America became a republic when it finally broke away from its British King, George III. A republic cannot have a monarch. It is strange that America fought a revolution to rid itself of a tyrannical king, but has since forgotten that there is a difference between a republic free of a king, and a democracy, which can be headed by a monarch.

Today's politicians have tied democracy to the concept of freedom. The banner for the new freedom is democracy. Democracies are being glorified as the most proper form of government. Leaders of the world proclaim that tyrants should be ousted and democracies should be installed. Following this absurd argument, were the whole world governed by democracies, there would be no despots. Republics get lost in the message, and all forms of elected governments fall under the general label of democracies. Under republican governments, there are no kings or queens. In this sense, they are very different to democracies.

If freedom is the ultimate goal of the people, then they should consider the removal of all monarchs, royals and titles. History is loaded with tyrants from so-called royal lines. Even though tyrants have emerged from republics, such tyrannies cannot be bequeathed to their offspring unless they establish some type of mock monarchy. America is facing the real danger of having its government corrupted into a mock monarchy under the deceptive label of democracy.

Some people accept monarchs today by excusing away their positions as being those of figureheads. To justify carrying such figureheads in their governments, many spurious arguments are used to support the monarchs. Royals are said to be good for the country's economy and therefore they should be kept by the taxpayers. In reality, many of the world's monarchs are not figureheads. They still rule over and influence many things, whether openly or covertly.

Monarchs stand for the ultimate inequality of people. A royal is artificially boosted to be more precious and worthy than other human beings. There can never be equal justice under the law as long as there are royals. A monarch is the antithesis of equality. Hence, to acknowledge even figurehead royals is to accept inequality.

American liberty is supposed to be premised on equality for all. Therefore, the government cannot honour a king or a queen, which would glaringly represent inequality of the people. Further, there is the constitutional dictate that:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government . . .

Unfortunately, many Americans have been led to believe that republics and democracies are synonymous terms. American politicians use the terms interchangeably, with a decidedly strong preference for “democracy” over “republic” in their usage. The question is whether these politicians are confusing the terms out of ignorance, or are intentionally misspeaking to cause confusion about the terms. If it is the former, it can be quickly corrected. If it is the latter, the problems are serious and deep, indeed.

The American founders considered whether the new nation should be an absolute monarchy, a parliamentary monarchy, a democracy or a republic. All forms were considered, with the first three rejected in favour of a republic. British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Being a subject of the British Crown, it is not surprising that he would not approve of republics like America and Ireland.

American politicians boldly and openly declare certain rulers and governments to be defective and tyrannical. They brazenly demand that such rulers abdicate and allow their people to embrace democracy. Thus, they are equating democracy with freedom.

One might ask why not oust the tyrants and install republican governments instead? Are they worried about offending the British Queen – a descendant of the Hanover line that began ruling England under George I – whose tyrannical grandson, George III, was overthrown by the American colonists?

It is no longer just the politicians who have forgotten why America is a republic. The general belief amongst the public is that America is a democracy. Occasionally, it is referred to as a republic, usually without the speaker understanding the reason why America became a republic. Surprisingly, President Obama is guilty of misusing the terms “democracy” and “republic” in his speeches. Film director, Steven Spielberg, can be excused for his confusion in portraying President Lincoln as a staunch defender of democracy, but President Obama has no excuse for confusing a democracy and a republic. Abraham Lincoln fully understood how dangerous British monarchs and their wretched system of slavery were to America. He would never confuse the terms democracy and republic.

In movies, television shows and real life situations, many of us have seen Presidents taking the oath of office, in which it is affirmed that they will “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.” How can Obama be protecting the constitution by loosely giving preference to a democratic government over a republican government in his speeches? A king was overthrown that a republic might be borne, not so kings could continue to lord over others under democratic societies.

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated about 10 weeks after the House approved the 13th amendment to abolish slavery in America. Co-incidentally, this is the amount of time it would have taken the news to reach London, and orders from London to reach Washington by sailing ship. The sworn enemy of the American republic was the line of British monarchs from George III to Victoria.

In his long reign, George III aggressively plotted against, and resisted, American republicanism from before the American Revolution of 1776. After losing that war, George III employed many intrigues to try to separate the several states to weaken the union, which eventually culminated in the War of 1812. This old man played a knick-knack war against American liberty throughout his entire reign. The same campaign was taken up by his successors until Victoria. The British monarchs used the slavery issue to weaken the union, and ultimately to incite the separation of the states and promote the Civil War. Lincoln was on the verge of declaring war against England, knowing them to be the party most responsible for the War Between the States. If Lincoln had not been successful in his fight in Congress for the 13th amendment to abolish slavery, Victoria might have spared his life, and no one would have heard of John Wilkes Booth.

Slavery was brought to America and promoted by the British royals. Besides being convenient, cheap labour, slaves are politically, economically and socially important to monarchs and nobles. It is easier to instil inferiority into their subjects so that they will bow down to them if the royals create a yet lower class that must bow down to their subjects. It amounts to a continuity of cruelty. One is artificially placed above the other, who is placed above another.

Close to Obama's heart should be the issues of slavery and civil rights. President Lincoln ran afoul of Victoria in abolishing slavery, and President John F. Kennedy carried the same torch in promoting civil rights for everyone. For this, he offended the same line and suffered the same fate as Abraham Lincoln, with a similarly incredible “lone gunman” scenario.

In 1776, Thomas Paine had this to say about monarchs, which is still applicable today:

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho' himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION.