“A well instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.

” -James Madison
 Foreword by:

To Be Announced
Coming Soon
 Mission Statement:
When in the course of human events, if people should doubt their influence over their community, it
becomes the duty of We the People to persevere. It is my entire intention of this piece of work to
inspire those close to me to understand the political nature of the founding of our nation, to understand
the wisdom passed down among centuries, and to feel as strong as the founding fathers in the
importance of throwing off tyranny and participating in a self-governing republic.

Our nation, being over 230 years since the Declaration of Independence, has seen several
revolutions throughout its course, some ever so dangerous. From the Industrial & Banking Revolutions
of the 20th Century to the Civil War, the outlook of our nation has, at times, looked grim. We have
always overcome the challenges of a growing nation, however, and today is no different.

It is up to a small minority of us to realize the dream laid forth by Thomas Jefferson when he
penned the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America. It is a dream that has
transcended changes in relations between gender, race, class, and social differences between the people.

If there has ever been a time in which import must be placed on the values that our nation's laws are
based upon, it is today. Our processes for overcoming tyranny have been all but politically destroyed
by our modern media, the corruption within our governing systems has become so rampant that to
most, despotism is clearly out in the open and a large segment of the populous have lost hope that we
could ever restore the rule of law and liberties, returning individual freedom and a government of, by,
and for the people.

It is my hope that this reading material will restore that hope with an understanding that the true
American Dream is that anything is possible, and with the right steps of action and education, we can
displace the corruption and tyranny with a government of honest necessity.

As you read, understand that each chapter will be on a specific topic which may be influenced by
several ideas, paradigms, and facts that span different problems. This means I will have to divide
examination of the legitimacy of a paradigm or idea into different chapters.

I hope to challenge at least one of your paradigms, pushing yourself to argue against my points, as I
contrast the common views of history and law with the constitutional outlook and interpretation that
would enable a free society.
 A REPUBLIC......If You Can Keep It

Chapter I

Though the US Constitution guarantees Republican forms of government, in 1913, a remarkable

year for which Tyrannical forces claimed several victories over the Republic of the United States of
America, the word Democracy became the new buzzword slogan of our nation.

I will explain minority rights in this chapter in detail, but lets begin by understanding the unusual
progression towards Communism. In 1913 Two amendments to the US Constitution were ratified, the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth.

The Sixteenth Amendment: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to
any census or enumeration.

The Seventeenth Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The
electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch
of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the
executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the
legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the
people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This Amendment shall not be so
construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
Constitution.

The Sixteenth Amendment re-introduced the idea of taxation through the idea of an Income Tax.
The Seventeenth removed the States' government's right to be represented in the Federal Congress by
removing their ability to appoint Senators, instead giving that ability to majority popular election.

It is a very noble thought that the people know what is best for their State, however, that is the point
of the House of Representatives. The House shall represent the people, and the Senate shall represent
the States. This was the intent of the original Constitution. What has happened since is a complete
violation of minority rights, state's rights, and huge growth in Washington power in the name of giving
the “Mass Public” a bigger voice.

I am often reminded of the scene from the movie “Men in Black” with Will Smith and Tommy Lee
Jones, when discussing why the government keeps secrets from the people, Agent K, played by Jones,
describes perfectly why “Democracy,” or “Majority Rule” does not work.

Agent J (Smith): “People are smart they can handle—”

Agent K: “A PERSON is Smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.”

The masses can be persuaded to act in the interest of the masses, which can be detrimental to the
regional, community, or family interests of the persons within the mass. This becomes ever so
dangerous in our modern time where most persons' values are in many ways related to the media or
religious influences that they consume. A person can clearly be motivated to sacrifice what is right, for
what they perceive is best for society.

Early in my interest in the political, I was once in a debate with a friend over the use of the
Confederate Flag in modern times, and the subject of the intelligence level of the southern slave owners
came up, to which I foolishly and ignorantly claimed that they may have falsely believed Black Persons
were no more human that common pets.

Rightly so, I was reminded of minority rights when his answer to such a statement was the fact that
there was a very large Abolitionist movement who were not ignorant to such things, and that the
majority could have come to the conclusion of the immoral act of enslaving another human on his own.

This is possibly the best example as to how there are times in our society when a minority of the
people know the better path for society than the “masses” and I truly believe that war was not needed
because when it comes to freedom, a small insistent minority in the right will always prevail over
systems of injustice. I will definitely get back into Civil War motivations several times in later chapters.
Just understand that many of our views as a society on minority rights, when applied to political
minority belief structures, there is clearly a standard by which there is room for improvement.

The most common parable is the one that states “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on
what to have for dinner.” The sheep will always be a victim unless and until it can persuade one of the
wolves to reject his natural programming and eat vegetarian. Ultimately nobody's interests are truly
served, as there is not adequate representation for everyone's diet. Ultimately there is no longer
freedom of the different parties to choose their own appropriate diet without another party infringing on
their rights. The critic will state that the problem is that the wolves are carnivorous beings, with only
blood on their mind, I can only answer that if the sheep is part of the community, then rationale shall
overcome and the wolves shall find another suitable meat to feast upon. This is conflict resolution
through suitable sacrifice. This is how neighbors and government should approach problems.
 Give me my “rights”!

Chapter II

The most common misconception of government, especially the United States government, is that a
government is there to give you your rights. This is not true on a very specific level. On the contrary,
government is there to ensure that you as an individual are able to give yourself and exercise your own
rights.

The word “Rights” has become an interesting paradigm. People believe that the word “Rights”
means something you deserve as a citizen or a person. When we look at our history as a nation,
however, we begin to learn that rights are something even deeper.

Rights are something slightly esoteric. Rights have an underlying religious context. Not that you
have to be a Christian, not that you even have to believe in God, but in order to believe in rights, you
have to believe in the authority of the creation of the human spirit. When you were born, you were
given the gift of humanity. Upon your creation, you were given the abilities of a human and the
responsibilities thereof. The abilities to reason, communicate, feel emotions, and have ambitions are
things shared by all humans, and as such, any government that would dare infringe on those abilities
are infringing on your rights to represent your ideals. Rights are simply the ability to utilize these
abilities in your community and to your leaders.

Excerpt from the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

“We Hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”

These words are often quoted, but rarely examined by the everyday person. So we have a society
where people claim to have all kinds of “rights” because they feel that they deserve certain privileges,
and some segments of the population do deserve these privileges, however, you need to examine if
something has to do with your individual liberty to exercise the abilities given to you upon your
creation as a human being. The “Right” to health care argument, The “Right to choose” abortion
argument, Gender/Racial/Special interest “rights”. These things are either based upon something that
would be provided externally, or they are beliefs that are not based upon abilities of humanity, but upon
differences within humanity.

Unlike most Libertarians, I am not entirely against the idea of welfare. Outside of the main
problems of the lack oversight of the system, I do believe that if our government was truly of the
people, and the people all did their civic duty, then we could possibly have a noble enough system
where social programs could be efficient. The problem with modern society, however, is that the right
to life becomes extended upon one's community to sustain, not empower that person's right to life.
Charity and stewardship on one's community is indeed a necessary moral duty, a moral value that we
should begin to instill in our future generations, not something that should be enforced through law and
force. I find it very sad the number of people that aid in funding UN-backed “charities” while ignoring
the homeless, poor, and handicapped in their own back yards. We tend to forget about domestic charity
issues due to our dependence on government to properly manage domestic social programs. We need
to realize that our trust in the federal two-party government's debt spending system to efficiently filter
our money in a charitable manner to the needy in our society either needs a huge spotlight on auditing
or realistic plans to help the needy get on their feet so that we may begin to draw down the scheme that
these bankers and politicians use to make you feel noble when they demand their payment.

Rights cannot be given by anyone other than your creator upon creation. Several politicians are
currently debating whether to “give rights” to terrorists. Most of these people claim to be Christian
Conservatives. No god-fearing person should ever claim to exercise the power of the Creator. If these
people believe that they have the power to either give or deny rights of another human being, then they
are rejecting the idea of the Creator being the originator of rights, as stated in the Declaration of
Independence, which means they either do not respect the Declaration, or they do not respect the
Creator.

Which brings me to the idea of Permits, Licenses, and Statutes. I have been asked on several
occasions my opinion of the National Rifle Association. The NRA supports Conceal & Carry permits
when it comes to carrying a weapon. This essentially begins to remove self-defense as a right, and
make it a privilege maintained by the state. This also empowers the state with the power to deny one
individual his or her ability of self-defense, while allowing the arming another person. This is not
equal protection under the law. The problem with crime in our society is not the arming of criminals, it
is the imbalance of armed criminals to armed persons willing to defend their self and their community
against criminals.

The pro-gun control crowd would rather select “officials” to be “trusted” to be armed on behalf of
the population. This gives a selected group of people rights above everyone else, which history has
shown that this power only serves tyrants' ability to oppress an unarmed populous, while enabling
criminals to take advantage of these security and police officers' response time. In fact, the police even
admit that their responsibility is not to interrupt crimes in progress, and that they have no duty to
actively defend you or your property. The police are there to deter and investigate crime, which they
do less and less in modern times of city and state “funding priorities” that have pushed police into
becoming a fine-issuing taxation agency.

The same can be true for the freedom of speech and press. If we only have a small number of
official trusted news services, how can we ever be sure that these mouthpieces are telling us the whole
and proper truth? FCC permitting has narrowed down the opinions and beliefs allowed in modern
media, and the Federal Government has been discussing the possibility of licensing the ability to have a
website.

Will you be convinced to get a permit to communicate? To protest problems you're having with the
same government you're asking for a permit from? It's clear that there is absolutely nothing about a
right that requires you to ask someone else to exercise, enable, or permit you to animate your humanity.

The proper role of government is to punish those who would infringe and take away your ability to
have your rights. The discussion on rights of terrorists is resolved when you think that proper
punishment is the removal of rights, and that until that point, a human has due process guaranteed as a
right by our form of government. Again, this has nothing to do with being a citizen, nothing to do with
being tough, this is about recognizing that even terrorists and foreigners have a creator, and as such,
retain their human rights.
 Political Spectrum Analysis

Chapter III

Whenever I look at political discourse in this country, I see only one tactic: Divide and Conquer.
Everyone seems to want to gain political points by making you think that they are the furthest thing
from your dislikes. Hate is a strong emotion and sadly it tends to motivate people. Modern election
coverage tends to amplify the few small somewhat insignificant differences between candidates, and in
several races, you find out that the candidates positions are more similar than they would like you to
believe. Those differences are usually based on out of context quotes, and ironically those quotes are
usually from communications with some special interest where that person had to speak from a safe
manner instead of candidly about their position.

This is why this nation suffers from “not my candidate” syndrome. Everyone knows that the system
is corrupt. The lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, it becomes the big joke. However, as soon as you put
support behind a candidate and their position, their promises, you tend to not want to believe that you
are making a bad choice. Which brings me right back to “attack” campaigning. If you can be made to
believe that the other guy is more corrupt, you can also be convinced to overlook flaws in your
candidate out of fear of what the opponent might bring to your community. Mainstream candidates
will always want to hold office for the influence, the fame, and the power to be above their peers in the
community. They will seek any funding, especially from corrupt sources. They are nothing more than
paid actors put there to obfuscate language in an attempt to make their opponent politically nonviable.

Why are these tactics so prevalent in politics? Simple. If one can make you believe that a person or
their platform is alien, foreign, and threatening in comparison to your beliefs, then you won't unite with
your peers against corruption as a whole, instead you will be distracted arguing about which beliefs are
more alien and threatening to your community.

This concept in partisan politics is known in grassroots circles as the False-Left-Right Paradigm.
While this tactic is indeed not limited to the left-right political spectrum, it is the primary manner in
which we view political divisions in modern times. People view politics on a sliding scale from left to
right with moderates in the center.

The problem with the False Left Right Paradigm is that the entirety of people who believe our
government can work, and trust that their vote will go to good use, have many issues they care about,
but they are all rooted on one principal. Prosperity.

Whether you feel an idea should be prosperous, or a segment of the community, or having the rule of
law be prosperous. We all strive for the same thing, a peaceful, positive way in which our ideals and
values can be represented and respected by our government. Why then, do we fall for these divisive
tactics? Fear.

I remember that months prior to the 2008 election, many grassroots folks, people who were aligned
with Democrats especially, were quoting Ben Franklin to make a point about the war on terror and the
Civil Liberties rollbacks involved:

“Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.”

This is a statement about Fear. Yet persons with these same beliefs about the war on terror, were so
afraid of the consequences of an election outcome where the Republican Party would continue to run
the country, that they blindly followed the mainstream opposition party, not actually listening to the
policy positions or talking points, acting mostly disappointed when the people they elected did not truly
represent them.

One thing that the 2008 election did teach me, however, is that we do, even in contrast to our peer,
have very fundamental differing beliefs in which issues are priorities. We could agree on 90% of the
issues with a person, but become very upset with the beliefs in prioritization order in which they feel
the issues need to be addressed.

This creates a very real grassroots left-right paradigm. I like to think of the political spectrum as a
circle, with globalism on top and individual liberties on the bottom. As you reach the upper echelons of
power left or right side, you increase into more government controlled structures. I sometimes have
debates on the differences between Fascism (right wing tyranny) and Communism (left wing tyranny).
People want to debate that one is somehow better than another. They really actually merge into
totalitarianism.

The following is a visual as to how I view the very real left-right paradigms that we face in today's
society.
 When society is organic, capitalist, and republican, markets, government, finance, and media all
work independently of another. Under Fascism, Finance winds up gaining power over the rest of the
societal structures, essentially creating a government run by private corporate bidding over the people.
Under Communism, the opposite happens, with the same result. The Government takes over business
and media, yet still creating that monopolistic power grid mentality over society.

Some would argue, that a communist society for, of, and by the people could exist and serve the
population well, and I could agree in principle, if we could keep it grassroots, and with plenty of
oversight. However, practice has shown that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and
whenever you centralize that power in very few hands, it will be used for the people wielding the
power or influencing the power, and it becomes very easy to make promises to the people, with no
intention of fully following through, just long enough for the people to trust your agenda and install
tyranny into government. Essentially, when you have a government that can give you anything you
want, you also give them the power to give their selves your share, and take what you deserve. As
famed philosophic economist Alexis De Toqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until
congress discovers it can bribe the people with their own money.” Ultimately, communist systems can
be too tempting for the population to become lazy in their oversight duties when their wants are
somewhat satisfied. This opens the door for despotism.

The right wing would make you believe that they are for small government. Again, practice has
shown that this is not the case. The mainstream Republican party has shown time and time again, that
it has very little objection to private corporate influence over government, and government influence
over market enablers. This allows for empire-like mentality when war is profitable, and Republicans
are falsely led to believe that being patriotic means supporting war endeavors no matter what the cost
to our Republic is.

All of these false paradigms are symptoms of the “greater society” mentality. What I mean by that,
is that they believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to allowing a bit of bad policy if the
end result is one of increased profit or security for the causes that the individual feels strongly about.

Ultimately, these are all noble ideas, however History has taught us that we should moderate the
spread of noble causes, for there are always unintended side effects, and that we need to light a fire
under the lessons of our forefathers and encourage every person no matter their position in life, to
become educated on our intended form of government, how to preserve it, and how to exercise their
rights. It will not be until after a populous uprising, will we be able to trust our Government to provide
top-down solutions without injecting massive corruption.

The best way to understand the true political spectrum is to realize that typical “right” causes are
“Liberty” and “Capitalist” based, whereas typical “left” causes are “Justice” and “Social” based. And
then you have parallel scales going up both left and right from the individual, to their family, to their
community, to the nation, to globalism. There is the old saying “Think Globally, act Locally.” This
holds true for Government also. Whenever you hear someone use the talking point “Global problems
require Global Solutions” understand what they are advocating. Uniformity. True global solutions are
solutions that can be picked up on a different grassroots level in every community.

Refer to Figure 1, as it shows 4 people. Person “A” is a Democratic Party Elitist. Person “B” would
be a mainstream Republican Elitist. Person “C” is an activist for Animal rights and Gay rights. Person
“D” is an activist for free markets and the Constitution. The great swindle is to use Media and
Government to make Person “C” believe they have the most in common with Person “A,” and make
person “D” believe they have the most in common with person “B,” based purely on the type of issues
they tend to focus on, and not the type of solutions. Thus creating enemies and battles at the Grassroots
levels of politics.
 The Medicine is the Poison

Chapter IV

Delving further into the evidence that Globalism is not the answer, I just wanted to toss this quick
chapter in here. There has been several instances where influencing society on an international level
has had severe side effects. I'm not saying every decision was entirely wrong, I'm just saying that
rarely are the results as positive as the people are sold on.

NAFTA and other free trade deals are responsible for starving Haiti and many other nations. The
IMF, BIS, and World Bank are responsible for many of these trade deals. The credit collapse of 2008
hit worldwide because of the world trade and the economic blending of nations. We have an economic
system right now that has been globalized over the past century, by hook or by crook. Some nations
were bullied into opting into the global banking schemes, and are now being held hostage of the high
interest loans that those nations own the western world. (For more information about these facts, I
suggest the book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins)

Pollution is a problem that has global effects. However, the solutions being proposed by the
mainstream are not only being proposed by those who run the problem industries, but also have
massive population control, massive investment and profit, and government takeover elements. If
anyone truly believes that creating a market by which corporations can leverage a profit margin will
slow pollution, that person is ignoring the history of everything we know about the huge banks and
corporations.

The truth is, in 2008 when the United States Congress passed the $750 billion financial bailout, they
issued enough debt wealth that they could have provided a massive portion of the population with Solar
Panels or other green technologies, which would have not only made us more energy independent,
giving us more money off our utility bills to spend into the economy, but would have created at least
temporary “green” jobs in those factories.

Instead, the money went to the banks and investment firms who set us up for failure, enabling them
to buy out healthy parts of their industry, giving them larger shares of the markets, all while Congress
and global economic summits discuss giving central banks and the international banking communities
more power over local economies.

Time and time again, the proposed cure is to feed us more of the poison. Please start recognizing
when those who wreck our Republic claim to have the solutions for fixing it. Especially when that
solution is either controlling or globalist in nature.

The tyranny of this paradigm is deep. Some of these issues are commonly, in government oversight
movements, known as “Problem-Reaction-Solution.”

The Problem-Reaction-Solution issue is one where those who either have, or seek political power,
have an intended action in mind. Some examples of these actions are changes in laws, discrediting
opposition, or expansion of war. These actions always require a paradigm shift of the public. It
becomes easier to sway the public to accept these changes when they perceive a bigger problem, so
those in power either fund or create a problem to exploit through the media. These problems could
potentially be dangerous and real, or minor and exploited, or completely fake, but the establishment
will exaggerate these problems in the media until there is a massive public outrage that matches the
desired paradigm, and the people demand action be taken. That is when those in power offer the
desired changes as the solution as the savior of the people, creating not only their intended endgame,
but also earning further trust of the people in the meantime.

The people's trust of the news is like an Aladdin's Lamp for the elite. All they have to do is
wish for something, and rub it in.