The 26 State Solution

The 26 State Solution

Our World Today

Imagine the shock of waking up in a strange and dreadful place, not knowing where you w ere or how you got there? This is the experience of more and more people that are waking up and finding themselves in an unrecognizable world, with no idea of what has happened. They feel as if they have been transported to a parallel universe where things may look the same, but function in unexpected, disturbing ways. They see people, perhaps even some friends and family, not acting as expected. The police that made them feel safe and secure are now a menace, tasing innocent and helpless citizens; breaking down people’s doors in the middle of the night, terrorizing them, shooting them and their pets. Airport passengers are treated worse than criminals in prison. They are searched inside and out, electronically stripped naked, robbed of the most trivial possessions by armed, Nazi-like, jackbooted thugs, and herded like cattle in a slaughter house. School children are not treated much better, herded through metal detectors, searched, tased, abused, trained in deviant behavior, and conditioned to accept regimentation, while their natural curiosity and passion for learning are systematically destroyed.

Criminals abound in public office, where they break every law. A sitting president, sworn to protect the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution, refers to it as a “god-damned piece of paper.” Politicians’ campaign promises have absolutely no relation to their performance after being elected. Even our food is different. If we think much about it, we are almost afraid to eat it, not knowing what is likely to be in it or on it, and the better it looks, the worse it is likely to be for us. Unfortunately, we must eat to live, which makes food an ideal weapon against us. Television, radio, and newspapers no longer provide news, having replaced it with fiction, propaganda, and garish or prurient distractions. Taxation has become openly synonymous with highway robbery. Prices seem to have booster rockets, they rise so rapidly. Millions are unemployed, and those still employed live in fear of losing their jobs. Our military, which once inspired our admiration and gratitude, now calls to mind charred babies, bombed-out schools and hospitals, and a fear of pending martial law. Everywhere we look, things have gone to hell and are sinking deeper into it every day.

Well, almost everywhere we look, but not quite. In recent years, the few at the peak of the power pyramid somehow managed to accumulate even more money than there was to accumulate. The Federal Reserve created trillions of dollars out of thin air and funneled them to the major banks that just happen to own the Federal Reserve, meaning they essentially gave the money to themselves. Those trillions are being used to buy up the real wealth of the country and to actually redesign the nation and its society to suit the ruling elite. We, the people, are indirectly and incomprehensibly paying for our own victimization and destruction, and most of us seem completely unaware of it.

Not content with robbing current citizens, the government pledges the fruits of future generations’ labor as collateral for trillions more in loans. For generations to come, Americans will work and the elite will reap considerable benefit from their labor. There is a name for people that do the work, while, without their consent, a substantial portion of the fruits of their labor goes to others. That name is “slave.” The elite were easily able to accomplish this enormous, advance transfer of wealth because they control the government that we supposedly instituted to protect our inalienable rights. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Is this really our country? How long since it ceased to be the land of the free and the home of the brave? Was it ever? What has happened to our country and to the world? Every country and its citizens are in debt over their heads. What is unclear is to whom all this money is owed. It is apparently owed to the private central banks which are owned by the bankers being bailed out. Little by little, we realize that this is still our same old world, but like Rip Van Winkle, we have been asleep, while our world went to hell. Then, vaguely, we remember hearing a few people warning about terrible things that were going to happen, but we laughed at them, just as did those popular TV personalities that called them conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat people. With a little browsing on the Internet, we discover we are not alone. Other people are waking up. Some never went to sleep. They must have been those voices crying in the wilderness, while we laughed at them. All around us, people moan and groan about the situation, asking where we went wrong, what needs to change, etc., but no one suggests a sensible way out. The usual advice we hear is to write to the Congress and the Senate that are causing the problem in the first place, and ask them to fix it. Isn’t that like writing a note to a holdup man, asking him to go away and leave you alone? The goal is to find a practical way out of this mess.

The Many Are Ruled by the Few

Billions of people are victims of a concept, a concept that defies reason: the sovereignty of government. Sovereignty is the supreme power to rule, the power to demand specific behavior of those ruled and punish those who disobey. What exactly is the basis of government sovereignty? Who dreamed it up? What permits a relatively tiny minority of men to completely dominate the rest? Why would millions, even billions, put up with oppression by a handful of tyrants and even go so far as to lay down their lives at the insistence of the tyrants?

In the end, governmental power or sovereignty depends on the acquiescence of those ruled. Though the government be willing and able to exterminate or imprison those who disobey, if a sufficient number resist, the government must back down. Why would billions subject themselves to the will of a dictator or some equivalent entity, especially if that entity is tyrannical, as most tend to be? Moreover, should the oppression reach an unbearable level and the oppressed rebel, they immediately look for a new ruler. There seems to be a drive to be ruled that can be even stronger than the will to survive, since people often risk their lives to place themselves in a situation often as bad as or worse than the one they want to end.

Few, apart from admitted masochists, would admit, even to themselves that they have an obsessive drive to be dominated. Yet, abundant evidence infers that such a drive exists and has existed throughout history. As this obsessive subservience has been consistently detrimental to man’s well-being, we can assume that men do not decide they want to be dominated following an informed, rational exercise of their intellect. Neither is the urge to be ruled limited to the mentally deficient, since some otherwise apparently intelligent people have openly expressed their belief that men must be ruled. It is by exercising our reason, by overriding hindering primitive instincts that we have come as far as we have socially. We may need to identify and to override a few remaining harmful instincts.

The many endure being ruled, subjugated, and exploited by the few and have done so throughout history, even though their superior numbers give them the power to end their subjugation and exploitation. This hardly seems appropriate behavior for the most advanced species on the planet, the species differentiated from other species by its ability to reason. What could explain this anomalous behavior?

In prehistoric times, the leader of a group of early humans was likely the dominant male, as it is today with apes and gorillas. With the advent of farming, groups stayed in one place and grew in size. As the groups grew, the dominant males probably recruited lieutenants without which they might have been overpowered by a few conspirators. Over many centuries, the dominant males morphed into kings and their lieutenants into the aristocracy. Today, in the role of dominant males, we have presidents or prime ministers. The lieutenants or aristocracy have become the ministers, legislatures, and courts, which act together to protect each other and to preserve the power they share, just as their prehistoric equivalents did.

It has been said that trying to explain freedom to some people or peoples is like trying to explain “dry” to a fish, so alien is the concept to them. This may be true in those nations that have never known real freedom. However, in the age of discovery, new countries such as America and Australia had relatively freedom oriented populations at their beginnings. Europeans with a penchant for freedom left for the new world. Many of those identifiable freedom lovers that didn’t leave are likely to have been eliminated by the authorities. This left a continent of those either willing to be ruled by tyrants or having the good sense to keep their mouths shut. Breeding serfs is not unlike breeding livestock. You keep the ones with the characteristics you want and slaughter the rest.

This line of thinking could cause us to suspect that acquiescence to authority is instinctive or genetic, which could explain its prevalence in the face of its apparent irrationality. Are some genetically disposed toward subjugation? Have ‘willing slave’ genes been identified? Are the independent being culled out, or soon to be? Has genetic engineering enabled the elite to make people acquiescent with additives to vaccines and drinking water, chemtrails, or with genetically modified food? Would they do that? Fortunately, instinct and genetic predispositions can often be overcome with a little effort. In rational people, an adequate awareness of the situation and of the benefits of reversing it, plus the necessary will may suffice. The sequential, widespread repression of genetic predispositions may be the mechanism responsible for what we call civilization.

Advances in Science and Technology vs Those in Society

Are we any more civil or civilized than we were two thousand years ago? Do nations get along any better than their historic equivalents? No one can dispute that mankind has impressively increased its mastery of science and technology over the last two thousand years. The great advances in science and technology and their practical implementation have provided mankind with what passes for the trappings of civilization. However, we can’t say that a dog living in a dog house that, for all it knows, its master conjured up by supernatural powers, is more civilized than a wild dog that finds a bed in a sheltered nook in a forest. He may be more comfortable, but not more civilized. Neither is a man more advanced in his ability to live harmoniously with others merely because he enjoys amenities, which, left to his own devices, would be impossible for him to imagine much less create. In judging our relative level of civilization, we need to compare how men and groups of men interact now and how they interacted historically.

Twenty-five hundred years ago, a Chinese Ron Paul was preaching more or less the same thing the current Ron Paul advocates, such as no government intervention and non-violence. Two thousand years ago, Plato observed that people made the mistake of believing that a man that knew how to get votes knew how to run the state. He said that if he were sick and needed to go to a doctor, he would not choose the best looking doctor or the doctor that was the best orator. He would try to find the doctor best qualified to cure him. Plato’s observations are as valid today as they were two thousand years ago, if not more so, now that television is such an influence in elections. One of two things must be true. Either men are not striving to get along better, or if they are striving to get along better, they are going about it the wrong way. The smart thing to do would be to try to find a way for people to get along, and quit trying to find more frightening ways to destroy each other. Why has man done so well in science and technology and so poorly in his relationships with others?

Science and technology are well-defined and consistent. All electricity, everywhere, obeys the same laws. All calculators tell you two times two is four. On the other hand, no two people anywhere are likely to react precisely the same under the same set of circumstances. A group of people can observe an accident, and each will give a different account of what he saw. If I say something to you, there are at least three versions of what I said. There is what I actually said; there is what I think I said; and there is what you think I said. Dealing with people is not like dealing with science or technology. Dealing with people has as much to do with perceptions as with reality. It even has to do with perceptions of perceptions. This is not generally taken into account in everyday life, except by the propagandists that work to control our perceptions, which we too often believe are our knowledge.

One might be inclined to assume human beings possess an innate talent for science and technology and no talent for political harmony. Yet, we know that most people are far from expert or even adept in science and technology. Why then so much progress in science and technology while essentially none was made in man’s ability to live more harmoniously and rationally. Man is the only species with any significant ability to reason, the faculty behind the advances in science and technology. Why has this faculty not been used to diminish destructive social behavior?

The individuals responsible for the progress in science and technology have always comprised a minuscule percentage of the population. Those that saw practical applications for scientific discoveries and implemented them have been a larger but still tiny portion of mankind. An overwhelming majority, probably well over ninety percent, of the population, made no contribution to scientific or technological progress. On the contrary, the masses have been more likely to oppose such advancement. Eventually the intransigent masses die out or are swayed by the practical advantages of the innovations. Fortunately for mankind, a good part of the scientists and the implementers refused to let themselves and their ideas be suppressed by the irrational and uninformed masses. It is hard to imagine a relative handful of people bringing about changes in political systems, unless they had considerable power to forcibly implement their changes. It is even harder to imagine letting the people vote on matters of science and technology. Imagine voting on which of the following shall be true:


That obviously wouldn’t make much sense. If we travel for two hours at ten miles an hour, we go twenty miles using one formula and five using the other. How much more sense does it make to have the voters decide whether food purveyors can secretly poison consumers with impunity? Probably even less. You can’t make twenty miles into five by a vote. Neither can you make evil into good or wrong into right with a vote. How would you feel if the same people that get to vote for the man to rule or ruin the country for four years were also deciding which surgical procedure would be performed on you? In either case, the result could be fatal. In science and technology, the totally unqualified tend to have little or no influence and rightfully so. Otherwise, science and technology would have advanced no more than our political systems, in which consensus has had more influence and the unqualified and uninformed seem to outnumber the qualified and informed.

Furthermore, fierce, powerful, vested interests work to maintain the political status quo of the few ruling the many. Had advances in science and technology faced similar opposition; we might very well be living in caves and carrying stone axes. Advances in science were and, in some cases, still are held back considerably by powerful opposition, but far less than social advancement as they are less threatening to the rulers. It might be interesting to contemplate how things might be if our political systems had progressed to the same extent as science and technology. What would things be like now?

Growing Urgency

The 1997 book, “The Sovereign Individual,” makes a compelling case that the Information Age could bring about the demise of the nation state and the empowerment of the sovereign individual. I am convinced it could, but not that it will. While freedom may be there for the taking, it won’t be automatically bestowed on an indifferent mankind, as is the weather. If we fail to make the necessary effort and keep doing the same things, the powers that be will eventually block every avenue to freedom. If the powers that be win the day, it will be because the potentially sovereign individuals squandered their golden opportunity. Without preparation and action, all the opportunity in the world is for naught.

“The Sovereign Individual” states its theme as follows:

“The theme of this book is the new revolution of power which is liberating individuals at the expense of the twentieth-century nation-state. Innovations that alter the logic of violence in unprecedented ways are transforming the boundaries within which the future must lie.  If our deductions are correct, you stand at the threshold of the most sweeping revolution in history”

It is very likely that the powers that be either read “The Sovereign Individual” or arrived at similar conclusions on their own and began working on countermeasures. On the other hand, there is no concerted effort on behalf of the sovereignty of the individuals. The destiny of the planet is going to be planned by someone. If we are at all sensible, we will be a part of that someone. “The Sovereign Individual” suggests that people will be able to do business and practice their professions anywhere. If their local government is too oppressive, they can shop around for a nation with more freedom. Nations will be forced to compete for desirable, productive citizens.  This may explain some otherwise irrational or excessively oppressive actions of the world’s governments. Things happening around us make more sense if you assume they intend to make conditions so bad that the masses will accept anything at all if told it will make things better, especially if told it will prevent bad things like war, depression, and hunger ever occurring in the future. The proposed solution is expected to be a global government with a single, global army. Many nations will pretend to oppose it, but “for the good of mankind,” will give in. There will be no place to escape oppressive government and the age of the sovereign individual will have been blocked indefinitely.

The first Ron Paul campaign was probably a wake-up call for the establishment. Their herd was getting restless. There followed a campaign to cower the bravest dissident. We saw martial law exercises around the country, more draconian, unconstitutional legislation, frequent reminders that big brother was aware of all that we said and did and they were working on reading our minds.

The response to the second Ron Paul campaign dwarfed that of the first one, regardless of the propaganda from the “mainstream” presstitutes. This was not a good sign for the elite. We have seen an increase in tyrannical moves, such as the NDAA, plans to fill the skies with surveillance drones, the militarization of the local police, etc. The push is on to gain full control over the people, with the ability to destroy any resistance or opposition. The window of opportunity may not be open much longer. The many recent skirmishes and uprisings around the world may or may not have been established to develop ways to counter such uprisings, but they surely have been used for that purpose.

The magnitude of the Ron Paul Revolution and recent responses to independent polls are heartening. Until the numbers prove otherwise, we might be wise to be open to the possibility that most Americans are not really ignorant, apathetic, mindless robots, and that idea is establishment propaganda to make us think working within the system is a waste of time. It would certainly be to the establishment’s advantage and nothing they would hesitate to do. All non-apathetic, non-robot people need to somehow stand up and be counted. Amy effort to turn the tide in favor of freedom seriously needs a census with some meaningful information about how many of us are mindless robots and how many are at least potential allies in a movement to bring about a situation more appropriate for human beings. However, until then, we should assume conventional wisdom is valid and the majority of the people are part of the problem and unlikely to change in time to make a difference, if ever. That means we need to find a way for a freedom-loving minority to live free in an unfree world.

Contributing Factors


The courts are that portion of the government that serves to legitimize the crimes of the Establishment. Since most people seem to think that being legal makes evil okay, it works most of the time.

Most criminals have their good moments. A contract killer probably spends at least 99% of his time in innocuous or even benevolent behavior. The same may be true to a lesser extent of our courts. Much of the time, they behave decently, but, like the contract killer, their bad moments are very bad. We are told that the courts are part of a system of checks and balances, but the courts are anything but a check on legislative and executive excess. Consider the poor man sentenced to 35 years in prison for stealing a candy bar. The judge said he had no choice because it was the man’s third offense. On the other hand, Wall Street criminals have stolen trillions of dollars, destroyed the lives of many millions of people in America and around the world, have robbed future generations of their heritage, and they don’t even get one day in jail. Some balance. You can be sure that lots of checks were involved. Surely, that can’t be what is meant by checks and balances.

Supreme Court

It would be a questionable honor to be designated a supreme child-molester, although being a supreme court isn’t much better, these days. You don’t have to be a scholar of any kind, much less constitutional, to understand that when the Constitution says the government can’t do something, it means they can’t do it, or when it says they must do something, it means they must do it. Why do we believe the Supreme Court has the authority to declare that, for the government, “can’t do” and “must do” both mean “may do, if so inclined?”

It seems that the courts have moments when they are unable to understand the meaning of simple English phrases. This display of what seems like judicial stupidity is, of course, anything but stupidity. It is the inevitable result of a huge, unmentioned, fundamental problem in the governance of the United States of America. The truth is that while the Supreme Court may issue an opinion as to whether government legislation and actions are constitutional, there is a higher authority that can overturn them. The Constitution very clearly and very wisely says any power not granted to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people, the There is no mention of determining constitutionality in the Constitution, therefore, the states must be the ultimate arbiter. We are talking of a huge and obvious unconstitutional usurpation of power by the guys that are supposed to be experts in the Constitution. If they don’t know they are not the last word in constitutionality, they are grossly incompetent. If they do know, they are in-your-face crooks. The so-called Supreme Court is little more than a pack of toadies catering to the other two branches: the Executive that appoints them and the Legislative that approves their appointment. In that capacity, it authorizes countless unconstitutional uses of force against Americans, by declaring them constitutional. This is a clear case of the fox guarding the hen-house. Government is force, and without strict limits, it becomes a deadly force.

What should happen when constitutionality is questioned? Who should decide? The states set up the federal government to facilitate a common defense, diplomatic relations, and a smooth flow of trade among the states. We should assume that the states had no intention of creating an oppressive enemy when they laid out the job description of the federal government with the Constitution.  The federal government is employed by the states to perform certain functions for the states. The federal government is essentially a contract employee of the states, with the constitution laying out what it is to do and what it can or cannot do.  Employees don’t do as they please. When there is a question of interpretation of the job description, it isn’t up to the employee to make the final decision as to what he must do. That authority must reside in the employer, in this case, the states. If there is a constitutional question to be decided, it should be decided by the states, not the federal government. It would be a simple matter for the states to set up a system for such determinations. Of course, the states might intervene only when they disagree with the federal government.

What About State, County, and Municipal Governments?

The states created the federal government with the Constitution, but who or what created the states, counties, and cities? If the states should decide what the federal government is allowed to do and to decide what is or is not constitutional, shouldn’t a similar concept apply to the states, the counties, and the cities? Cities should have constitutions created by the citizens who will decide questions of constitutionality for city matters. The cities and other residents should similarly create constitutions for the counties and decide what is constitutional on county matters. The counties can create the state constitutions and decide constitutionality at the state level. This way, the people have the final say over the city governments, which have the final say over the county governments, which have the final say over the state governments, which have the final say over the national government. This puts the most power where it belongs, in the people. This prevents or ameliorates the situation of the few ruling the many.


If “pro” is the opposite of “con,” what is the opposite of progress? — Paul Harvey

The multiple layers of government in the United States are said to have on the order of 250 trillion laws and regulations, with regulations far outnumbering laws, not that there is any practical difference between laws and regulations. It has been said that the Department of Commerce has over 12 trillion regulations. Whether these numbers are accurate is beside the point. They emphasize the fact that there are far too many laws, many of which criminalize people exercising their rights. It is obvious that all these laws and regulations have little or nothing to do with the reason given in the Declaration of Independence for instituting government: to secure our rights. Therefore, those which do not contribute to securing our rights should be repealed or abolished.

With all these laws and regulations, isn’t it amazing that no one has claimed a $50,000 reward offered for anyone who can find the law that allows the Internal Revenue Service to tax our wages? Even more amazing is that most people can’t grasp the implications of that.

It is said that the average person commits numerous felonies a day. If you obey one law, you automatically break another. Anyone can be arrested anytime for something. If they can’t successfully run the country with trillions of laws and regulations, they might as well quit adding new ones. Imagine putting a limit of 10 on the number of laws. Maybe we could call them commandments. Why not put a few sensible laws in the constitution and require a constitutional amendment for adding or amending one. This would eliminate the need for legislators, greatly reducing both expenses and crime.

The Power Elite

It was in the time of powerful kings and aristocracy the governments began to be taken over by crafty financiers. This was a long time taking place, having begun probably in the sixth century, gaining impetus little by little, and still continues today. Real control over nations by financiers came into its own in the eighteenth century with the Rothschild brothers. Since that time, the financiers have quietly and relentlessly consolidated their control over more and more of the affairs of the entire world. It was a Rothschild that said “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”

Today, central banks, a principal tool of the Power Elite, control the significant currencies of the world. They now create money out of thin air and loan it at interest. They judiciously create a high demand for their loans by taking control of enough legislators to assure huge national budgets requiring large loans. They foment wars and loan money to both sides. Since the money they loan is free to them, the true interest rate they receive is essentially infinite. With their rapidly accumulating wealth, they buy businesses, industries, and politicians to pass new legislation to assure a high return on their investments. They buy media to control public opinion and to see to it someone or something else is blamed for any problems they create. They finance and thereby control elections, making sure things go their way. They often finance opposing candidates, and let the chips fall where they may. What wealth they don’t own, they exercise control over, because they can control national spending, and they can have legislation passed to seriously harass anyone, put them out of business, or otherwise ruin or destroy them. When facing having their company destroyed, businessmen generally give in and toe the line, wherever and whatever the line is.

The Power Elite’s personal fortunes, while they may seem astronomical to most of us, are usually a tiny fraction of their wealth. To escape taxes and scrutiny of their economic activity, their wealth is generally secured in some sort of legal entity, such as a foundation. Thus it may be that members of trillionaire families may not have more than a few hundred million in their name, while their billions and trillions grow tax free and unseen for generations.

The Power Elite is thought to number in the neighborhood of six thousand individuals. This would mean a little less than one out of each million people are instrumental in determining how the rest of the world lives and even if they live at all. It should be obvious that a million people can overpower one person with ease. What is not obvious is why the incredibly overwhelming majority allow themselves to be dictated to by such a tiny minority. Feel free to disagree with the number estimated for the Power Elite. The accuracy of the estimate is irrelevant compared to the fact that an overwhelming majority of the population is at the mercy of a small, if not miniscule, fraction of that population. Worse yet, this condition has endured throughout written history. The Power Elite make life and death decisions for a group that outnumbers them by as much as a million to one, without their consent, to their everlasting detriment, and in most cases without their knowledge.

Composition of the Power Elite

You may hear conflicting arguments about the composition of the Power Elite. Some say the real Power Elite are a number of wealthy powerful families. Some say they are the leaders of giant corporations. Some say they are power mad politicians, or this or that. It is a certainty that there are bankers in the Power Elite, and many major banks are owned or controlled by powerful families, and they own or control many of the largest corporations. Politicians are unlikely to be members of the real Power Elite, but the equivalent of the lesser nobility, at best.

The composition of the Power Elite is not significant. They are not the root problem. They are a symptom of the real problem. If we got rid of them and changed nothing else, someone would take their place. If you put a pile of money on a table in your front yard and you catch someone taking it, eliminating the thief won’t make your money secure. It may be necessary to get rid of him to get your money back. Still, a more important part of the solution is to put your money in a safe place. In our case, the full solution is not merely to do away with the Power Elite, although given their control over the government and its police and military, it would greatly facilitate the rest of the solution. The rest of the solution is to get rid of the powerful government that the Power Elite uses to take the people’s money, to create money, to create business success and eliminate competition, among other things. That all powerful government must be replaced with one that does what governments should do: protect our rights and little else.


The leading banks are controlled by those at the peak of the current pyramid of power, the elite of the Power Elite. They control the currencies of the world and the creation of “money.” They hold the purse strings of government, and thereby control the governments. Their ability to create money out of thin air allows them to purchase all the privilege they want.


Controlling interest in the so-called mainstream media is owned by members of the Power Elite and therefore works solely for them. Since they are telling us what the Power Elites wants them to tell us, we would be foolish to accept anything they say as valid. Older folks remember the newspapers always carrying a lot of articles about the government going after “organized crime,” a term once generally associated with the Mafia. Now, the government and the media are part of organized crime, so you rarely hear the term.

Business and Industry

Controlling interest of most of the large corporations is owned, generally indirectly, by the Power Elite. They use their power over government to get favorable legislation passed and favorable decisions in court cases. This allows them to maximize profits and minimize competition, making for a higher cost of living to the rest of us.

The People

Most people blame the evil Power Elite for the plight of mankind. When you outnumber your opponent by a million to one, it doesn’t make sense to blame your opponent when you lose. Who, then, is to blame? Who else is there? Could it be that we have found the enemy, and he is us?

Everyone would like to control the behavior of others. Many, if not most, are willing to punish or even kill others to get them to act the way they want them to act. This is the horrible truth that few want to face. Obviously, most individuals haven’t enough power to enforce their wishes on others. However, they are gullible enough to fall for the concept of a powerful, benevolent government that will act as their enforcer. Even after many centuries of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they continue to fall for this ruse. They simply can’t see that by fostering a government with the power to forcibly control the behavior of others, they are fostering their own oppression, unless they are rich enough to purchase that government.

Too many people see the government as a Robin Hood to rob the rich and pass some of the stolen goods on to them. There are two kinds of rich: those who got rich by honest, moral methods, such as providing a needed or wanted product or service to enough people to make a lot of money, and those who got rich by immoral ways, such as by bribing politicians to pass legislation that grows their wealth. Most of the people, rich and otherwise, seem to be in favor of theft. They have no problem with taking money they have no right to, and their politics reflect their immorality. The masses are imploring their Robin Hood government to steal for them. With their clamoring for an omnipotent government to act as their thief, they but provide a more powerful weapon to their intended victims. Unfortunately, this immoral majority not only fosters their own oppression, they foster the oppression of all the moral people that are victimized by the Establishment. Even the honest and moral rich are essentially forced to choose between resorting to immoral methods to survive and being robbed. Under the current system, there are the takers and the taken. If you don’t or can’t become a victimizer, you are going to be a victim.

We, who would live free, are in a war, and it seems we can’t even fight back. Except for those at the top, those in public office, and the media, we can’t tell the enemy from us. The millions of gullible sheeple that enable our victimization are no less a part of the machine that is taking over our lives than are the jack-booted thugs of the police state. In fact, the sheeple are the worst enemy. If we completely eliminated the Establishment, it would grow back because of the apparently systemic faults of the majority of people. We would be justified in eliminating all of these enemies, since it really is war, and we would be acting in self-defense.

Some say that the mindless robots are not completely at fault either, since they have been dumbed down and brainwashed. That may be true. Nevertheless, if someone is shooting at you, their motives or lack of motives are of no importance whatsoever, you shoot back or you sit there and let them kill you. It doesn’t matter if they have been brainwashed. Besides, they have been bribed by the Power Elite. Most of them agree to the assault on the rest of us for what they hope to get out of it, whether they ever will really get anything or not. That makes them mercenaries in the employ of the enemy. For a bribe they may never receive, they sell their votes and their support for the enemy in the war against us.

Maybe, just maybe, we have been victims of a disinformation campaign. Maybe there is a huge majority of rational, interested, concerned people out there, who, like us, are wishing they weren’t part of such a small minority. We can hope. Our strategy should include a way to let us know pretty quickly if that is the case, so we can adapt rapidly and happily. Until then, we must assume the conventional wisdom is valid, and we must think of ways to rearrange the playing field to make the part we have to play on as level as possible. This means we need to find a way to attain freedom, even though we are a minority.

Range of the moment thinking

Adolescence is characterized as a time when we act more impulsively, fail to consider long-term consequences, and engage in riskier behavior than we do as adults. Does this mean that most of the Congress and the Administration are adolescents? Good question. We have to assume they consistently fail to consider long-term consequences, unless it is their intention to destroy the nation and its economy. The truth is that representative government essentially assures that the rulers will ignore long term consequences. Unlike dictators and monarchs that rule for extended periods and pass their power on to their heirs, “elected” representatives have no reason to take an interest in the future of the countries they rule. On the contrary, they have only a short time to rake in as much as they can before their terms are up, and someone replaces them.

Failure to consider long-term consequences is hardly limited to government. While it may be more pervasive in adolescents, a great many never outgrow it. That doesn’t keep them from voting. It just keeps them from voting sensibly.

The curse of the unintended consequence

The following example of unintended and generally unrecognized consequences is taken from “The New Right Credo—Libertarianism” by Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto, Jr. in The New York Times Magazine, January 10, 1971:

Take the Government’s decision to begin a massive road-building program in the early fifties. Since then, nearly $70-billion have been spent to construct a projected 42,000 miles of highways. The program, originally intended as a defense road network and a continuation of the road-building schedule in use before World War II, is only now being connected with its results, and even so, only partially.  

Pollution is one result. The interstate highway clearly provided a direct stimulus to the sale and use of automobiles. Automobiles, in turn, have been the direct cause of most present day air pollution.

In fact, the whole problem of pollution is in itself an indictment of statism. Communal ownership of air and water resources has fostered a denigration of individual rights and responsibilities by placing in artificial limbo the media of pollution. The result has been an indifference on the part of polluters to the consequences of pollution and an inability on the part of the victims to redress damage to health and property caused by pollution. The statist concept of “national goals” has also been responsible for pollution by private concerns. In the late 19th century, for instance, when the effects of air pollution were just becoming apparent, courts invariably held for polluters and denied the suits of victims of pollution on the grounds that the need of society for factories overrode the individual’s right to the property being damaged by pollution. Water pollution was similarly ignored, since no one owned rivers, but the community — whose interest the state took to be factories, not the protection of the individual rights of those who owned riverfront property or who drank the water.

In addition to protecting private polluters from the claims of their victims, the state has secured for itself the power to pollute with impunity. Whereas corporations can be and sometimes are held responsible for damage to life and property caused by their pollution, the state has been pumping garbage into the sky and dumping sewage into rivers and lakes without the faintest possibility of legal constraint. Likewise, the state monopoly transportation system, the highway network, has created pollution which has today become intolerable.

However, the effects of the Federal road-building program go much farther than that. By intervening in the transportation market on the side of the automobile and truck, the state has caused an unnatural shift of demand away from other modes of transportation. Dollars which would have been spent on or invested in trains, inland shipping or newer alternative modes of transportation, such as monorails, were diverted to servicing the automobile industry. Dollars which railroad companies could have reinvested to improve service were instead spent by companies making automobile-related products; this, in turn, further fueled the automobile industry. The interstate highway program has therefore seriously damaged if not destroyed the American mixed transport system, and the collapse of the Penn Central Transportation Company is only the most recent and most spectacular proof of this fact.

The effects of the interstate highway program do not end here, however. It has also wreaked havoc in and is causing the death of American cities. Street congestion, noise and air pollution have become the bane of almost all city dwellers. These human costs, added to others which the state has imposed in various ways, have caused a drastic change in American living habits, forcing many out of the city into the suburbs. The suburbs, in turn, have created what is referred to as the “automobile culture” — the automobile is the major, if not the only, transportation mode available. Thus the highway program has had social as well as economic effects; moreover these effects stretch far beyond the imagination or intentions of the original planners.

Whether these consequences were really unforeseen as well as unintended is questionable. We are loathe to assume that the government planners with advance degrees from prestigious universities are stupid. In most cases, they probably are well aware of the dire consequences of their actions, but take those actions because of the personal benefit they receive for them. In the example, it is probable that the seemingly unintended consequences were intended consequences for the oil companies which could afford to have them brought about. It is with respect to the people that such consequences are unintended. The people seldom think of long term consequences and seldom make the connection between the cause and the long term effects

Failure to focus

We are the most advanced species on earth, and as far as we currently know, the most advanced life form in the universe. We have enormous, seemingly boundless potential. We are capable of analyzing and understanding just about anything we can fit into our magnificent minds. There’s the rub: Before we can analyze and understand something, we have to first get it into our mind. We have to concentrate on it. Unfortunately, we can only concentrate on one subject at a time, which is why shell games and magician’s tricks are effective and why we are fed so many distractions. The growth of what we like to think of as civilization has brought with it a seemingly infinite number of things that have a potential for significant impact on our lives. There are so many that it is impossible for us to analyze and understand all of them. Faced with an unknown number of unknown things affecting our lives, not knowing how many might be detrimental, disastrous, or even deadly, we find ourselves in the same boat as our distant ancestors who had no understanding of much of anything, even the things that we take for granted today. They turned to witch-doctors and soothsayers. We turn to their modern equivalent, the propagandists eager to capitalize on our ignorance and our fears. Nevertheless, our sense of impending doom, instead of diminishing, slowly grows, albeit farther in the back of our minds. We must identify the really important things and focus on them, if we are to have any control over our lives.


Divide and conquer is an ancient strategy. Americans are divided, subdivided, and sub-subdivided, ad infinitum. We are divided by economics, race, gender, sexual orientation, politics, religion, and much more. Our conquest is ongoing at an ever-accelerating pace. Our America, once the envy of the world, is now notorious for such things as aggression, kidnappings, torture, assassinations, and even genocide. The people have been led to believe that “you can’t do anything about it.” They give up and ignore the consequences of their division: the governmental rampage that seriously affects every aspect of their lives. Infighting over relatively unimportant issues is paralyzing the populace and allowing the government to do as it pleases.

Sophisticated techniques are used on Americans to pit blacks against whites, rich against poor, liberals against conservatives, Christians against Muslims, and so on. A common goal of psychological warfare is to keep enemies busy fighting among themselves, making them easier to conquer. The enemies being kept busy are the American people. The force dividing them, in order to conquer them, is their government. Whether the conquering government is an inhuman abstraction with a life of its own or, as many suspect, the tool of a power-hungry group is quite irrelevant. The power of the American government ultimately comes from the American people and could be taken from it by those same people. As long as we fail to do whatever it takes to reach our most important goals, while squabbling over lesser things, we have no chance at all. Even if we win on a minor point, we lose on what really counts. We might as well be fighting over who gets to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic when we should be looking for a lifeboat.

Taking Control of Our Destiny

“There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction. “– John F. Kennedy

Thousands of books, articles, and websites identify the world’s problems, with precious little improvement to show for any of them. Recommendations are pretty much limited to educating everyone and complaining to our so-called representatives. Since the printing press, even more with radio and television, and never so much as with the Internet, people have dedicated themselves to educating the masses. Yet, any real progress is undetectable. In fact, the problems are getting progressively worse. Do we really believe there is some magic number that when that many have been educated, something will happen? Keep doing the same things; you get the same results. Education is not the answer. If you are being attacked, you don’t need to educate anyone, you need a gun and the will to use it. If the American colonists had done nothing but write articles and send letters about how oppressive the British were, do you think the USA would exist today? We would still be British subjects. But, the colonists did more than write and talk. They acted. So far we aren’t acting. We know the problems. It is high time, we concentrated on solutions.

We are supposed to have ways to correct problems at the ballot box and by petition. How well have those supposed ways been working? Have you seen any major problems corrected in the past twenty or thirty or fifty years? Of course you haven’t. You aren’t very likely to ever see any until there is a major change in our political system. If the people manage to win on something, you can count on having to vote again on the same thing until the people lose. When the people lose, it is final. Bury politicians in correspondence telling them to stop what they are doing, they would dig their way out and keep on doing the same things. Now, with electronic voting, voters are unnecessary, unless they manage a landslide. Divide them and you will have no landslide. Unless you are part of a super majority, writing, e-mailing, and voting are futile. We must either create such a super majority or somehow assure fair elections, if we hope to recover all fifty states of the United States.. If we can’t get a majority of the population as a whole on our side, we will lose the struggle, unless we find a way to be free with what we can get.

Learn From the Power Elite

The Power Elite should not be confused with government any more than a holdup man should be confused with his gun. The Power Elite, without an all-powerful government as their tool of coercion, is nothing more than a tiny, unarmed holdup man. Governments with the power to grant privilege will sell privilege and not to the poor or even the middle class. For some reason, the logic of this situation must be hard to grasp, otherwise the people would insist on no government or a government without the power to grant privilege. Instead they insist on the opposite. The Power Elite are not in charge because they are any better or brighter. They are where they are because they do all the things that the rest of us should do, but don’t. To be successful, imitate successful people. To gain control of your existence, imitate the techniques of those that control it now, not their goals, but their strategy for reaching their goals.

Productive behavior is goal-directed. The Power Elite set goals. They aim high, knowing they can’t hit any higher than they aim. The Power Elite have sweeping goals, some of which require generations of effort. The Power Elite don’t give up. If one approach doesn’t work, they try another, until they find one that works. They certainly don’t keep using a failed approach.

Few of the rest of us set lifetime goals. When we do, we tend to aim just high enough to get by. Many people do more planning for their vacations than they do for their lives. We would do well to imitate the Power Elite and set sweeping long term goals and interim goals for each step of our journey. An important primary goal for every one should be to enable, for themselves and those they care for, lives as long, as happy, as healthy, as prosperous and as free as they can make them through their own efforts without harming others.

The Power Elite focus on things that affect the attainment of their goals. They pay the most attention to the things that are most important to them. They don’t rely on others to decide what is good for them. They won’t waste much of their precious time on things that won’t help them reach their goals. Of course, unlike the masses, they won’t be up to date on the private lives of celebrities, and they may not be savvy about batting averages. However, they seem to be doing better than the rest of us in getting their way.

The Power Elite are logical. They realize they can’t know everything, so they get their information and advice from many quarters and evaluate it various ways, such as by its rationality and the record of its source. The masses tend to ignore information that might require some serious thinking, and what they don’t ignore, they judge by whether it is what they want to hear. They judge informants and advisors by their appearance and delivery rather than their track record. The Power Elite work together, even with their fiercest business competitors, to reach their most important goals. They know that in union there is strength, and they want all the strength they can get. After all, they are outnumbered a million to one. Additionally, they pit us against each other.

We, the people, are easily divided. The main thing many people think they have going for them is their membership in some group, much like big city gang members. Opposing groups get along about as well as do opposing gangs. Most would never consider an alliance with someone of another place, color, party, language, etc. They are against most of their possible allies for one excuse or another.

In a nutshell, the Power Elite consistently act in their own best interest, doing whatever it takes, as long as it takes. The rest of us do worse than nothing. By default, we act in the best interests of the Power Elite. We allow, even clamor for, as well as pay for an ever more powerful and immoral government, hoping its power and immorality will be used in our behalf. Unfortunately, our savior of choice, the government, takes its orders from the Power Elite What we have is a tiny group of some six thousand dedicated people that are able to take over the planet, simply because they consistently and rationally plan their work and work their plan, while the other seven billion might as well suck their thumbs. Granted, for centuries, a few have worked to educate the masses, hoping to convince them to stop sucking their thumbs and do something.

Imagine how the world would change if the 99% would imitate the Power Elite; if they were to set as their primary goal to live as free sovereign individuals, able to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to do the same; if they set interim goals to reach that state, and directed their efforts at reaching those goals; if they were to focus their attention on matters that affected their goals, not on unimportant things; if they knew where they were going, how they were going to get there, what they needed along the way, and they kept their eye on the road; if they united with anyone and everyone who wanted the same main goal, setting aside all lesser differences in the interest of the most important goal. Imagine people of all races, religions, ages, nationalities, sexual persuasions, and political parties, united because they want to live according to their own plan and were willing to make the simple sacrifice of letting each other do the same. The tables would turn instantly.

We may be accused of being a little harsh on the masses. Some of us truly want to be free. We read blogs and books, donate money, and educate others. Unfortunately, we also get nowhere, and things get continuously worse. So what are we to do? We unite with as many as we can, and do the best we can with what we have, with emphasis on the verbs “get” and “do.” It’s not going to happen by itself, while we sit and wait for something to happen. We have done that for centuries, and we know it doesn’t work. We must either find a way or make one.


Unity is one of the oldest defensive concepts known to man. Over 2500 years ago, Aesop said, “In union, there is strength.” More popular today, is, “United we stand; divided we fall.” Precisely because there is strength in union, our opponents go to great lengths to divide us. “Divide and conquer” is another ancient concept. The people are divided in every way imaginable. Blacks are pitted against whites; old against young; Christians against non-Christians, North against South, left against right, rich against poor, Republicans against Democrats, and on and on. We are certainly in the process of being conquered. We must set aside those things that divide us and concentrate on the far more important things we agree on. We must stand united, for, divided, we will definitely fall.

Strip away the less important topics that people fight over, and the same core goals are found in everyone. The primary differences are in how they hope to reach those goals–through their own efforts or at someone else’s expense. All people want some minimal freedom. They want to be free from oppression, free to live in peace and harmony, and free to live as well as they can for as long as they can. They want the same or better for their children and their children’s children. Now, because they are divided by their differences on less important things, in the end, they will lose everything.

By setting aside lesser differences, and joining with our neighbors, we can take control of our neighborhood, our town, our county, our state, and our nation, making them protect our rights and insure our freedom. These entities belong to the people living in them, and the people should have control over them. As it is now, they, or the few running them, have control over the people. Setting aside lesser differences is the secret of success. United we stand; divided we fall. In union there is strength. Things we all know. Forget your neighbor’s color, religion, party, sex, dimensions, education, as long as he stands together with you where freedom is concerned. Sure, it is a compromise, but it is the only way you will ever get the things most important to you and yours.

You don’t have to dine or party with those you have some disagreement with. You don’t have to picket or march with them, although that might not be a bad idea. You just have to be counted with them as being in favor of universal core values and vote with them for people that most closely support those values. A majority in favor of freedom doesn’t have to agree on much else to be free.

Create a Movement
A Non-Partisan Movement

We must be for personal freedom like model liberals. Like model conservatives, we must be for economic freedom. Just about all we will want to prohibit is the initiation of violence against people or their property. This is, of course, an oversimplification, but it gets across the idea. As things are now, we constantly lose freedom and never recover any lost freedom. We need a nonpartisan approach so, at worst, we lose neither kind of freedom and, at best, we get back our lost freedoms of both kinds, economic and personal. With such a non-partisan approach to government, no one loses personally. Everyone retains and regains the freedoms that they value the most. The only thing lost is the ability to infringe on the rights of others. And, the truth is that the liberals never get the economic results they hope for anyway, and the conservatives never get the society they hope for. Both would then be giving up only the illusion or the hope that they will eventually get the results they want. Giving up the illusion of someday infringing on the rights of others should be an acceptable price to pay for being able to live free.

If everyone were to join forces, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Republican, Democrats, blacks, whites, yellows, reds, and whatever would all win to some extent, and no one would lose. By stopping the bickering and division that causes everyone to lose, putting differences aside, and pursuing a common goal of freedom for all, slavery for none, everyone can live free. Freedom permitted is freedom enjoyed. Tyranny permitted is tyranny inevitably suffered. Allow your fellow man to lose his freedom, and you must sooner or later kiss your own freedom goodbye. The power that allows the government to take any one person’s freedom also allows them to take yours.

We need to realize that war is being waged against the people, and the government is the weapon. We, the people, are losing that war, simply because we are letting them win. We are not fighting back. We are losing our freedom and the freedom of our children and our children’s children, for generations to come. Our national debt is a mortgage on the income of the next ten generations or more. We are standing like deer in the headlights and witnessing our own destruction and that of all our descendants. We are losing absolutely everything we hold dear.


A movement’s name can be important. A suggested acronym for our movement is S.M.A.R.T. It can stand for Smart Means Americans Rallying Together. For an international organization, “Always” can replace “Americans.” The “RT “could also stand for “Resisting Tyranny.” Consider how it lends itself to creating slogans: Are you S.M.A.R.T.? Find a S.M.A.R.T. person near you and learn to be S.M.A.R.T. Act S.M.A.R.T. Look S.M.A.R.T. Feel S.M.A.R.T. Be S.M.A.R.T. Join S.M.A.R.T. now. It makes advertising easy, as the following page demonstrates:

S.M.A.R.T.: Smart Means Americans Rallying Together

With good reason, many Americans are extremely concerned about the political and economic situation in THEIR country. They feel they have no place to turn. By banding together, they can create a place to turn. America is OUR country; it belongs to all Americans. The government is supposed to be working for US, not us working for the government. Holders of public office are supposed to be our servants, not our masters. Unfortunately, there is no truly significant activity underway to set things straight. S.M.A.R.T. aims to be a non-partisan grassroots movement to resolve the deteriorating situation. S.M.A.R.T. means Americans rallying together to resist tyranny, thoughtfully, methodically, bravely, timely, and as safely as possible.

  • S.M.A.R.T. people share certain basic goals. These goals can be summed up as the freedom to live as long, as healthy, as happy, and as prosperous lives as we have the ability and drive to provide for ourselves and our descendants. Moreover, we want to live our lives ourselves, on our own terms, according to our own plans, meaning we don’t want to be held back, held down, or held up. If you feel that way, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T. too.
  • S.M.A.R.T. people believe, as stated in the American Declaration of Independence, we, the people, institute government to protect our rights, including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, which should be inalienable, meaning they can’t be taken from us. When and if government fails to serve its purpose, as it inevitably does, it is, at best, a tremendous waste of an enormous amount of our money, and we don’t need it or want it. If you agree, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T. too.
  • S.M.A.R.T. people realize we are paying too much and mostly for things which we don’t need and don’t want. We know every cent of the trillions of dollars the government throws around so recklessly comes from us, one way or another. We realize that if we work for 50 years of our life, around 25 of those years, we work for the government, to pay for things we don’t need or want, with more and more of it being used against us. If, like us, you find this unacceptable, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T. too.
  • S.M.A.R.T. people suspect or believe we have been involved in, at the most, one justifiable war since the American Revolution, regardless of what we have been told, and a great many of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, and friends were killed and wounded for no good reason. You see, we don’t consider profit or empire a good enough reason for the loss of even one of those lives. If, like us, you find this unacceptable, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T., too.
  • S.M.A.R.T. people see no remedy by working within the current system, which we see as corrupt. The cards are stacked against us and in favor of the powers that be. When we vote, we have only unacceptable candidates, all of whom are against us and what we are for. We call them our representatives. With representatives like that, who needs enemies? If, like us, you find this unacceptable, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T. too.
  • S.M.A.R.T. people feel unless we do something, things will continue to get worse, something we definitely don’t want. We don’t even want it the way it is now, much less worse. If, like us, you definitely want things better, not worse, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T. too.
  • S.M.A.R.T. people’s basic goals are so important to them, they agree to set aside the lesser issues that divide them and unite to overcome the barriers to achieving our core goals. They also suspect many of their differences are contrived by their enemies for the purpose of dividing them, to keep them busy fighting among themselves. Divide and Conquer is nothing new. If, like them, you are willing to live and let live on lesser matters in order to reach your basic goals, you have reason to be S.M.A.R.T. too.

The chances are, if you got this far, you should be S.M.A.R.T. , but if you are not willing to work with people you may disagree with on lesser matters to achieve the all-important, basic goals, we don’t want you any more than you want us. Infighting and partisanship have already cost us too much. If you are ready and willing to put first things first and get along in order to get along where it counts the most, you are the right kind of person, and we welcome you.

Use the Internet

Facebook has a billion participants; Twitter some 300 million. On Farmville, at its peak, some 80 million people farmed virtual farms, on which they planted, watered, harvested, sold, etc. virtual crops. In the United States, 60 million people can carry a national election. We need to find out if as many Americans are interested in freedom and the American Dream as are interested in playing on a virtual farm. If not, we are really in trouble, and it is time to start considering a plan B.

We could create a virtual copy of the real world. We would start with the United States of America, but there is nothing to keep us from expanding to the entire world. Our virtual copy of America will begin with zero citizens. As people sign up, they will slowly populate the virtual world, living in the same place they live in the real world. The virtual world will have every state, every county, and every city and town. We will know the populations and approximate number of eligible voters in each city, county, and state and nationally. As the number of members grows, we will know the percentage of the eligible voters we have for each area. As soon as we get close to a majority in a city, county, or state, our members will be in a position to control the elections in that area, since all our members will vote for the candidates that best support our position. We could provide an online forum on candidates and enable dialog between candidates and voters.

A good team of Internet gurus will be a most valuable asset. Fortunately, many of those are our kind of people. Speaking of our kind of people, we need all of them we can find. We need to search out those who are interested more in living in freedom than they are in bickering over lesser matters. Ron Paul supporters come to mind. What is the special significance of Ron Paul supporters?

Ron Paul Supporters

The Ron Paul revolution united people from all parties, races, religions, etc. All Americans want some freedom. Everyone wants to live in peace and be happy. They want enough money not to have to worry themselves sick about how to make ends meet. Everyone wants to be able to walk around at night or sit on their porch and not be afraid. Everyone wants to be able to go about their business and their lives without worrying about criminals in or out of government. Everyone wants their children to be able to expect a better life than theirs, at least not a worse one. They want their children alive and well. Ron Paul supporters joined forces and concentrated on their common goals, instead of fighting over their divisions. They would be a large, ready-made nucleus for our non-partisan movement.


There is an urgent need for leadership. This is vital. The lack of leadership and organization was painfully obvious in the Ron Paul campaigns. We have the soldiers. We need a few generals and a Commander-in-Chief with the charisma and drive of a Napoleon and the insight of a Jefferson. We would suggest getting together a group of known freedom lovers of various persuasions and letting them brainstorm, briefly, with an emphasis on briefly. It might be a good idea to have a couple of people whose only purpose is to jump on them and rein them in when they get off target or prod them when they stop moving forward. You can’t win a race lingering on the starting line. The idea is to line up some leaders and get on with getting the right kind of people in office so they can turn things around, get them to an acceptable state and move forward.


Unfortunately, the situation is deteriorating rapidly, and the difficulties in resolving it may be growing. Unless the conventional wisdom that the vast majority of the population are apathetic, mindless robots is false, and the majority are aware and wishing for a solution to the problem of our disappearing freedoms, there may not be enough time to complete a census and build a base. We should try our level best to devise a strategy for regaining and retaining our freedom, even though we are a minority. How small a minority might we be?

Suppose, we start with the Ron Paul supporters. How many of them are there? That is a task for tomorrow.

Getting Down to the Nitty Gritty

Look into the number of Ron Paul supporters, and you will find there are no good numbers available. Guesstimates run from five to thirty million, with fifteen million being the most popular and probably a decent number to start with. If we did everything right and were fairly successful with our S.M.A.R.T movement, we might double that number in five or ten years. To carry a presidential election, requires over sixty million, or quadruple the number of Ron Paul supporters. If conventional wisdom is correct and most people are apathetic and ignorant and likely to stay that way, even the thirty million is a stretch. We would be unlikely to ever win a presidential election or control congress, even if we managed somehow to get honest elections. If we convinced all the Ron Paul supporters to uproot and move to a few low population states, we could control elections in those states, but we would still be subject to federal tyranny. If our few states seceded, we would be conquered just as were the southern states when they wanted their freedom. Until we either find a way to not only get over sixty million to vote wisely, but get them good candidates to vote for and make the counting of the votes fair, or we find a way to break free of federal control even though we are a minority, we aren’t getting anywhere. While we work toward our goal, the powers that be will be ramping up their tyranny. We can see it increasing all around the globe, with essentially no opposition. It is doubtful that we have decades to slow the trend toward tyranny, much less stop it and restore any lost freedoms. We are lucky if we have a few years. It is easy to see why there are no reasonable solutions being offered. However, we never thought it would be easy to find a solution. Were it easy, we would not be in the mess we are in. It may turn out to be simple, but it is not likely to be easy.

The 26 State Solution

Earlier in this project, I wrote the following: Since the printing press, even more with radio and television, and never so much as with the Internet, people have dedicated themselves to educating the masses. Yet, any real progress is undetectable. In fact, the problems are getting progressively worse. Do we really believe there is some magic number that when that many have been educated, something will happen? Keep doing the same things, you get the same results. Education is not the answer. If you are being attacked, you don’t need to educate anyone, you need a weapon and the will to use it. If the American colonists had done nothing but write articles and send letters about how oppressive the British were, do you think the USA would exist today? We would still be British subjects. But, the colonists did more than write and talk. They acted. So far we aren’t acting. (I should have mentioned that our current government is infinitely more oppressive than the British were then, although the distance and the relative unimportance of the colonies probably accounted for that.)

Educating the masses has long been the number one suggestion. Different groups may want to educate them differently, but all need to get a majority of the population on their side, and all have failed. On the other hand, strategies by which a minority of freedom-oriented people could live free are conspicuous by their absence. So that field of inquiry is unexplored, and possibly fertile ground.

One instance of a small group being able to at least nullify a larger group is the 100 senators being able to keep 435 congressmen from making a law. Actually, 51 senators are sufficient accomplish that feat. These 51 senators are a majority in the Senate. The same number of congressmen would be a feeble minority in the congress. The lesson to be learned from this is that although we freedom-lovers are a minority in the nation, we could be a majority in a sparsely populated state, or even, perhaps, a number of sparsely populated states. This is an example of changing the playing field to one more appropriate to one’s resources and ability.

This train of thought, given free reign, opens the door to numerous possibilities. The populations of the fifty states are widely varied. As stipulated in the Constitution, the state with the smallest population has two senators, as does the state with the largest population. While getting together enough freedom-lovers to be able to have a majority in congress or to elect a president might be considered virtually impossible, getting a majority in the Senate might be far easier.

A review of eligible voter populations of the fifty states gives some pleasantly surprising details. The combined eligible voter population of the 26 least populous states is 40 million, while the eligible voter population of the 24 most populous states is 134 million. The eligible voter population of the 26 least populous states is a mere 30% of the total of the fifty states! Actually, the seven most populous states have approximately half of the eligible voters of the entire nation. That means we could carry 43 states with half as many people as would be required to carry all fifty.

What an opportunity for freedom-lovers, especially those in the less populous states. By uniting and attracting other freedom-lovers from the most populous states to come to their states, they can become a majority, in a majority of the states. Less than a quarter of the national population could block unwanted legislation by the federal government, and a majority of states will be rolling back unwanted and oppressive legislation. With the ability to elect 52 senators at the national level, the trend toward tyranny can be halted, regardless of the Congress, anti-freedom appointees can be blocked, and undesirable treaties rejected. These numbers have astonishing implications for all those who love liberty as well as those who simply feel things are moving in the wrong direction.

I will christen this fledgling project/solution, the 26 State Solution.

For the 26 State Solution to work, a significant number of like-minded people would have to judiciously relocate from the 24 most populous state to the least populated states. In an effort to estimate how many need to change residence, we consider the following matters:

In order to carry the elections in any state, we need a majority of votes. A certain percentage is already on our side. Another percentage can be brought over to our side. Some will vote the party line even if Mickey Mouse were the candidate. The rest of those needed to give us a majority will have to be brought in from the most populous states.

The eligible voter population of the twenty-six states is 40 million. Voter turnout in those states is 23.5 million. We send in 7 million freedom-oriented immigrants (a semi-arbitrary number selected after various attempts to pin the number down.) Now there are 30.5 million voting. Half of those or 15.25 million plus one votes are required to win. That is our 7 million plus 8.25 million that we need to get from among the native voters. Starting with the 23.5 million voting native voters, we assume 15 percent of them, including native Ron Paul supporters, are with us or so inclined from the start. That is 3.5 million. Assume fifty-fifty Republicans and Democrats or 11.7 million each, of which 5 percent will vote party line. That is 0.6 million voting with us if we can get through the primaries and on the ballot. That gives us 4.1 million of the 8.25 million we need. The remaining 4.15 million must be recruited to join us or at least be convinced that voting with us is to their benefit. That is roughly 0.6 natives recruited for each immigrant. That is part of the job of being an immigrant. Some will recruit none, some will recruit several, a few will recruit many, but the average needs to be 0.6 or more per immigrant.

The seven million immigrants from the 24 most populous states is 7/134 or 5,2% of the voting age population of those states. Since we are assuming the percentage of Ron Paul supporters is 15%, the number of Ron Paul supporters in the 24 most populous states is 20.1 million. Seven million, a mere 35%, of the Ron Paul supporters from those 24 states could, theoretically, implement the 26 State Solution. Three-quarters of them could do it almost overnight.

We have a rough idea for a simple solution. It would surely be difficult to implement, but probably not nearly as difficult as surviving the failure to implement it or some other solution, yet to appear. How might we polish it a bit, and how might it be implemented?

A Preliminary Implementation of the 26 State Solution

In each of the 26 states, like-minded and party ticket residents and the immigrants are what we start with in forming our non-partisan movement. We count on the movement members actively recruiting native voters. Every new member should try to get at least two new converts every six months. Our calculations are based on 7 million immigrants that to recruit enough native members to carry the state must recruit an average of less than one recruit per immigrant. If the average is higher than that, less immigrants are required. In the populous states, those supporters who, for whatever reason, cannot emigrate to a least populous state, can still support the cause for freedom by recruiting members who can join us and by supporting us in case of a confrontation with the federal government.

A rational order to the sequence in which the 26 states are freed is important. Some coastline for access is important, and we should try to maintain a block of contiguous states that can function as a unit in case we run out of immigrants along the way. Below is a preliminary plan for the first ten states which illustrates the strategy.

Preliminary Plan

The first state is Mississippi. For Mississippi, we need 378,156 immigrants. Mississippi is a low population state with some coastline and temperate climate.

2nd state: Arkansas – 371,803 immigrants

3rd state: Oklahoma – 476,994 immigrants

4th state: New Mexico – 251,604 immigrants

5th state: Kansas – 251,604 immigrants

6th state: Nebraska – 232,207 immigrants

7th state: Wyoming – 74,264 immigrants

8th state: South Dakota – 107,555 immigrants

9th state: North Dakota – 93,633 immigrants

10th state: Alaska – 89,546 immigrants

These first ten states will take 2,072,242 immigrants or 1.55% of the voting age population of the 24 more populous states and form a contiguous block, except for Alaska. The map below shows these ten states.


The other 16 states to give a majority are: Montana (135,807), Vermont (87,101), Delaware (116,034), Rhode Island (135,041), Hawaii (172,659), New Hampshire (178,069), Maine (184,069), Idaho (192,253), Nevada (312,034), Oregon (496,989), Utah (322,444), Louisiana (580,103), Iowa (397,573), West Virginia (254,200), Kentucky (570,581), Alabama (618,716)

The grand total of immigrants required for 26 states is 7,186,874, which is 5.36% of the voting age population of the other 24 states. The next map shows the 26 states.


Note: This is a preliminary strategy primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept and would and should be tailored according to the demographic information of the members and other considerations. (Alabama is 27th, in population, but was substituted for Connecticut, because it was thought it would require a much higher percentage of immigrants and recruits, is very small, and would be isolated, while Alabama would be more attractive to immigrants, and would give us more coastline.)

This is adequate to demonstrate the concept. Next, we will consider overcoming some of the obvious obstacles.

Thoughts on the 26 State Solution

Why the Selected States Should Cooperate

It might be thought that the citizens of the less populous states might be unhappy about an influx of immigrants wanting to bring them freedom. While it is possible that the number of people yearning for compulsion may be large, it seems unlikely. Even so, we would emphasize that the push for ending the Electoral College is gaining impetus and if it succeeds, the less populous states will be at the mercy of the more populous states. National political candidates would hardly bother to campaign in those states. Citizens of the target states should be happy for a chance to take charge of their state government and control of their destinies. If they don’t, they can expect a perpetual worsening of their situation.

Vote as a block

While we are building a majority in a state, we must never vote for the lesser of two evils. We must always vote for the most acceptable candidate even if he won’t win. If there is no acceptable candidate on the ballot and the Establishment managed to keep one off the ballot, we must write in that candidate. If there is no acceptable candidate, we will have to find one or draft one. As a last resort, we can write in ourselves. Anything except intentionally voting for an unacceptable candidate.

In Perspective

While moving across the country to achieve freedom may seem and even be a great inconvenience for most people, the consequences of not moving may in the long run be far more inconvenient and even grievous. Furthermore, consider the Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock, after a long, risky voyage, facing a land with nothing but inconveniences, as well as native inhabitants often far from friendly. Consider the pioneers that pushed westward in early America. Consider many today in dire straits with no place to go and no way to get there were there a place to go. How these people would smile to hear how inconvenient it is to move to a modern city with running water, sewers, people that speak your language, central heat and air conditioning, radio, television, Internet, etc. Relatively speaking, it’s a pleasure trip.

Many people move from one state to another for reasons certainly no more important than the ability to live free. A few reasons that come to mind are, better employment opportunities, lower taxes, less oppressive state government, and better climate. The ability to determine your own destiny and to pass that ability on to your descendants should rank as high as any of those reasons, if not higher. Those who say people won’t pack up and move to be free are casting the American people in a very bad light.

The Path to Freedom

Once we are able to elect candidates that support freedom in a state, we can start the process of freeing that state. Not until we stop going in the wrong direction can we start going in the right direction. At the state and local levels, we can and should move as rapidly as possible. We should institute legislation which will nullify any previous statutes that interfere with the right of an individual to do as he pleases as long as he doesn’t initiate violence against others or the property of others. Then, a purging of such laws can begin. Similar legislation can address federal laws and regulation, although until we prevail in several states, it might be wise to approach this issue more gingerly. Still a blanket law nullifying any unconstitutional law might be advisable.

A new department needs to be established to make the state self-sufficient in food, water, energy, communication, defense, etc. in the event of a national emergency. This would mean that the state would be able to function if cut off from all the other states. We might cooperate with adjacent sister states which are likewise in the process of establishing liberty for their citizens. Given that the federal government has long emphasized the danger of terrorist attack, they should applaud such actions on the part of the states, but it would be foolish to count on it.


At some point it may become necessary for us to secede in order to liberate ourselves. The more states we can control, the less likely this becomes, and the more successful we are likely to be should it become necessary.

Some people ask is secession is legal. This question is the same as asking if freedom is legal. If freedom and or secession are not legal, it is past time to change the system. To demonstrate that secession or freedom is moral and laws against it would be tyrannical at best, I will post separately a debate from the E-book “A Most Sacred Right” in which the president of the United States debates the president of Mississippi, which has recently seceded from the United States.

Beyond the United States

We begin in the United States for a number of reasons. However, the concepts herein apply to everyone except, perhaps, the insane. The people of the planet are even more divided than those of the United States, and they have as much or more reason to unite. People everywhere have pretty much the same core values, and their differences should be less important to them than these common core goals. Everyone wants a reasonably comfortable life with the freedom to live it as they see fit. If they have family or friends they would probably want the same for them. There will be vast differences in their drives, their ambitions, and the way they want to live their lives, but that is their business. Eventually, the barriers of nationality might disappear, if mankind ever truly grows up, stops placing importance on completely unimportant characteristics, and quits bickering over relatively unimportant differences. If, as Buckminster Fuller said, ninety percent of what a person is is invisible and cannot be touched, why do we tend to ignore all but the ten percent that is tangible, and place most of our attention on a label generally applied by someone else? Beauty shouldn’t be in the eye of the beholder, but in the mind and heart of the beholder. There are a lot more beautiful people out there than you suspect, many of them in places you might least suspect. They might not agree with you all the time, but then, who does? Except for the inmates of asylums, who can’t, and those in cemeteries, people often change their minds: they disagree with themselves.


Bringing freedom to all or most of the country is a wonderful goal. How much of the territory can be saved depends on how many are conscious of the need and willing to act to accomplish it. It depends on what percentage of the population really are mindless robots or parasites. The more of them there are, the more daunting our task. We cannot overcome apathy with apathy, but with zealous industry. We cannot overcome ignorance with ignorance but with pertinent knowledge. The greater the lack of intellect we have to overcome, the more judiciously and assiduously we must apply our intellect. Cognizant of the fact that these mindless robots and parasites are facilitating the destruction of the world for themselves and for us as well, we can’t base our plans for our salvation on their cooperation. We may sympathize with them, many of us having once been in their shoes, but we must save ourselves before we can hope to save others. We must act now, while we can, to do what we can, as fast as we can. If we, who know better, still don’t act, how can we possibly incite others to act? By seizing our own freedom and demonstrating the advantages of living in freedom, we will have an opportunity to convince others of those advantages.

The more you are able to live your life your own way, the more successful you are. The less willing you are to let others live their way, the less likely you are to achieve any degree of real success. You cannot have a free country without having free people. For a nation, state, county, etc. to support freedom, the individuals in them must support it. Furthermore, if you want freedom for yourself, you must be willing for your neighbors, wherever and whatever they may be, to be free. You must hold that ideal yourself before you can instill it in your community, city, state, etc.

If the 26 State Solution makes sense to you, spread it far and wide. Pick it up and run with it. If it doesn’t make sense to you, just forget it. Otherwise, go forth and multiply.


Leave a Reply