries, but only to the extent of confirming the gold content of the bars kept there, and not touching on issues of ownership impairment, like swapping and leasing, the issues raised by GATA and others aggrieved by manipulation of the gold market.

    Indeed, the “audit” seems intended to dispel “conspiracy theories” without actually having to disclose anything about the U.S. government’s gold market intervention policy, the issue at the heart of GATA’s freedom-of-information lawsuit against the Fed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a lawsuit that was decided more or less in GATA’s favor last year and revealed that the Fed has secret gold swap arrangements with foreign banks as well as many other gold-related records that are being kept secret:

    http://www.gata.org/node/9917

    Responding to the L.A. Times story, Zero Hedge quickly explained why the Treasury’s “audit” of the New York Fed’s gold is a fraud. “What the ‘conspiracy theorists’ allege,” Zero Hedge notes, “is that claims existing in paper format on the physical gold held under Liberty 33 are orders of magnitude greater than the actual physical gold these claims supposedly have recourse to”:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/feds-gold-being-audited-us-treasury

    But the L.A. Times story does quote U.S. Rep. Ron Paul on that point and even mentions the movement in Germany to repatriate that nation’s gold reserves from foreign vaults. And if the Treasury Department has felt compelled to commission exactly the wrong kind of audit to deflect rising concerns about gold issues, that’s progress too.

    The L.A. Times story is appended.

    CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
    Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

    PeaceOut

    PS “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” Is it any wonder that China is becoming so ‘Bossy’.

     
  8. Yartap

    August 4, 2012 at 9:42 PM

    Alfred, I wish to respectfully disagree with your way of thinking. I believe, I understand what you are trying to convey. And I agree on many of your points. But you miss a point, as I see and believe. I will title my thoughts as……

    ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ARE DANGEROUS

    I do not care if the government is a King as sovereign or the People have a collective individual sovereignty, the sovereignty does not matter. I do not care if the government is a republic (elected representatives, who vote on legislation) or a democracy (sovereigns vote on legislation) or a Monarch (King dictates law) nor two wolves and one sheep, the FORM or type of government does not matter. What matters with everything I have mentioned is this:

    Does a BILL OF RIGHTS for the inhabitants (individuals) exist for the protection from the tyranny and oppression of the sovereign(s)?

    Alfred, you touched upon this. This is what matters.

    When you speak of Republican Form of Government you cannot ASSUME that they have Rights incorporated for the inhabitants. Remember, many of the Founders did not want a Bill of Rights placed in the Constitution. You, yourself, stated that the U.S.S.R. was a republic. What makes our Republican Form of Government different from other republican forms? It is our Bill of Rights.

    For example: If the King, Majority, Representatives or Wolves past a law / dictate that all sheep can be used as food. The sheep’s Guarantee of Rights protect him from the law / dictate of the sovereign(s). The law is made void. Did the sheep’s Collective Sovereignty or his form of government save him? Of course not, it was his….

    GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS!
    For us, it is our BILL OF RIGHTS!

    If our Constitution and its Bill of Rights were TRULY followed to the letter, we would not be in the mess we are in, today, by the eroding freedoms and liberties. Our problem is not from Collective Anything! Our problem is from those who have “interpreted” the Constitution and Bill of Rights wrong. In other words, pure TYRANNY by way of misconstruing our Collective Agreement!

    Our Constitutional Rights are to have the Power to stop armies and any government in its tracts of tyranny.

    One of the first things done from the inception of our U.S. Constitution was the mis-construing the understanding and meaning of the Constitution. This was done by mis-construing Congress’s Powers. The Constitution tells us that Congress has the listed specific “Power(s) To” do things, but it has been construed that Congress is not limited, because the Constitution does not tell Congress what it “cannot” do.
    This was first employed and done by Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury) with/for the creation and justification of the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton’s theory was that the Constitution did not deny Congress the authority to create a bank. Many argued that congressional powers were restricted and listed; and that Congress could not go beyond the specific list of Powers. But, Washington and Congress agreed and went along with Hamilton’s theory and interpretation of the Constitution. By this first mis-interpretation, Congress’s “Powers” have increased greatly beyond its list of Powers, because the Constitution does not deny Congress the Power.

    Well, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Washington, the Constitution does not say that you cannot fondle my daughter; so, do you have that power too? I think not!

    The Ninth Amendment tells me that I have the Right to decide if I want car insurance or not. It also tells me that I have the Right to Travel. It also tells me that I can decide if I want to be married or not be married. The Constitution does not address these things. But, these are some of the Rights we have inherited from our forefathers. So, can Congress rule on these things? I think not!

    Yet, Congress has ruled and regulated all of our Bill of Rights from the beginning. The doctrine, today, is that the government has Rights from the Bill of Rights, not individuals. The Bill of Rights is not seen as a restriction placed upon government, the Rights are seen as a way of restricting the people. Government has taken on a personality that has Rights. And Government’s call to action for the public good creates the pretense to remove more of our Rights and place the Rights with the government.

    Government says, “Oh yes, you have a Right to privacy, but this War of Terror thing trumps your Rights. Yes, for the “public good,” we must regulate you with laws. Yes, Tom did something wrong, so we must pass a law to regulate everyone for your own good. Yes, government servants and wards of the State have a Right to vote to remove things from the taxpayer’s pocketbook (Note: People’s livelihoods, from government money, cannot take the given tax money and pay taxes, they rebate; you do not truly pay taxes with tax money). Yes, you and your sons and daughters must give their lives to protect and defend this government. Yes, we cannot fall upon the knife for your protection, you must fall upon the knife for our preservation.”

    Next, the courts, which have a conflict of interest in favor of the government, have ruled against all our inherit and written Rights. They have construed the Constitution’s meaning unjustly with their man-made doctrines and rulings. They have created laws and doctrines for the benefit of the government.

    The U.S.A. is not going to become a pure democracy, far from it; and the government does not want a pure democracy, either. I have argued that if we truly had a democracy (the people voting on legislation), the first nor second Iraq wars would not have happened, the banker bail-out would not of happened, the government would not have bought General Motors and etc. But, in a pure democracy, our civil rights would be violated without Rights of individuals. In a republic, the same thing applies. With a monarchy, the same thing applies. And the two wolves? The problem…..

    WE ARE LOSING OUR PROTECTION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS!

    But, one thing that really gripes my butt, is this: The use of the word, Democracy, with our elections is very, very incorrect usage, and adds to the misunderstanding of what form of government we have. We should STOP USING the word to describe our election process. We do not use a “democratic process” for our elections or laws. Yes! Yes! I know that we do vote democratically on some constitutional questions, but that’s on the state levels and not on the national level. We use a republican process. A democratic process can only be used in a democracy. The TRUE republican process restricts the Right to vote. One vote per sovereign household, which is not a ward of the state nor government servant. This will and would protect our Rights. It was this “everybody has the Right to vote” or “Democracy” that has allowed the wards and government servants to dilute and change our Rights.

    I ask if you would start describing our voting for candidates this way:

    “We use an ELECTION PROCESS to choose our representatives.”

    I do agree that I would like to be the sovereign of my personal realm. I would like to be involved with a collective of sovereigns for each’s protection. And I would like to have a say, with one vote, upon legislation. But, I do not wish to participate within in a democracy without the republican principles of restrictive voting Rights nor the God-given Rights for my protection from the Collective.

    Everyone – if I am missing something, please help me to understand. I’m listening.

     
    • Adask

      August 5, 2012 at 2:31 AM

      There’s at least one more article coming that will deal further with democracy and, more importantly, the concept of sovereignty. As I will show, sovereignty is a SPIRITUAL (rather than secular or “political”) concept since it emanates from God.

      The source of your sovereignty and mine is declared in the single most radical statement in all of Western political history and the high-water mark of the Protestant Reformation: the 2nd sentence of the “Declaration of Independence”. That sentence declares that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Formerly, in the Holy Roman empire and later the English lawform, only one man per nation received his rights directly from God: the king/sovereign who enjoyed the “DIVINE right of kings”. The king received his standing as “sovereign” in a coronation ceremony performed in a CHURCH. All else were subjects because they did not receive their rights directly from God.

      When the 2nd sentence in the “Declaration of Independence” declared that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” the Declaration established the first principle of what would be the “republican form of government”: that every man was an individual sovereign.

      The first half of the 3rd sentence of the “Declaration” established a second principle of what would be called the “republican form of government” when it declared the primary purpose of government as envisioned by the Founders: “That to secure these rights [meaning the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the 2nd sentence] Governments are instituted among Men . . . . ” This 3rd sentence tells us that the primary business of the government originally envisioned was to secure to every man, woman and even unborn child those God-given, unalienable Rights that were given each of us by our Creator at the moment of our CREATION (not birth, as in the 14th Amendment). This 3rd sentence established that our government was intended to SERVE the “sovereigns” who are the People of the States of the Union.

      Our government doesn’t want to serve the People and has therefore done what it can to remove the significance of our God-given, unalienable Rights from our memory, replaced our “republican form of government” with a democracy, and passed drug laws that define us to be “animals” rather than men and women made in God’s image. These are no random or disassociated events. Our government is in the process of stripping us of any of our God-given, unalienable Rights and thereby absolving government of the obligation to “secure” those rights, recognize the People as sovereigns, and thereby SERVE the People/sovereigns.

      For me, any individual’s and our nation’s willingness to disparage those God-given, unalienable Rights found in the “Declaration” is reminiscent of the story of Jacob and Esau when Esau traded his birthright (granted by God by allowing Esau to be first born) for a bowl of pottage. Esau was a powerful man. A great hunter and warrior and he didn’t believe he needed that “birthright”. As a result, he despised the birthright–a blessing from God. In doing so, Esau not only despised the birthright/blessing, he despised the source of that birthright: God.

      The Old Testament declares our Father YHWH ha Elohiym to be a “jealous God”. Presumably, that means God will not put up with contempt from anyone or any nation. If so, I believe this explains two subsequent verses in the Bible when God say “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” I know of no verse in the Bible that explains why God hated Esau, but I believe that hatred was inspired by Esau’s contempt for the birthright and therefore for the source of that birthright: God. God’s hatred for Esau was so great that it reportedly extended to all of Esau’s descendants, even to this day.

      I view America’s disregard for the “unalienable Rights” that flow from our Creator to be tantamount to Esau despising the blessing of the “birthright”. If I’m right, America had better get back on track in a big hurry (assuming it’s not already too late) as should any other individual man or woman who despises the “unalienable Rights” given us by our Creator–which resulted in the previously unknown “republican form of government”.

      This is not a political or legal issue. We’re engaged in SPIRITUAL warfare being waged against us by our own government. We are losing that war because we’ve forgotten the significance of our God-given, unalienable Rights, of our individual sovereignty, and of the fundamental meaning of the “republican form of government”.

      But we aren’t defeated. We could win as individual men and woman, perhaps even as a nation, if we would regain our spiritual understanding and eject those few who have seized power in this country and who are the mortal enemies of God and man.

      The issue of sovereignty is large and complex. I’ll publish at least one–maybe several–more article(s) on the subject that will hopefully clarify both my and your understanding of that subject.

      In the meantime, my advice to all of you is to avoid Esau’s mistake. Do not dare to despise the blessings that our Founders referred to as “unalienable Rights” or the “republican form of government” that was intended to recognize and secure those Rights.

       
  9. SEM

    August 4, 2012 at 11:04 PM

    Yartap:

    Given the definition(s) of the subject terminology, (e.g., Collectivism, Communism, Republic, Democratic) your point is well taken.

    I would add though; that given the interconnected-ness of the elements involved, we may consider the INTEREST(s) (i.e., Self/private/public) in relation to the cohesiveness of the whole.

    PeaceOut

     
  10. SEM

    August 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    Al:

    As usual, you put forth a interestingly, compelling argument. I am hereby constrained, therefore; to enlighten you of (a) major sticking-point, therein.

    Please allow that I refer again to the etymology of essential elements, that we may have a ‘reference-point and for the sake of Keeping It Simple To Assure Clarity, as:

    spiritual (adj.) “of or concerning the spirit” (especially in religious aspects), c.1300, from O.Fr. spirituel (12c.), from L. spiritualis, from spiritus “of breathing, of the spirit” (see spirit). Meaning “of or concerning the church” is attested from mid-14c. The noun sense of “African-American religious song” first recorded 1866.

    Also:

    Inalienable/Unalienable

    adjective
    not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

    Matching Quote

    “The freedom to share one’s insights and judgments verbally or in writing is, just like the freedom to think, a holy and inalienable right of humanity that, as a universal human right, is above all the rights of princes.”

    -Carl Friedrich Bahrdt

    Also:

    cre·ate
       [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, adjective

    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

    2.
    to evolve from one’s own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

    3.
    Theater . to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.

    4.
    to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.

    5.
    to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.

    Also:

    form
       [fawrm] Show IPA

    noun
    1.
    external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; configuration: a triangular form.

    2.
    the shape of a thing or person.

    3.
    a body, especially that of a human being.

    4.
    a dummy having the same measurements as a human body, used for fitting or displaying clothing: a dressmaker’s form..

    5.
    something that gives or determines shape; a mold.

    Therefore:

    in this matter, so as not to be ‘despised'; it is necessary to consider the distinction between a Creation and a Form, especially as it relates to Man; as, both types (even in the beginning) were caused for a ‘specific purpose’. Similarly, both types were endowed with in-alienable rights.

    Consider:

    In his jealousy, Satanail decided to lead Adam astray, even though he was aware of his own sinfulness. When his plan worked, God cursed evil and ignorance, implying that it is through man’s ignorance of his own nature that is the root of sin, not Satanail.

    Indeed:

    may we also be mindful of Satan’s efforts to tempt Jesus, as well. Thus, it is emphatic that we are careful with our use of words and the understanding, thereof.

    PeaceOut

     
  11. Yartap

    August 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM

    Alfred, That is a very good point of great truth, God’s gift of Unalienable Rights granted to All. I know that I cling to my God-given Rights, as all of us should do.

    I, too, adhere to the truthful words of the Declaration of Independence. If I were an elected representative of the People, I would have great fear (a good thing) to not comply with the Sovereign Rights granted from the Father for All. My main focus would be to that cause, the protection of individual Rights.

    I have always felt in my soul that Sovereignty was upon a spiritual plain. The grant of Devine Right to kings should apply to All, who are willing, able and responsible to the cause of being a Sovereign. Those who are not willing, able nor responsible to the cause of Sovereignty should submit to the authority and rule of the Sovereigns until they choose to take the position of Sovereign. Your point about Esau demonstrates our acceptance and approval from God very well. Thank You!

    I believe in the concept that “a man’s (sovereign’s) home is his castle (his rule of realm), and only the winds of God may cross the man’s castle’s threshold.” What a more truer statement about Sovereignty. Further, I believe that to determine who should become / declared a sovereign should be based upon ownership of property (kingdom) and position / status (public / dependent vs. private / independent) within a community. SEM, your point of looking at the individuals / public / private is right on point. To allow a Sovereign’s beloved wards in his kingdom, his wards of the community and his public servant wards to have a say or vote would allow the advent of “conflicts of interest” which would undermine and is against the principles of a republican form of governance and bring destruction to a community.

    I believe in authority, and authority is a good concept. That authority should only be granted to Sovereigns. I see the line of authority as first, God, sovereigns, beloved wards of the sovereign, wards of the community, servants of the community, and finally the organized sovereign community (government). To allow beloved wards, wards of the community and public servants to have authority claws at the skin of a Republican Form of Government.

    I believe in one vote from each individual’s sovereign kingdom (household). And the proven sovereign should be the only one to cast that vote for his kingdom. To allow more than one vote from a sovereign kingdom would be the beginning and advent of a Democracy as form of government, which would start the destruction of the community. This belief of “All have the Right to vote” is killing us and our republican form of government. The grant of sovereignty does not allow for one sovereign to rule (by out voting based upon number of wards in a sovereign’s kingdom) over another sovereign. This would destroy a sovereign’s kingdom. The rule of law creation should be based upon sovereign’s vote vs. sovereign’s vote (or authority vs. authority); and not based upon numbers of people within a kingdom (sovereign’s realm) vs. number of people within another kingdom. THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNANCE.

    I believe these concepts of God-given sovereignty and God-given personal Rights are vital to the protection of All. But, these two are not worth anything, if one does not place God has head and authority of us All. He must be recognized as Lord and Master to accept His gifts. But, the concept of sovereignty and rights are rejected by most, today. “ For lack of Knowledge are My people destroyed.” And that rejection places us as Esau.

    I am not well versed in the subject of Devine sovereignty, nor do I claim to be. So, I am looking forward to your essay(s) upon the subject.

     
  12. SEM

    August 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM

    Yartap:

    Indeed, “for every thousand men hacking at the branches of evil,,,one is hacking at the root.” Continue “to be” ye, thus.

    As; right is right…and…right don’t wrong nobody; as my dad used to say.

    Let us look forward to Al’s addendum on this subject, that way may persue more attitude, perspective and beliefs.

    PeaceOut

    PS King Solomon said, “Of a thousand men, I could find one. Of a thousand women, I could find none.”

    All Males are not Men

    PeaceOut

     
  13. Cody

    August 6, 2012 at 1:14 AM

    So, how is democracy congruent with “community property”?

     
  14. SEM

    August 6, 2012 at 5:25 AM

    democracy 1570s, from M.Fr. démocratie (14c.), from M.L. democratia (13c.), from Gk. demokratia “popular government,” from demos “common people,” originally “district” (see demotic), + kratos “rule, strength” (see -cracy).
    Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own ‘rights’ against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters. [Ezra Pound, "ABC of Economics," 1933]

    How that applies to “community property”, is more at technicality than reality.

    Simplicity is very prone to complication. Keep It Simple!

    PeaceOut

     
  15. SEM

    August 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

    Also:

    In consideration of Braswell v United States, the following excerpt may be helpful in relation to said technicalities, as;

    “But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations. In their official capacity, therefore, they have no privilege against self-incrimination. And the official records and documents of the organization that are held by them in a representative rather than in a personal capacity cannot be the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production [487 U.S. 99, 111] of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally.” 322 U.S., at 699 . 4

    In relation to a excerpt from a previous posting from Adask (“Notice”):

    In fact, the mere requirement for an “oath of office” should constitute sufficient evidence of a “constructive notice” to all office holders that they are construed to have full knowledge of all the facts and law of the constitutions they’ve sworn to support. See my point? If you were to introduce evidence of an official’s oath of office into the record, that Oath, all by itself, might constitute sufficient evidence that the officer had “constructive” notice of all such “constitutional” laws, etc.

    Hence…is “community property” technical or is it real?

     
    • Yartap

      August 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM

      SEM,

      I agree with you that an Oath of Office is a “constructive notice” to all office holders. But, an Oath of Office has an “OUT” (not liable) for the oath taker. That “out” is the phrase in the oath, “to the best of MY ABILITY.” I have read a court case where a government actor was not held liable due to the phrase, when the point of the Oath was brought up in the case. Because, the electors should have know the actor’s “abilities;” therefore, the electors are held responsible by the court. This brings greater meaning to your quote by Ezra Pound.

      Cody,

      Your question, “How is democracy congruent (agreeing) with Community Property?

      1) In the purest sense of a democracy, the sovereignty is placed with the community as a “Whole;” rather than, the sovereignty being placed with each “individual” within the community as a “Whole.” When sovereignty is being placed with the individual, the implication is that the sovereign can play or not play within the community; or in other words or another way of thinking, the implications is that unalienable Rights exist for the sovereign for his protection from the acts of the community. But, with sovereignty placed with the community or government, as with a democracy, the protection of individual Rights do not exist, but rather, the protection of the community is dictated by the rule of the majority.

      2) As your question relates to the united States of America, from the beginning, the Right to vote was placed upon the sovereign individual (proven by position in life, property owner and higher age of maturity). But, by “DEGREES” our Rights have been eroded by the belief in a democracy (“everyone has a right to have a say,” lowering maturity, women’s suffrage, wards of the state, prisoners voting). Over time, the protections forwarded to the individuals has slowly been placed with the protection of the government (community as a Whole). In other words, sovereignty has shifted to the community and away from the individual. I see this in the wording of the recent laws (“for the protection of the state”), and the changing of a words meaning, like “license” which use to mean permission to do an immoral act or harm; now they have added illegal to the meaning, so now, marriage, business and driving are illegal acts?

      As your question speaks of community property, how about community “anything.” This is what democracy does, it relates to everything, because the community is every and any thing. Further, democracy encourages “whims” of rule by the next majority, and by the next and next and next.

      But lets just talk about property by looking at zoning laws as an example. In West Palm Beach, Florida, if one wants to change the color of an “interior” wall in one’s home, he has to get permission from the city, pay a fee for the change, and select an “approved” color as set by the majority for the protection of the reputation and “historic look” of the community. Your property is their property! Your deed may say “To Have and Hold,” but they (sovereign majority) have the “control.” Then the next majority change one color that they don’t like and see, by record, that your house has that color. Well, guess what?

       
      • Cody

        April 7, 2013 at 8:25 PM

        Yartap,
        Thanks for taking the time to ponder my question. I agree that ‘community property’ is absolutely congruent to ‘democracy.’ It is a claim of the state’s claim of dominion over the property of the ‘marriage community.’ It is also a Spanish and Dutch religious law aka Ecclesiastical or Canonical Law. It is contrary to American Common Law which is English Common Law minus Divine Right.
        In a community property division hearing I “appeared” at to defend against my hex-wife’s claim for half of my military retirement, the judge asked my hex’s attoryney if I (I presume meaning my physical being” was “property of the state.” To which she answered in the affirmative.
        I prevailed in Appeals.

        Cheers,
        Cody

         
  16. liberty tree

    August 7, 2012 at 2:07 AM

    Gosh Al, another unbelievable job at centralizing this. I’m gonna do it further and “dumb” it down to a chart. We’ve been brainwashed our while lives about democracy when, as you pointed out, we’ve been taught to love our servitude and root for that which we we’re supposedly fighting against in Vietnam, etc. With that in perspective, it’s amazing to now see how the US has been essentially spreading communism. That bad got feeling about these wars finally is further explained. Excellent job!

     
    • liberty tree

      August 7, 2012 at 2:09 AM

      *crystalizing, not centralizing. Stupid selfcorrecting autotype.

       
    • Adask

      August 7, 2012 at 2:51 AM

      Thanks for the compliments. But thanks even more for understanding what I’ve tried to write. I can see in some of the comments on this article that some of you “get it”. You are beginning to understand sovereignty and the powerful spiritual differences between “individual sovereignty” and “collective sovereignty”. One is based on the love of God, the other is based on a hatred of God. We the People are sovereign in both instances, but in the first instance, we are sovereigns by the Grace of God. In the second instance (democracy), were sovereigns as a collective and outside of God’s law and (probably) His protection.

      This is spiritual warfare. Big time spiritual warfare.

      I can’t tell you how pleased, how delighted, how excited I am to see that some of you are beginning to see the essence of sovereignty and beginning to recognize our struggle as a manifestation of spiritual warfare. I know that’s not yet clear to most readers. It’s not even fully clear to me. But I can see the ideas taking root, and I know that once the seed is planted, it will continue to grow without need for my further input. You are now on a trail that I believe you will follow for the rest of your life. I am delighted.

       
  17. sem

    August 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM

    Yartap:

    Thank you for the recognition inasmuch as it rings true to the subject; yet, credit-where-credit-is-due:
    said excerpt was borrowed from a previous posting from Adask.

    However, your statement that, “an oath of office has an (out)” is interesting, as it not only confirms the technicality issue; but, flies in the face of the Spiritual concerns.

    As I am sure you are aware, whenever you see the word ‘oath’ in Scripture, the context leaves no doubt that there is no “out”. Therefore, we must appreciate that, “The Letter of the Law Bringeth Forth Death, The Spirit of the Law Bringeth Forth Life.”.

    I believe that a man who can successfully merge those two, tips the balance in his favor.

    As Jesus said, “A scribe unto Scripture is like unto a householder, bringing forth from his treasures things old and new.”

    PeaceOut

    PS Al, I am happy of know of your joy!

     
    • Adask

      August 7, 2012 at 12:13 PM

      Q: Is an “oath of office” that has an “out” really an “oath of office”? It seems to me that the “oaths” required in our State and federal constitutions are intended to be unconditional. I suspect that the “to the best of my ability” qualification may be a relatively recent modification of the oaths that were required back around A.D. 1800.

      If my suspicions were valid, it might mean that everyone with an “oath” that included “to the best of my ability” might not really have an Oath of Office and therefore might not be entitled to exercise any authority under the State or federal constitutions.

       
      • Yartap

        August 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM

        The “OUT” is found in Article II, Section 1, Constitution for the United State of America, President’s Oath of Office, “ will to the best of my ability,”.

         
  18. Adask

    August 7, 2012 at 12:45 PM

    Has a similar “out” been provided for the Legislators and Judiciary? Does a similar “out” exist in all State constitutions?

     
  19. sem

    August 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    Thing’s that make you go ~Hmmm~!

     
  20. Yartap

    August 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM

    I looked up all the elected Federal office holders and military, and guess what? All oaths are about the same to confirm a positive unconditional oath: “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the ofice…”
    The President is the exception with an “OUT.”

     
    • Adask

      August 8, 2012 at 8:23 AM

      I’m not surprised. Thanks for your research.

       
  21. sem

    August 8, 2012 at 12:36 AM

    Deep, well connected dialogue.

     
  22. grannygoodfood

    August 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM

    Sir, you are an American hero, a messenger from God sent to equip His saints. I praise God for you!! I have been up all night (till a bit after 3am) trying to nail jello to the wall ~~until I found this article of yours: http://freedom-school.com/republican_form_of_government.pdf

    I have the bastards by the throat. The bitch is getting thrown out tonight!!!

    I am a Stakeholder Plus Committee member with the Lockhart (Texas) Sustainable Places Project. An NGO called Capital Area Council of Govt is attempting to bring Agenda 21 and its democratic filth via a free “analytical tool” provided by HUD, DOT, and EPA to five Central Texas cities: Austin, Hutto, Elgin, Dripping Springs, and Lockhart. Austin is a Fusion Center and the other four are near major prisons (okay, in Texas what city is NOT affiliated or near a prison?) that surround Austin on the north, south, east, west.

    Lockhart “won” a grant for this software/consultant package, but there has been some grumbling among the Committee members (woot!) and tonight, Thursday, CAPCOG consultant/whores have requested the City Council to give them a vote of confidence to continue with the project. I plan on speaking up and sharing the gold nuggets of truth you have so graciously dug up for the “Davids” of us who are up against the “Goliaths” in the land.

    I wrote a lengthy article here at our facebook Concerned Citizens of Caldwell County page, but felt that something was missing. So I went back at it until I was finally satisfied that I have found the Achilles Heel that will make them “choose this day whom they will serve.” https://www.facebook.com/groups/CCOCC/doc/174718425996680/

    I hold that I am an instrument of God’s mercy for the true believers on the City Council tonight. For those who believe and refuse to go any further with this project, they will be saved from the judgment that is coming on those who do not have a love of the truth so as to be saved. Their unbelief is their judgment. Pastor John Weaver of Dominion Ministries has shown that God is a Warrior and fights against those who disobey His eternal Law-Word. Deception is a tool of warfare, and He is on the Warpath. As it was with Pharaoh who refused the command to “Let My people go,” so shall it be with those who refuse to honor the Republican form of government.

    “And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” II Thes. 2:11-12

    Sem and Yartap, you guys are treasures, too!

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,029 other followers