A “Republican Form of Government”Part 2
tively “seize” another person’s property by declaring that property can no longer be used to raise cattle if that use adversely affects the lowly suckerfish. In a republic, individuals have unalienable Rights; suckerfish don’t. Thus, the rights of individuals are superior to the interests of suckerfish. In a republic, neither a 99% democratic major- ity nor the Gates of Hell can lawfully prevail over the God-given, un- alienable Rights with which every individual is endowed.
See the difference?
In a monarchy, one individual holds the sovereign powers. In a democracy, no individual holds sovereign powers. But in a republic only, all individuals hold “sovereign powers” (God-given, unalienable Rights).
Where would you rather live? Where only one individual had sover- eign powers? Where no individual had sovereign powers? Or where all individuals (including you) have sovereign powers?
Democratic disabilities
Black’s 7th defines “democracy” as a system of government in which, “the people or community as an organized whole wield the sov- ereign power of government.” This implies that in a democracy, the people hold the sovereign power—but do so in the capacity of a single, artificial collective—not as an association of individual “sovereigns”.
Thus, democracy is a collectivist political philosophy characterized by a lack of individually-held, God-given, “unalienable Rights”. Also, note that the logical correlative of the collective rights of the “group” is the absence of rights for each individual. This absence of individually-held, God-given rights is the central feature of all collectivist philosophies (com- munism, socialism, etc.) since these systems presume that “sovereign power” is held by the collective, but not by any individuals.
Therefore, by definition, no citizen of a democracy can hold God- given, “unalienable Rights” to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happi- ness” as an individual.
Why? Because, if a democracy recognized the legitimacy of indi- vidual rights as God-given and thus superior to any claim of “collec- tive” rights, the power of the democracy and majority rule over spe- cific individuals or minorities would disappear. By simply invoking his God-given, unalienable Rights, any individual could thumb his nose at virtually any vote by the democratic majority. So long as I have an unalienable Right to Life, it matters not if 250 million Americans all vote to hang me. So long as I am individually “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” I can tell the whole world to “stuff it” by simply invoking my individually-held, unalienable Rights.
Do you see my point? By definition, a democracy can’t work— can’t exercise the arbitrary authority of the majority over the minor- ity—can’t even exist where unalienable Rights are granted to individu- als by the supreme authority of God.
And, at least coincidentally, according to Brock Chisolm, former Director of the UN’s World Health Organization, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
31
individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and reli-
gious dogmas.”
Do you see how a democracy—which denies both individual rights and the God that granted them—could diminish the republican forces of individualism and faith that would naturally resist one world gov- ernment? Do you see how a “democratic form of government” might be ideal for implementing a New World Order?
In fact, if you’ll read the United Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (adopted Dec. 10, 1948), you’ll see that Article 21(b) explains the basis of the U.N.’s one-world government:
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting pro- cedures.” [Emph. add.]
The basis for the authority of all U.N. governments isn’t God, but the “will of the people” as expressed in “periodic elections” (rather than fixed constitutions). That’s a democracy, folks. And that 1948 U.N. “Declaration” is probably the political foundation for the world’s 20th century march toward our “beloved” democracy.
Think not?
Read Article 29(2) of the same U.N. “Declaration”:
“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, ev- eryone shall be subject onlyto...therightsand freedoms of others . . . in a democratic society.” [Emph. add.]
In other words, despite the considerable list of rights which the U.N.’s “Declaration” claims to
provide for all individuals, those individually-held “human rights “ are absolutely subject to the “rights and freedoms of others”. Note that “others” is plural. Thus, the individual’s rights are always subject to that of the group, of the collective. In other words, whenever two or more are gathered in the U.N.’s name, a single person’s claim to “indi- vidual rights” is meaningless.
As a collectivist form of government, the U.N. democracy is funda-
Do you see how a democracy—which denies both individual rights and the God that granted them—could diminish the republican forces of individualism and faith that would naturally resist one world gov- ernment? Do you see how a “democratic form of government” might be ideal for implementing a New World Order?
In fact, if you’ll read the United Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (adopted Dec. 10, 1948), you’ll see that Article 21(b) explains the basis of the U.N.’s one-world government:
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting pro- cedures.” [Emph. add.]
The basis for the authority of all U.N. governments isn’t God, but the “will of the people” as expressed in “periodic elections” (rather than fixed constitutions). That’s a democracy, folks. And that 1948 U.N. “Declaration” is probably the political foundation for the world’s 20th century march toward our “beloved” democracy.
Think not?
Read Article 29(2) of the same U.N. “Declaration”:
“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, ev- eryone shall be subject onlyto...therightsand freedoms of others . . . in a democratic society.” [Emph. add.]
In other words, despite the considerable list of rights which the U.N.’s “Declaration” claims to
provide for all individuals, those individually-held “human rights “ are absolutely subject to the “rights and freedoms of others”. Note that “others” is plural. Thus, the individual’s rights are always subject to that of the group, of the collective. In other words, whenever two or more are gathered in the U.N.’s name, a single person’s claim to “indi- vidual rights” is meaningless.
As a collectivist form of government, the U.N. democracy is funda-
If I were feeling sassy
and I met a high-ranking IRS official, I might say, “Look, I filed my de-taxing affidavit and did the UCC Redemption process, so I’m through with you guys! I’ll never file another income tax return as long as I live!”
Guess what that IRS official might say:
“That’s fine, Mr. Corpening. We have no objection with that. You’re eighteen, and we re- spect your right to file those papers. In fact, why didn’t you file them twenty years ago?”
And I’d be standing there
with pie on my face!
Gene Corpening, author Too Good to be True, But It . . .IS! $39.95 alicepub@conninc.com 828-396-7094
and I met a high-ranking IRS official, I might say, “Look, I filed my de-taxing affidavit and did the UCC Redemption process, so I’m through with you guys! I’ll never file another income tax return as long as I live!”
Guess what that IRS official might say:
“That’s fine, Mr. Corpening. We have no objection with that. You’re eighteen, and we re- spect your right to file those papers. In fact, why didn’t you file them twenty years ago?”
And I’d be standing there
with pie on my face!
Gene Corpening, author Too Good to be True, But It . . .IS! $39.95 alicepub@conninc.com 828-396-7094
Too Good to be True
But It. . . IS!
The 1040NR Income Tax Return
The 1040NR Income Tax Return
32
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
mentally indistinguishable from communism or socialism.2 More im-
portantly, by rejecting the concept of individually-held, unalienable
Rights, every democracy (including the U.N., the New World Order and/
or the United States) must likewise reject the source of those unalien-
able Rights: God.
Like all collectivist political systems, democracies must be atheis- tic. Although a particular democracy may allow its subjects to engage in some religious activity, none of those religious principles can be officially recognized or given any authority by the collectivist state. (Can you say “separation of church and state,” boys and girls?)
Collective self- destruction
But democracies aren’t
merely dangerous to individuals,
they’re even dangerous to the
collective because—without indi- vidually-held, unalienable Rights—
there is no defense against un-
limited government growth, taxa-
tion, regulation or oppression. A
massive, unlimited New World
Order (or American bureaucracy)
is the inevitable expression and consequence of the principles of democracy.
Consider: In 1978, William E. Simon (Secretary of the Treasury in the Nixon and Ford administrations) complained that the federal ex- penditures exceeded $1 billion a day. Twenty-three years later, our federal government spends about $56 billion per day. Of course, our economy has grown since 1978, and inflation has reduced the value of $56 billion in today’s dollars to about $20 billion in 1978 dollars.
Still, did federal expenditures (and taxes, regulations, and intru- sion into private lives) grow at least ten-fold in the last 23 years be- cause the citizens of our “democracy” voted for that growth? Or did it grow because in a democracy, we have no claim to the individual rights that would automatically inhibit such extraordinary government growth?
In a “Republican Form of Government”—where individually-held, God-given rights are presumed and “secured”—government can’t grow except by the express will of the people as demonstrated through constitutional amendments. But in a democracy, where there are no God-given, individual rights to inhibit government growth, the will of the collective is expressed only every two years in the form of elec- tions. Once elected, our “representatives” are empowered to vote for virtually anything and everything they want since they’re presumed to enjoy the support of the majority of the collective. Unless the people complain bitterly and even vote against incumbents—without individually-held, God-given rights, there is no restriction on govern- ment growth in a democracy.
Like all collectivist political systems, democracies must be atheis- tic. Although a particular democracy may allow its subjects to engage in some religious activity, none of those religious principles can be officially recognized or given any authority by the collectivist state. (Can you say “separation of church and state,” boys and girls?)
Collective self- destruction
But democracies aren’t
merely dangerous to individuals,
they’re even dangerous to the
collective because—without indi- vidually-held, unalienable Rights—
there is no defense against un-
limited government growth, taxa-
tion, regulation or oppression. A
massive, unlimited New World
Order (or American bureaucracy)
is the inevitable expression and consequence of the principles of democracy.
Consider: In 1978, William E. Simon (Secretary of the Treasury in the Nixon and Ford administrations) complained that the federal ex- penditures exceeded $1 billion a day. Twenty-three years later, our federal government spends about $56 billion per day. Of course, our economy has grown since 1978, and inflation has reduced the value of $56 billion in today’s dollars to about $20 billion in 1978 dollars.
Still, did federal expenditures (and taxes, regulations, and intru- sion into private lives) grow at least ten-fold in the last 23 years be- cause the citizens of our “democracy” voted for that growth? Or did it grow because in a democracy, we have no claim to the individual rights that would automatically inhibit such extraordinary government growth?
In a “Republican Form of Government”—where individually-held, God-given rights are presumed and “secured”—government can’t grow except by the express will of the people as demonstrated through constitutional amendments. But in a democracy, where there are no God-given, individual rights to inhibit government growth, the will of the collective is expressed only every two years in the form of elec- tions. Once elected, our “representatives” are empowered to vote for virtually anything and everything they want since they’re presumed to enjoy the support of the majority of the collective. Unless the people complain bitterly and even vote against incumbents—without individually-held, God-given rights, there is no restriction on govern- ment growth in a democracy.
For the most accurate information on the
so-called “income” tax and the
16th Amendment, see: http://www.ottoskinner.com
Get FREE, hard-hitting series of email articles by sending your email request to: otto@ottoskinner.com
16th Amendment, see: http://www.ottoskinner.com
Get FREE, hard-hitting series of email articles by sending your email request to: otto@ottoskinner.com
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
33
Avoid Land Regulations
& Stop Paying Property Taxes
LEGALLY!
GuaranteedProcess * MoneyBackGuarantee For Information send (Postage & Copy Costs Donation) $10 to:
No Tax Academy
c/o 1624 Savannah Road AS Lewes, Delaware (19958) - 9999
www.peoples-rights.com or call toll-free: (877) 544-4718
& Stop Paying Property Taxes
LEGALLY!
GuaranteedProcess * MoneyBackGuarantee For Information send (Postage & Copy Costs Donation) $10 to:
No Tax Academy
c/o 1624 Savannah Road AS Lewes, Delaware (19958) - 9999
www.peoples-rights.com or call toll-free: (877) 544-4718
Answer: A system of govern-
ment that recognizes the God-
given, unalienable Rights of indi-
viduals.
And what did the “Declaration of Independence” say was the fun- damental purpose for all just gov- ernment? “To secure these rights ....”
Which rights?
The “unalienable Rights” given to each individual by God and ref- erenced in the previous sentence of the Declaration.
And what did the “Declaration of Independence” say was the fun- damental purpose for all just gov- ernment? “To secure these rights ....”
Which rights?
The “unalienable Rights” given to each individual by God and ref- erenced in the previous sentence of the Declaration.
In a democracy, government can take your guns. They can take
your kids, your property and your cash. In fact, they can take your
life. Every one of those “takings” (and thousands more) are possible
and absolutely legal because subjects of a democracy have no indi-
vidually-held, unalienable Rights to protect them against arbitrary ex-
ercise of government power.
If it’s lawful for government to take virtually anything it wants from subjects of the democratic collective, then it’s certainly lawful for gov- ernment to create and enlarge as many bureaucracies and enforce- ment agencies as it deems necessary to implement the unrestricted takings.
Do you see my point? God-given, unalienable Rights don’t merely protect us as individuals from government oppression, they are the fundamental bulwark that protects the whole nation against the growth of massive, governmental bureaucracies.
The “First” Bill of Rights?
So what is the “Republican Form of Government” that’s mandated by Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution?
If it’s lawful for government to take virtually anything it wants from subjects of the democratic collective, then it’s certainly lawful for gov- ernment to create and enlarge as many bureaucracies and enforce- ment agencies as it deems necessary to implement the unrestricted takings.
Do you see my point? God-given, unalienable Rights don’t merely protect us as individuals from government oppression, they are the fundamental bulwark that protects the whole nation against the growth of massive, governmental bureaucracies.
The “First” Bill of Rights?
So what is the “Republican Form of Government” that’s mandated by Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution?
34
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
Thus, the first obligation of the “Republican Form of Government”
mandated by Article 4 Section 4 of our Federal Constitution is to se-
cure God-given, unalienable Rights to individuals. Not secure rights to
the collective or some king—but to secure unalienable Rights to ev-
ery individual.
And note that while, “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—this general list of unalienable Rights is not exhaus- tive. It is obvious that there are other, unspecified unalienable Rights which must also be “secured” by government. If so, Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution might be viewed as the original “Bill of Rights”.
Consider: The Federal Constitution was adopted in 1789. The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) was adopted in 1791. But, in 1791, some people argued against adopting the Bill of Rights because 1) all unalienable Rights were already protected under the Constitution; and
And note that while, “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—this general list of unalienable Rights is not exhaus- tive. It is obvious that there are other, unspecified unalienable Rights which must also be “secured” by government. If so, Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution might be viewed as the original “Bill of Rights”.
Consider: The Federal Constitution was adopted in 1789. The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) was adopted in 1791. But, in 1791, some people argued against adopting the Bill of Rights because 1) all unalienable Rights were already protected under the Constitution; and
2) by expressly specifying some Rights, government might later be
able to argue that other rights which were not specified did not exist
or were not protected.
Until recently, I viewed those 18th century arguments as uncon- vincing. But now that I see that a “Republican Form of Government” is one that recognizes and “secures” all God-given, unalienable Rights, I also see that Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution (and simi- lar sections in State constitutions) seem to guarantee all unalienable Rights to all individuals.
Thus, the 1791 Bill of Rights may have truly been unnecessary, redundant or even counterproductive. Worse, by focusing on the specific rights enumerated in the first ten amendments, we may have lost sight of the “mother lode” of unalienable Rights: the Article 4 Section 4 guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government” (one that “secures” our unalienable Rights).
By focusing on each specific right in the Bill of Rights, it’s become possible for democratic government to whittle away at each right when- ever political conditions allow them to do so. They don’t attack all our rights at once; they simply whittle away a little at “due process” today, “freedom of speech” tomorrow, and the right to “keep and beararms”nextmonth. Inasense,it’sarguablethattheBillofRights might allow government to “divide and conquer” our rights on a one- by-one basis and thereby slowly “cook” our freedoms like so many frogs. However, such cannibalism seems strictly prohibited under Article 4 Section 4 guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government”.
The mandate remains
So far as I know, the last President to refer to this nation as a “republic” was John F. Kennedy. Since then, all presidents have re- ferred to the United States only as a “democracy”—a political system which, by definition, cannot recognize the unalienable Rights and sov- ereign powers of individuals.
Does our current government secure our God-given, unalienable Rights? Obviously not.
Obvious conclusion? We no longer live in a republic. Instead, we’re entrapped in a democracy where unalienable Rights are not recognized or “secured” and no individual or minority is safe from the majority’s/ government’s arbitrary exercise of power or oppression.
Nevertheless, Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution is still there, un-amended, and mandating that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Govern- ment . . . .”
So we seem to have a constitutional conflict. Our Federal and (some) State constitutions mandate a republic, but our government only provides a democracy.
I suspect that this conflict between the Article 4 Section 4 man- date for a “Republican Form of Government” and our modern democ- racy can be exploited as a defense against government oppression. I suspect that a defendant who 1) understands the full meaning of a
Until recently, I viewed those 18th century arguments as uncon- vincing. But now that I see that a “Republican Form of Government” is one that recognizes and “secures” all God-given, unalienable Rights, I also see that Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution (and simi- lar sections in State constitutions) seem to guarantee all unalienable Rights to all individuals.
Thus, the 1791 Bill of Rights may have truly been unnecessary, redundant or even counterproductive. Worse, by focusing on the specific rights enumerated in the first ten amendments, we may have lost sight of the “mother lode” of unalienable Rights: the Article 4 Section 4 guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government” (one that “secures” our unalienable Rights).
By focusing on each specific right in the Bill of Rights, it’s become possible for democratic government to whittle away at each right when- ever political conditions allow them to do so. They don’t attack all our rights at once; they simply whittle away a little at “due process” today, “freedom of speech” tomorrow, and the right to “keep and beararms”nextmonth. Inasense,it’sarguablethattheBillofRights might allow government to “divide and conquer” our rights on a one- by-one basis and thereby slowly “cook” our freedoms like so many frogs. However, such cannibalism seems strictly prohibited under Article 4 Section 4 guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government”.
The mandate remains
So far as I know, the last President to refer to this nation as a “republic” was John F. Kennedy. Since then, all presidents have re- ferred to the United States only as a “democracy”—a political system which, by definition, cannot recognize the unalienable Rights and sov- ereign powers of individuals.
Does our current government secure our God-given, unalienable Rights? Obviously not.
Obvious conclusion? We no longer live in a republic. Instead, we’re entrapped in a democracy where unalienable Rights are not recognized or “secured” and no individual or minority is safe from the majority’s/ government’s arbitrary exercise of power or oppression.
Nevertheless, Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution is still there, un-amended, and mandating that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Govern- ment . . . .”
So we seem to have a constitutional conflict. Our Federal and (some) State constitutions mandate a republic, but our government only provides a democracy.
I suspect that this conflict between the Article 4 Section 4 man- date for a “Republican Form of Government” and our modern democ- racy can be exploited as a defense against government oppression. I suspect that a defendant who 1) understands the full meaning of a
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
35
36
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
Pro Se Litigant’s School of Law
“Knowledge and Understanding are the keys to success with the Law and in the Courts.” Stan Pierchoski – Founder of the School and 21 time successful Pro Se Litigant.
* * NEW! * *
“Driver’s License and the Social Sec. Number Requirement”
This lecture covers the most up-to-date info on this subject. With his own success and two cases before the appellate courts, Mr. Pierchoski is the leading authority on DL and SSN litigation. 2 Hrs. $39.95 + 5.00 S&H. Order now and get paperwork on disc free.
Learn the fundamentals of Pro Se Litigation from Mr. Pierchoski’s “Ba- sic Law Course,” 8 hours of comprehensive study consisting of six lectures, including Common Law v. Civil Law, Status, Jurisdiction, Court Structure, Legal Research, and Rights. Once you’ve learned these ba- sics, implementing the procedures becomes simple. Basic Law Course $89.95 + $5.00 S&H, specify either Cassette Tapes or on CD’s. Men- tion this ad and receive the corresponding paperwork on disc at no charge. A $9.95 value.
“Knowledge and Understanding are the keys to success with the Law and in the Courts.” Stan Pierchoski – Founder of the School and 21 time successful Pro Se Litigant.
* * NEW! * *
“Driver’s License and the Social Sec. Number Requirement”
This lecture covers the most up-to-date info on this subject. With his own success and two cases before the appellate courts, Mr. Pierchoski is the leading authority on DL and SSN litigation. 2 Hrs. $39.95 + 5.00 S&H. Order now and get paperwork on disc free.
Learn the fundamentals of Pro Se Litigation from Mr. Pierchoski’s “Ba- sic Law Course,” 8 hours of comprehensive study consisting of six lectures, including Common Law v. Civil Law, Status, Jurisdiction, Court Structure, Legal Research, and Rights. Once you’ve learned these ba- sics, implementing the procedures becomes simple. Basic Law Course $89.95 + $5.00 S&H, specify either Cassette Tapes or on CD’s. Men- tion this ad and receive the corresponding paperwork on disc at no charge. A $9.95 value.
Office to support and defend the
Constitution is duty bound to
“guarantee” a “Republican Form of
Government” and the attendant
“unalienable Rights”. Therefore, if
an official sought to impose rules
or regulation upon you that were
based on democratic principles
rather than unalienable Rights—
that official might violate his Oath
of Office and incur personal liabil-
ity.
So, if you claim you still have the unalienable Rights referenced in the “Declaration of Indepen- dence” and seemingly guaranteed by Article 4 Section 4 of the Fed- eral Constitution, will government publicly admit that it’s not so? Even if government can prove that you don’t have unalienable Rights, you’re not in a “State of this Union,” or the Republic is long dead, they’d be unlikely to make those admissions publicly since doing so could alert the
So, if you claim you still have the unalienable Rights referenced in the “Declaration of Indepen- dence” and seemingly guaranteed by Article 4 Section 4 of the Fed- eral Constitution, will government publicly admit that it’s not so? Even if government can prove that you don’t have unalienable Rights, you’re not in a “State of this Union,” or the Republic is long dead, they’d be unlikely to make those admissions publicly since doing so could alert the
Visit our website for all the Courses
www.pro-se-litigant.com
Pro Se Litigant’s School of Law
www.pro-se-litigant.com
Pro Se Litigant’s School of Law
P.O. Box 725
Pulaski, TN. 38478
(931) 363-9117
Pulaski, TN. 38478
(931) 363-9117
“Republican Form of Government” and 2) demands that the Article 4
Section 4 guarantee of such government be enforced—may raise a
constitutional conflict or “political question” too embarrassing for most
prosecutors to face.
If so, cases against defendants might “disappear” if those defen- dants essentially argued that, as individuals “endowed with certain un- alienable Rights,” they could not be subject to the statutes, regula- tions and enforcement activities of a democracy—which, by defini- tion, denies unalienable Rights.
More importantly, any government official who’s taken an Oath of
If so, cases against defendants might “disappear” if those defen- dants essentially argued that, as individuals “endowed with certain un- alienable Rights,” they could not be subject to the statutes, regula- tions and enforcement activities of a democracy—which, by defini- tion, denies unalienable Rights.
More importantly, any government official who’s taken an Oath of
democratic majority that they’ve been betrayed. Once “officially”
alerted of their loss of individual rights, the public might rise up and
vote (the democracy’s one remaining “right”) to restore the Republi-
can Form of Government.3
Ironically, democracy only works if the public has no idea of what kind of mess they’re really in. If your courtroom defense threatens to “sound the alarm,” gov-co may decline to prosecute.
Further, I suspect that most government prosecutions for minor offenses (traffic, family law, etc.) take place in courts of equity rather than law. One axiom of equity jurisdiction is that the plaintiff must have “clean hands” to initiate a case in equity.
So, what would happen if the government tried to sue or indict you in a court of equity and you advised the court that the
Ironically, democracy only works if the public has no idea of what kind of mess they’re really in. If your courtroom defense threatens to “sound the alarm,” gov-co may decline to prosecute.
Further, I suspect that most government prosecutions for minor offenses (traffic, family law, etc.) take place in courts of equity rather than law. One axiom of equity jurisdiction is that the plaintiff must have “clean hands” to initiate a case in equity.
So, what would happen if the government tried to sue or indict you in a court of equity and you advised the court that the
government’s “hands” were “unclean” since it was operating as a de-
mocracy rather than the “Republican Form of Government” mandated
by the Federal and (possibly) State constitutions? Could failure to
provide a “Republican Form of Government” cost government its stand-
ing to sue in equity?
Similarly, Article 4, Section 4 might not only offer an intriguing de- fense against government prosecution, it might even provide a basis for aggressively suing a governmental entity or official that violated or refused to “secure” our unalienable Rights. Until Federal and State constitutions are amended to remove the republican mandate, there appears to be no wiggle-room, no excuse for not providing the People with a “Republican Form of Government”.
If so, any governmental agent or agency that’s put on proper notice of their constitutionally-mandated duty to provide us with a “Republican Form of Government”—and nevertheless continues to prosecute us as a subjects of the unauthorized democracy—might be personally exposed to financial and even criminal liability. More, intentional failure to provide a “Republican Form of Government” is arguably treason (a hanging of- fense). In fact, it’s arguable that (like all collectivist political systems) democracy itself is anathema to the Declaration of Independence, trea- son to the Constitution, and blasphemy to God.
Faced with charges that they’ve knowingly refused to provide a “Republican Form of Government” and “secure” our “unalienable Rights,” what could government agents do? Admit to a jury that the American people haven’t had any unalienable Rights since the 1930s? I don’t think so. But even if they made that admission, would the jury believe them? Probably not.
And therein lies the great vulnerability of a democracy imposed through deceit and enforced public ignorance. Government secretly imposed the democracy, because they knew the American people would never accept it, if they understood that abandoning the repub- lic meant abandoning their unalienable Rights. As a result, govern- ment is in the awkward position of a teenage boy who brings a hooker home while his folks are on vacation. If his parents come home early, the kid must either hide the whore or pass her off as his history teacher—but he can’t possibly admit that he’s got a whore in the house. Likewise, our government can’t openly admit it’s brought the disease-bearing whore of democracy into our republic. Ohh, she’s here alright, but all gov-co can do is act innocent, keep a big supply of condoms handy and hope we don’t find out she’s not our long-lost Aunt.
What shall we do?
How can we eject the democratic bitch? The “Declaration of Inde- pendence” offers guidance:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destruc- tive of these ends [securing our unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
Similarly, Article 4, Section 4 might not only offer an intriguing de- fense against government prosecution, it might even provide a basis for aggressively suing a governmental entity or official that violated or refused to “secure” our unalienable Rights. Until Federal and State constitutions are amended to remove the republican mandate, there appears to be no wiggle-room, no excuse for not providing the People with a “Republican Form of Government”.
If so, any governmental agent or agency that’s put on proper notice of their constitutionally-mandated duty to provide us with a “Republican Form of Government”—and nevertheless continues to prosecute us as a subjects of the unauthorized democracy—might be personally exposed to financial and even criminal liability. More, intentional failure to provide a “Republican Form of Government” is arguably treason (a hanging of- fense). In fact, it’s arguable that (like all collectivist political systems) democracy itself is anathema to the Declaration of Independence, trea- son to the Constitution, and blasphemy to God.
Faced with charges that they’ve knowingly refused to provide a “Republican Form of Government” and “secure” our “unalienable Rights,” what could government agents do? Admit to a jury that the American people haven’t had any unalienable Rights since the 1930s? I don’t think so. But even if they made that admission, would the jury believe them? Probably not.
And therein lies the great vulnerability of a democracy imposed through deceit and enforced public ignorance. Government secretly imposed the democracy, because they knew the American people would never accept it, if they understood that abandoning the repub- lic meant abandoning their unalienable Rights. As a result, govern- ment is in the awkward position of a teenage boy who brings a hooker home while his folks are on vacation. If his parents come home early, the kid must either hide the whore or pass her off as his history teacher—but he can’t possibly admit that he’s got a whore in the house. Likewise, our government can’t openly admit it’s brought the disease-bearing whore of democracy into our republic. Ohh, she’s here alright, but all gov-co can do is act innocent, keep a big supply of condoms handy and hope we don’t find out she’s not our long-lost Aunt.
What shall we do?
How can we eject the democratic bitch? The “Declaration of Inde- pendence” offers guidance:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destruc- tive of these ends [securing our unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
37
38
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [Emph. and bracket
add.]
In short, we have an unalienable Right (some say, “duty”) to abolish the democracy which denies our individually-held, God-given Rights. Based on the Article 4 Section 4 “guarantee,” we can demand restora- tion of the “Republican Form of Government” that secures our un- alienable Rights. Such overthrow won’t happen soon since a suc- cessful referendum against democracy is a “political question” that will require a massive effort to educate the public to the blessings of a Republic and the disabilities of democracy.
However, for now, we can begin that educational process by sim- ply challenging government to provide the “Republican Form of Gov- ernment” that’s guaranteed by our Federal and (some) State constitu- tions. As our understanding grows, and more people begin to de- fend themselves based on the constitutional guarantee of a “Republi- can Form of Government,” we might see atheist democracy begin to crack, then crumble.
Summary
1. Unlike monarchies and democracies, only a true Republic can “secure” God-given, unalienable Rights to all individuals.
2. A “Republican Form of Government” is guaranteed to every “State of the Union” by Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution (and also some current State constitutions).
3. Contrary to those constitutional guarantees, our current gov- ernment operates as a democracy which, by definition, recognizes the people’s rights as a single collective, but denies their God-given, unalienable Rights as individuals.
4. The conflict between the constitutionally-mandated “Republi- can Form of Government” and our de facto democracy may provide a powerful strategy for challenging government enforcement programs which—implemented under the guise of democracy—ignore any individual’s claim of God-given, unalienable Rights under the manda- tory Republic.
In essence, the logic of this strategy might run something like this:
1. The “unalienable Rights” granted by God and declared in the “Declaration of Independence” are the constitutionalist’s “holy grail”. These are the rights to travel, to own firearms, to raise your children without government interference, to engage in any occupation that you desire, to worship God without restriction and to enjoy the “free- dom” that every patriot seeks but hasn’t found since the 1930’s.
2. A “Republican Form of Government” is one that “secures” our God-given, individually-held “unalienable Rights”.
3. Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution mandates that,
In short, we have an unalienable Right (some say, “duty”) to abolish the democracy which denies our individually-held, God-given Rights. Based on the Article 4 Section 4 “guarantee,” we can demand restora- tion of the “Republican Form of Government” that secures our un- alienable Rights. Such overthrow won’t happen soon since a suc- cessful referendum against democracy is a “political question” that will require a massive effort to educate the public to the blessings of a Republic and the disabilities of democracy.
However, for now, we can begin that educational process by sim- ply challenging government to provide the “Republican Form of Gov- ernment” that’s guaranteed by our Federal and (some) State constitu- tions. As our understanding grows, and more people begin to de- fend themselves based on the constitutional guarantee of a “Republi- can Form of Government,” we might see atheist democracy begin to crack, then crumble.
Summary
1. Unlike monarchies and democracies, only a true Republic can “secure” God-given, unalienable Rights to all individuals.
2. A “Republican Form of Government” is guaranteed to every “State of the Union” by Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution (and also some current State constitutions).
3. Contrary to those constitutional guarantees, our current gov- ernment operates as a democracy which, by definition, recognizes the people’s rights as a single collective, but denies their God-given, unalienable Rights as individuals.
4. The conflict between the constitutionally-mandated “Republi- can Form of Government” and our de facto democracy may provide a powerful strategy for challenging government enforcement programs which—implemented under the guise of democracy—ignore any individual’s claim of God-given, unalienable Rights under the manda- tory Republic.
In essence, the logic of this strategy might run something like this:
1. The “unalienable Rights” granted by God and declared in the “Declaration of Independence” are the constitutionalist’s “holy grail”. These are the rights to travel, to own firearms, to raise your children without government interference, to engage in any occupation that you desire, to worship God without restriction and to enjoy the “free- dom” that every patriot seeks but hasn’t found since the 1930’s.
2. A “Republican Form of Government” is one that “secures” our God-given, individually-held “unalienable Rights”.
3. Article 4 Section 4 of the Federal Constitution mandates that,
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Re-
publican Form of Government . . . .”
4. Virtually every government official has taken an Oath of Office to support and defend the Federal Constitution.
5. The Oath of Office should obligate all government officials to support and defend a “Republican Form of Government” that “secures” our “unalienable Rights”.
6. Any official who knowingly supports and defends a democracy that denies your unalienable Rights may be personally liable for violat- ing his Oath of Office, violating the Constitution, and committing crimi- nal acts including treason. If two or more officials knowingly work together to deny or deprive you of your unalienable Rights and a Republican Form of Government, they may be guilty of conspiracy.
Of course, my analysis could be wrong. Maybe a “Republican Form of Government” does not necessarily secure unalien- able Rights. If so, you’ve read this long-winded article for nothing. But if my analysis is generally correct, legal arguments based on a
thoroughly researched and properly presented demand for a “Repub- lican Form of Government” may be powerful.
More research must be done, but for now, I believe this argument will make ‘em blink.
1 Not every “republic” conforms to this definition. For example, the former “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” claimed to be composed of “Republics,” but merely used that word as a political label. Those “Re- publics” were actually collectives where sovereign power was held by the collective, not individuals.
2 If you read Article 22 of the U.N.’s “Declaration”: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security . . . .” Does this imply that modern “social security” is a U.N. program? Is it possible that mere possession of a Social Security card is construed as evidence of your status as subject in an international democracy?
3 The “right to vote” is the only right guaranteed to the citizens of a democracy. Hence the importance of the Federal Election Commission and enforcement of “voting rights”.
4. Virtually every government official has taken an Oath of Office to support and defend the Federal Constitution.
5. The Oath of Office should obligate all government officials to support and defend a “Republican Form of Government” that “secures” our “unalienable Rights”.
6. Any official who knowingly supports and defends a democracy that denies your unalienable Rights may be personally liable for violat- ing his Oath of Office, violating the Constitution, and committing crimi- nal acts including treason. If two or more officials knowingly work together to deny or deprive you of your unalienable Rights and a Republican Form of Government, they may be guilty of conspiracy.
Of course, my analysis could be wrong. Maybe a “Republican Form of Government” does not necessarily secure unalien- able Rights. If so, you’ve read this long-winded article for nothing. But if my analysis is generally correct, legal arguments based on a
thoroughly researched and properly presented demand for a “Repub- lican Form of Government” may be powerful.
More research must be done, but for now, I believe this argument will make ‘em blink.
1 Not every “republic” conforms to this definition. For example, the former “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” claimed to be composed of “Republics,” but merely used that word as a political label. Those “Re- publics” were actually collectives where sovereign power was held by the collective, not individuals.
2 If you read Article 22 of the U.N.’s “Declaration”: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security . . . .” Does this imply that modern “social security” is a U.N. program? Is it possible that mere possession of a Social Security card is construed as evidence of your status as subject in an international democracy?
3 The “right to vote” is the only right guaranteed to the citizens of a democracy. Hence the importance of the Federal Election Commission and enforcement of “voting rights”.
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 11 No. 3 www.antishyster.com
39
No comments:
Post a Comment