Promoting the New Policies Needed to

Unite Americans and Fix America Forever

download the nationalist plan for the american people as a pdf

Insightful Political Policy

Uniting Americans

Putting America First

Use the Nationalist Plan for the American People to Unite Liberals and Conservatives, End Unconstitutional Government and Return Power over Government Back to the American People

Why do so many Americans disagree on so many political issues? Why are Americans so divided? Americans are divided because NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY IS DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA. If you keep reading, we will prove it to you.

Republicans believe that a robust free-market economy will lift up the poor, even though there is no evidence to support this belief and the middle class manufacturing job losses caused by Republican free trade policies has decimated the middle class. What if Republicans care more about multi-national corporations than they do about Americans and American workers? It was Thomas Jefferson who said "But merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." so why then don't Jeffersonian conservatives in the Republican party understand that businesses have no allegiance to America? Large corporations allocate hundreds of millions of dollars of profit to stock repurchase plans then subsequently layoff American workers so why do Republicans continue to believe that businesses can do no wrong? Why don't Democrats, who claim to be for the working class, ever do something about this? Democrats want to raise the minimum wage but how exactly will raising the minimum wage to $10/hr ($20,800 per year), $12/hr ($24,960/yr) or even $15/hr ($31,200/yr) end income inequality?

Why don't Democrats ever fix the problems they campaign on? Democrats win election after election on issues such as racism, income inequality and greedy big businesses then never do anything about them and often make the issues worse. Why don't Democrats ever pass laws forcing greedy corporations to profit share with their employees? What if racism and income inequality are worse after having a black president for eight years? What if Democrats don't fix racism and income inequality because if they did, there would be no reason to vote for a Democrat? What if the first black president and other Democrat presidents promote amnesty and immigration to America from Mexico even though Mexican immigrants take jobs from black Americans? What if they do this because unemployed black Americans and immigrants both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats?

Republicans don't realize that doing nothing while businesses move factories to other countries will eventually destroy America because when there is no middle class left and the poor outnumber the wealthy, the poor will vote for fascism, socialism or communism. The substantial popularity of admitted socialist Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democrat primary, the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrat party moving even more to the left as seen by the positions of their 2020 presidential candidates, and the facist groups that threaten violence against conservatives and prevent them from speaking are a few of the many signs that many Americans are not benefitting from capitalism. Why do Republicans continue to ignore these signs and side with the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Why don't Democrats or Republicans lower food and energy costs for Americans instead of creating the conditions that increase them? To create Ameican jobs, why don't Democrats or Republicans spend US taxpayer money only on materials, goods and services that are 100% made in the USA? Why do Democrats and Republicans instead spend taxpayer money all over the world?

Why do all three branches of our Federal government routinely violate the Constitution of the United States? Why are unconstitutional American troops put on the ground in foreign nations and why are they allowed to attack foreign nations without a declaration of war from Congress as required by the Constitution? How is it possible that the federal government has become significantly more powerful than state governments despite the 10th Amendment and the constitutional requirement for a federal government with limited powers?

How do we correct all these things? How do we get our government to obey our Constitution and how do we return power over government back to the people SO THAT IT WILL DO WHAT IS BEST FOR US? How do we end income inequality? How do we fix the tax code? How do we end the political division in America? THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS AND THE SOLUTIONS TO ALL THE PROBLEMS STATED ABOVE CAN BE FOUND IN THE POLITICAL POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST PLAN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT FOLLOWS. Keep reading; you will not find our proposed policies anywhere else.

NOTE: What follows is necessarily long in order to adequately explain and justify the new policies that are presented.


The new policies that end our disagreements with each other, ends the welfare state by raising up all American workers, ends unconstitutional government, and returns power back to the States and the American people.

1. Change the Relationship Between Business and Government

a) Eliminate All Business Taxes and Business Fees for Political Purposes

Pass legislation to eliminate all business taxes and fees SOLELY FOR POLITICAL REASONS; the economic benefits are just an added bonus.

Eliminating all business taxes and fees greatly reduces the problem of money buying influence in government because if businesses don't pay taxes, they don't need to lobby Congress for tax breaks. Eliminate tax breaks as a reason for businesses to donate to political campaigns. As long as businesses pay any amount of tax, there will be businesses buying influence in Congress to get tax breaks.

Eliminating all business taxes and fees ends the divisive issue of corporations not paying their fair share of taxes. If corporate taxes are only reduced to 15%, then this issue will not go away and there will always be division among liberals and conservatives and demonization of corporations for not paying their "fair share." Yes businesses use public services such as roads, police and firefighters but WE MUST PUT THAT ASIDE in order to END BUSINESS INFLUENCE OVER CONGRESS and thereby RETURN POWER OVER GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. We will allow businesses to use public services at no cost in exchange for them providing good high paying jobs and ending income inequality (more on this later).

When businesses pay no taxes and taxes must be raised because government overspends, the tax rate on INDIVIDUALS will rise and this will result in politicians being held accountable by the voters on election day. When all taxes come from individuals that, whether rich, poor or middle class, pay the same income tax rate with no deductions (more on this later), all Americans will want the small limited federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Many people don't connect the desire for bigger government with paying higher taxes because they expect others (e.g., corporations, the wealthy) to pay the higher taxes needed for the bigger government they want. Eliminating all taxes and fees on businesses would:

Any reform that does not completely eliminate business taxes will mean that the money influence in politics will continue because corporate money will be used to influence politicians for tax breaks.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said merchants have no country. Let's stop pretending that businesses are patriotic pro-American companies that will pay large amounts of taxes as their duty to the United States because this has never been and will never be the case.

b) End Crony Capitalism

In this writers opinion, United States Code Title 18 Chapter 11 (Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest) is not stopping our elected officials from being influenced by businesses, likely because those that wrote it and passed it into law knew it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove that a gift received directly influenced the decision made by the elected official.

Therefore as done in private industry with employees who make purchasing decisions, require all members of Congress sign a conflict of interest statement for every spending bill they vote on, that indicates they, a family member, friend or anyone they know, has no financial or personal interest (i.e. benefit) in any item being purchased or potentially being purchased. Members of Congress who do not sign the conflict of interest statement forfeit their vote and cannot vote on the bill. Members of Congress found to have violated a conflict of interest statement they signed will be expelled from Congress and receive no congressional pension benefits.


Pass a law stipulating that when creating subsidies, congress will have to show exactly how the subsidy helps CITIZENS. For example, a farm bill that pays farmers to purposely not plant crops (to keep food prices high to help farmers) would be against the law while a farm bill paying (i.e. subsidizing) farmers to overproduce (to increase the food supply to decrease our food prices (to help citizens and farmers)) would be legal, for domestically sold food only. Subsidies will be for goods only sold domestically because money from the American treasury will go to help only American citizens. BUSINESSES WILL NO LONGER PAY ANY TAXES AND THEREFORE SHOULD NO LONGER RECEIVE ANY SUBSIDIES UNLESS THE SUBSIDY IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BENEFITTING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

c) Campaign Finance Reform

To eliminate influence over pending regulations, outlaw campaign contributions to politicians from businesses, political ads paid for by businesses, and business contributions to issue groups or any organization involved in political advocacy.

Corporations are not people and do not have free speech rights despite what five out of nine SCOTUS justices thought when they overturned campaign finance reform in Citizens United v. FEC. Because the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights by definition, PEOPLE have free speech rights, not corporations. Groups of PEOPLE who band together for political purposes should have free speech rights but not corporations, which exist for the sole reason to maximize profit and return value to their shareholders. Corporations are not people, have no allegiance to the United States, are not citizens of the United States, and often act in ways that hurt the United States. The Bill of Rights therefore does not apply to corporations. SCOTUS is not authorized by the Constitution to make law, only Congress is. SCOTUS has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to overturn laws on constitutional grounds. ENACT LEGISLATION TO STOP SCOTUS FROM OVERTURNING LAWS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS (SEE SECTION 4.C) THEN PASS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION (AGAIN) TO PREVENT BUSINESSES FROM FUNDING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, POLITICAL ADVOCACY GROUPS AND POLITICAL ADS.

d) Eliminate Conflicts of Interest That Hurt the United States

Pass legislation making it unlawful for ten years after they retire for corporations to hire senior government officials and for defense contractors to hire senior military leaders. No more "retired" Admirals hired as Vice President of "Business Development" at shipbuilding companies that build Navy ships. No more hiring retired congressmen as lobbyists after they leave office, for, in this writer's opinion, return for passing favorable legislation for that business while they were in office.

Pass legislation making it unlawful for any citizen of the United States to be hired as a lobbyist for a foreign government. Make the penalties for U.S. citizens who previously held public office especially harsh. How is it possible and why is it legal for our politicians to be hired as foreign government lobbyists after they leave office? How can they possibly not favor foreign countries while they are in office knowing that they can later get a job for doing so? Why don't our politicians have any virtue or patriotism and turn the foreign country down? The fact that legislation is required to stop our politicians from acting as lobbyists for foreign governments proves that they don't act in our best interest.

The combination of all the items listed thus far ends the problem of corporate money influencing politicians by breaking the links between business and government. No subsidies, no taxes, no lobbying for tax breaks, no crony capitalism, no helping businesses in any way, no campaign contributions, and no conflicts of interest means that businesses will have no influence over our politicians and no control over our government. Businesses would have no relationship with our elected representatives and thus no reason to lobby them for favors. Congress would then answer to the people. AMERICAN CITIZENS WILL REGAIN POWER OVER CONGRESS, ONLY AFTER ALL LINKS BETWEEN BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENT ARE ELIMINATED.

For those that don't know, the Federalist essays (known today as the Federalist papers) were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to address the criticisms against the then newly written American Constitution. The Federalist essays are thus a good basis for the meaning of what is written in the American Constitution. In Federalist No. 57, it is written:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

The reforms presented in this section that change the relationship between business and government ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO KEEP OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES VIRTUOUS as stated in Federalist No. 57 above.

2. End Income Inequality

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said merchants have no country. Let's stop pretending that businesses owe their allegiance to the United States and start implementing Government policies that recognize that business interests are not aligned with what is in the best interest of the United States.

End income inequality by eliminating the factors that cause it. What causes income inequality is explained here in more detail. In summary, income inequality occurs because:

There is no disputing that capitalism is the best economic system on the planet but it needs reform. The large number of supporters for socialist Bernie Sanders should be a wake-up call to all those who support capitalism. If we don't fix capitalism, it will eventually be replaced by the voters who are not benefitting from capitalism. Income inequality will continue to worsen because:

To end income inequality:

a) Treat Corporate Executives and Workers Equally in America


Federalist No. 57 describes how important it is for laws to apply to both the greater society and those who passed the law in order to bond the rulers and the people together with common interests:

... the House of Representatives ...can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.

Just as laws that apply to government rulers and the great mass of society is one of the strongest bonds that can connect the rulers and the people together (as stated in Federalist 57 above), so too are equal company benefits that apply to business leaders and all other employees one of the strongest bonds that can connect the company leaders and other employees together.

Just as every government that makes laws that do not apply to the government rulers degenerates into tyranny (as stated in Federalist 57 above), businesses that make rules that do not apply to the business leaders, degenerate into business tyranny. THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OF WORKING CLASS EMPLOYEES SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE BUSINESS LEADERS FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT LAWS THAT APPLY TO THE CITIZENS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO GOVERNMENT LEADERS.

As long as business leaders LOOK AT THEIR WORKERS AS LABOR COSTS, as taught by every business school in America, and not PEOPLE WITH KIDS TO PROVIDE FOR, they will never, on their own, share the success of the business with their workers. As long as business leaders determine each others compensation (via interlocking corporate directorships on the board of directors compensation committees), and AS LONG AS THE AMOUNT OF THEIR COMPENSATION DEPENDS ON KEEPING THOSE LABOR COSTS LOW, BUSINESS LEADERS WILL NEVER SHARE THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY WITH THE WORKING CLASS EMPLOYEES. Congress must therefore force business leaders to share profits with their American workforce. Doing so CAN BE DONE FINANCIALLY WITH THE ELIMINATION OF ALL CORPORATE TAXES AND BUSINESS FEES, will preserve capitalism by raising up all workers (thereby fending off socialism), and is good for America. Because businesses will no longer pay taxes, they will not be paying for the costs of public services such as road and bridge construction, the police, and the fire departments and therefore in exchange, should pay their employees a share of the company profits.

In exchange for eliminating all business taxes and fees, pass legislation requiring mandatory profit sharing of 25% of company profits with employees at all levels, equally. Salaries will depend upon the level of responsibility in the company but profit sharing will not. Businesses will not be paying any taxes and can therefore compensate employees more. Profit sharing gives employees incentive to contribute to the success of the business because the more productive they are, the greater the money they would receive in their profit share. Because of the increasing risk of automation with robot controlled processes to eliminate workers, profit sharing requirements shall not be specified per person but instead by a total amount (e.g., 25% of profits) divided equally among all employees. Mandatory profit sharing of 25% of profits equally with all employees should raise the wages of blue collar workers by 25% to 100% for those working for corporations that are profitable.

INSTEAD OF TAXING BUSINESSES TO FUND INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, ELIMINATE ALL BUSINESS TAXES AND HAVE THE BUSINESSES GIVE THE MONEY DIRECTLY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES THROUGH MANDATORY PROFIT SHARING. Businesses will be better off because they share profits only when they exist, compared to now where they pay taxes whether they are profitable or not. The American people will be better off because they will share in the success of the companies they work for. America will be better off because people won't be able to expect corporations to pay for the big government they want.

Pass legislation that establishes a maximum ratio of total CEO compensation (i.e. the highest paid employee) to the average worker (non-management) compensation. This ratio should be the subject of much discussion but we think it should be around 40 because the ratio of CEO to worker pay was 20:1 in 1965 and is over 300:1 now. Thus if the average worker total compensation is $50,000 then the CEO total compensation could not be more than $2 Million. To prevent the outsourcing of low paying jobs, the ratio shall include the compensation of outsourced jobs.

Pass legislation that establishes a maximum ratio of total CEO compensation (i.e. the highest paid employee) to the lowest paid worker compensation. To prevent the outsourcing of low paying jobs, this ratio shall also include the compensation of outsourced jobs; business leaders would then have incentive to raise (American) worker compensation instead of hiring cheap immigrant labor. This is needed in addition to the previous ratio to prevent the company from increasing the average employee compensation by highly compensating a small number of employees. This ratio is easily determined by using a ratio of average worker pay to the expected lowest paid worker. Using the numbers above and assuming the lowest paid worker is paid $25,000, then this ratio is 40 x ($50,000/$25,000) = 80. This ratio ensures that the salary of the lowest paid employee rises when the CEO compensation rises.


Pass legislation that requires bonuses, stock options and other performance based pay incentives be applied equally to all employees. Outlaw stock grants to corporate executives unless they are also given to all other employees. WHEN THE COMPANY IS DOING WELL, REWARD ALL EMPLOYEES NOT JUST SENIOR MANAGEMENT. CEO compensation is determined by other CEO's and corporate executives (via interlocking corporate directors on the board of directors compensation committee) using an unlimited source of company money and company stock, so there must be laws that require corporate executives to apply benefits and performanced based compensation equally to employees in all levels of the company.

Implementing CEO compensation limits will give business owners incentive to keep their companies privately held. Business owners keeping their companies private benefit because they keep the profits not shared with the employees (i.e. 75% of profits) instead of being limited to earning the CEO maximum. The biggest beneficiaries of keeping a business private are the employees because, for a privately held company, benefit cuts and salary freezes aren't needed to keep the company stock price climbing since they have no publicly traded stock. When businesses go public, the employees of the company become much less important than stockholders to the corporate executives partly because they are given large amounts of company stock in their compensation. This is why you see employee salary freezes and employee benefit cuts including lost sick time, lost paid holidays and pension cuts all while their company stocks are soaring.

Conservatives say that business owners take all the risks and therefore deserve all the rewards. This is a generalization conservatives use to wrongly justify ridiculously high CEO compensation packages when CEOs of public companies take no risk. They get tremendous sums of money and free stock without ever risking a dime of their own money. For privately held startups that require significant capital to get started, yes the business owners take all the risk. Under the provisions of this proposed plan, these startups would never pay any taxes and would only be required to profit share when they become profitable. Startups therefore will be better off under the proposed plan than they are currently. Established privately held businesses and publicly traded companies have much less risk, will pay no taxes and will also only be required to share profits when profits exist.

CEO's who feel they should earn more than the maximum they are allowed (i.e. 40 x the average worker salary) can start a new business so they can instead earn 75% of the profit. This will create more jobs and more competition which will lower prices and increase the standard of living for Americans. When CEO's actually put their own money at risk, such as when they start a new privately held company, then they can get, and deserve, the huge payday.

Eliminate the minimum wage because it is no longer needed and has no meaning with mandatory profit sharing plans and fixed CEO compensation ratios. Get rid of the divisive minimum wage issue for good.


Reform overtime pay rules. Instead of hiring additional workers when work load increases, businesses force their employees to work overtime for free or pay them premium pay (80% or less of their hourly rate) for overtime. Pass legislation requiring all non executive managment employees who work over 40 hours per week be paid time and a half for overtime. This will increase employee wages and promote hiring.

Business leaders will not want to give up their power and their very lucrative executive compensation plans and will fight against the changes described in this plan THAT WE NEED TO PREVENT SOCIALISM AND PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC. They will likely respond by claiming that you can't do these things in a free society. If so, that would be nonsense. The father of the Constitution James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 wrote that humans are more likely to oppress each other than work together for the common good:

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

And more importantly a few sentences later, Madison wrote that the regulation of the various and interfering interests (in the country) forms the principal task of modern legislation:

Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation ...


Even more support for the required legislation contained in this section of the plan is contained in Federalist No. 39, where James Madison, referring to our Republican form of government wrote:

It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it...

MADISON'S OWN WORDS SIGNIFY THE IMPORTANCE OF GOVERNMENT THAT SERVES ALL AMERICANS, NOT THE FEW AND NOT A FAVORED CLASS, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. America has gone through multiple equal rights movements in the past and it is now time for an equal rights movement for the American worker. Just as government intervention was required to give equal rights to American women and black Americans, so too is government intervention required to give equal rights to American workers. WE HAVE THE POWER to change the rules of our society that have developed over time. America is at another inflection point; will we choose workers rights or will we choose socialism?

Wall Street, whether intended or not, transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, in at least five ways:

  1. When businesses go public, the interests of the middle class employees of the company become secondary to what is in the best interests of the stockholders. The stockholders include the senior management of the company who themselves will be major shareholders by increasing amounts as they accumulate (free) stock, granted to them each year as part of their executive compensation packages. To keep the stock price climbing and "return value to the shareholders," employee salaries are frozen and benefits are cut even when companies do very well financially. When businesses are publicly traded on the stock market, real people with bills to pay and kids to support become "labor costs," a term that brings a negative connotation in the business community with the desire to minimize them. Minimizing "labor costs" in business means compensating employees as little as possible and is why benefits are cut and salaries are frozen even when sales, earnings and the company stock price skyrocket.
  2. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A), driven by the need to maintain earnings growth to keep stock prices climbing, hurt middle class consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices. This hurts poor and middle class Americans more than wealthy Americans because the poor and the middle class spend a greater percentage of their income (i.e. the poor and middle class have a higher propensity to consume than the wealthy).
  3. When businesses go public to raise capital instead of borrowing from banks or issuing corporate bonds, they cheat the middle class out of higher interest on their savings and a safer investment option compared to buying stocks. If all businesses had to borrow to raise capital, and if interest rates were allowed to freely float with market demand like they should in a truly free market, then middle class citizens would actually earn interest on the money they have in savings. LOW INTEREST RATES, WHILE GOOD FOR BUSINESSES, IS BAD FOR INDIVIDUALS. Low interest rates reduces the incentive for people to save money and encourages people to spend any extra money they have or put it into the Wall Street casino, which perpetuates the pro-business anti-individual system we have further by providing more money to buy stock in companies as discussed in item 1 above.
  4. When businesses go public, middle class individuals and their pension funds (for those that have pensions) purchase IPO shares contributing to making the owners of the businesses instant millionaires or billionaires which transfers even more wealth to the wealthy and funds the system that turns them into "labor costs."
  5. Business executives allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to stock repurchase plans justified by declaring that they are "returning value to the shareholders." The repurchased shares raise the share price of the stock which benefits the executive management by making their stock options and stock grants (tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of shares) worth more. This company profit could have instead been used to increase employee compensation since it was not allocated for business related expenses like purchasing new equipment. Thus in addition to being well compensated by the Board of Directors executive compensation committee that is made up of CEOs and business executives from other companies, executive leadership uses company profit, via stock repurchase plans, to increase the price of the company stock to increase the value of their stock options and stock grants.

b) Drastically Reduce Food and Energy Prices

Income inequality is really about standard of living. High food and energy costs reduce the standard of living for the middle class and poor because the middle class and the poor spend a large percentage of their incomes on food and energy. The wealthy, including millionaire politicians, are largely not affected by food and energy prices because these costs are small to them. That's why you see wealthy politicians propose additional taxes on gasoline.

Government provided inflation data telling us that inflation is low is meaningless because most of the time the two most important factors to the poor and middle class (food and energy) are omitted. Fruit and meat prices have soared in the last several years all while average family income is stagnant at best. How can inflation be 1% - 2% per year as claimed by the government in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, when food prices have increased 100% or more in the previous several years? This writer's food bill per month for a family of 4 is almost as much as the mortgage payment.

The CPI is not an accurate representation of inflation to the poor and the middle class because food and energy prices are not weighted as much as they should be when compared to how the poor and middle class spend their money (the poor and middle class spend a relatively large portion of their incomes on food and energy). Food and energy prices are frequently omitted when reporting the CPI (i.e. the core CPI) on the basis that food and energy costs are "volatile". The only beneficiary of omitting food and energy price inflation from the CPI is Wall Street because it helps justify keeping interest rates low, which is good for businesses and good for stocks but does nothing for the poor and middle class who spend a relatively large portion of their incomes on food and energy.

After watching gasoline prices go from $4 a gallon down to $1.50 a gallon before going back up, is there any doubt that the system that supplies our gasoline is not set up to keep prices low for the benefit of the American population? If gas prices went to $1.50 per gallon once, they can get that low again with the right policy changes.

Increase the standard of living for American citizens by implementing policies that reduce food and energy costs:

c) Create Jobs for Americans in America

Our federal government spends an unimaginable amount of money each year. Why isn't this money spent entirely on American-made goods and materials? Why can steel made in China be used to build United States Navy ships when it's taxpayer money being used to buy those ships and it is a matter of national security to have a strong steel industry in America? And to make matters worse, our trade deficit with China helps China fund their own military buildup that now includes their own aircraft carriers.

To boost the American economy and to act in the best interest of American national security, require all U.S. government contracts to provide 100% MADE IN THE USA products and materials because taxpayer money should be used to strengthen the American economy not China. Taxpayer dollars will go to help American businesses and American workers not foreign businesses and foreign workers. Imagine the economic impact from spending the entire federal budget IN AMERICA each year. Finally a positive aspect of big government!

American companies move operations abroad then import their goods back to America and we let them do it without any penalty. The businesses will return to America when the business taxes are eliminated but for those that don't, recognize that "merchants have no country" and apply tariffs to every non-food item that is composed of 50% or more dollar value of foreign made parts and/or labor. 50% is a good compromise between free-trade and protectionism. All goods sold in America will contain at least 50% (dollar value) made in America parts and/or labor. Along with the elimination of corporate taxes this will bring blue collar jobs back to America. As Patrick J. Buchanan points out in his column, TARIFFS MADE AMERICA GREAT.

There are economists and wealthy politicians who are adamantly against tariffs. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM BECAUSE UNLIKE MANY WORKING CLASS AMERICANS, THEIR JOBS DO NOT DEPEND ON HOW WELL MANUFACTURING DOES IN AMERICA. This issue has been around since the country was founded. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison writes:

Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good.

Although Madison is likely implying that the 18th Century manufacturing class would prohibit imports to benefit themselves, which is the opposite of what we have today with our multinational manufacturing companies, the premise is the same; the manufacturing class (today's multinational corporations) will decide what is best for themselves not what is best for the American public good. Tariffs are therefore essential to give businesses incentive to manufacture their products in America to provide good paying manufacturing jobs to Americans.

Ask any HR manager at any company what determines employee compensation and they will tell you that the labor market does. If the labor market determines worker compensation, then stop flooding the job market with immigrant labor because it causes wage stagnation. Put the American worker first by stopping immigration until Americans are back to work with rising wages, then what is left can go to immigrants.

Many conservative republicans think that the blame for wage stagnation belongs on the workers for not getting more job skills to get a better job. That reasoning is flawed and simply nonsense. While justifying income inequality, conservatives will point out that people are different. They say that some folks work harder than others and that some folks are smarter than others and this is what causes income inequality. But then conservatives don't apply this reasoning when it comes to jobs. If people are different, which we clearly are, then a sound jobs policy will take this into account. A sound jobs policy will identify that people are different and that while many go to college, many do not and should not. Those that do not go to college need good paying jobs too, just as they had in the past. We therefore need the blue collar manufacturing jobs to come back to America to put an end to income inequality.

d) Align the Interests of Congress with The Interests of Average Americans

CEO compensation packages that include large amounts of free stock are justified in corporate America in order to "align the interests of the CEO with the interests of the stockholders." Similarly, Americans need TO ALIGN THE INTERESTS OF CONGRESS WITH THE INTERESTS OF AVERAGE AMERICANS.

Do this by setting after tax congressional salaries equal to the most recent after tax average household income. Because our millionaire politicians are insulated from food and energy price increases since they are so wealthy, REQUIRE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WHILE IN OFFICE, TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES WITH WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD EARNS.

Just as currently required for POTUS, all money and assets Congress has must be inaccessible while in office. This will also help prevent passing legislation that they themselves knowingly benefit from thus reducing conflicts of interest with spending bills. The money, assets and any gains will be returned upon leaving office. Just like the President, they will have no knowledge of the whereabouts of their money.

When millionaire Democrats in Congress are forced to live on the average American household income, they will finally have incentive to improve the lives of American citizens instead of exploiting their lack of wealth to get votes. When millionaire Republicans in Congress are forced to live on the average American household income, they will finally put the interest of American citizens above the interests of multinational corporations.

Make it mandatory that any money or gifts received above the average American household income be given to charity, which has the additional benefit of discouraging corruption and eliminating the money influence in Congress. Requiring members of congress, while in office, to support their families with what the average American household earns gives Congress incentive to:

Additional benefits include:


3. Tax Reform

a) Eliminate all Government Business Taxes and Fees for Political Purposes.

See section 1a for details.

b) Implement a One Rate Flat Income Tax with No Deductions on all Individuals for Political Purposes.

Tax policy has economic impacts but more importantly has political impacts. The biggest problem with our tax code is that a very large number of American voters pay no tax and many who don't pay taxes actually get paid by the government with earned income tax credits so they have absolutely no incentive to ever vote for lower taxes or want smaller government.

Therefore we must scrap the entire tax code and institute a flat tax ON ALL INDIVIDUALS EQUALLY (i.e. one tax rate for all) WITH NO DEDUCTIONS. When all taxes come entirely from INDIVIDUALS at an equal percentage rate regardless of wealth or income, it is much more likely the people will want the small limited federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers because EVERYONE will directly feel the cost of large inefficient government when paying the high taxes required to fund it. People currently have no link between wanting bigger government and paying more taxes because they expect others (corporations, the wealthy etc.) to pay the higher taxes that are needed for the bigger government they want. With a single rate flat income tax on all individuals with no deductions, and no taxes on businesses, Americans who want bigger government will be forced to pay for it.

There are those that say the wealthy actually pay less in taxes (or a smaller percentage) than the middle class because they have accountants and many large tax deductions. If that is true, a flat tax with no deductions means that the wealthy will pay comparatively more than they do now (no more deducting mortgage interest on that $20 million dollar mansion and no more lower tax rate on investment income). While it's debatable if the wealthy will pay more or less with a flat tax with no deductions, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE MOST IMPORT ASPECT OF TAX POLICY IS POLITICAL NOT ECONOMIC. If all deductions are eliminated and everybody pays the same tax rate, there will be no more demonizing the wealthy for not paying enough tax or demonizing the poor for not paying any tax; everybody will pay the same amount (i.e. percentage). The people who are currently poor will start paying taxes because their incomes and standard of living will go up from the policies in section 2 (profit sharing, food and energy price reduction etc.).

With a single rate flat income tax with no deductions on all individuals, everyone, including the poor, will have an equal amount of 'skin in the game' and will object to raising taxes. "Skin in the game" ensures EVERYONE has an interest in keeping taxes low. Progressive tax rates (higher tax rates for larger incomes) cannot do this. Trying to be 'fair' to people with lower incomes will NEVER end rich vs. poor class warfare WHEREAS ONE TAX RATE WITH NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS WILL. Executive compensation ratio limits discussed in section 2 will make progressive tax rates not necessary anyway. With this tax policy:


c) End All Government Agency Fees and Fund the Government Exclusively with the Flat Tax

Abolish all government agency fees and fund everything with the individual (flat) income tax, which will be set in amount by congress as the Constitution requires. No more unconstitutional fees imposed by unelected executive branch bureaucrats that are really stealth taxes. Agency fees raise revenue for the government therefore they are taxes. End these fees and fund everything using the flat income tax. This gives visibility to the entire cost of government and gives incentive for congress to keep government costs low. Right now, the fees assessed by government agencies are routinely raised because there is no incentive to keep them low because there is no accountability to the voters.

4. Return to Constitutional Government

Now let's look at what is required to return to constitutional government including returning to Congress it's constitutionally mandated duties that it has delegated away.

a) Return Constitutional Duties Delegated by Congress Back to Congress.

Growth of executive branch power was enabled by Congress because over the years Congress has delegated its constitutional duties to the executive branch.


The Constitution purposely does not grant Congress latitude in their duties so that decisions made would be made by ELECTED officials who would answer to the people at the next election. Instead, because Congress has delegated their constitutionally mandated duties to the executive branch, we have unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in executive department agencies making decisions that affect us all.

Therefore, repeal all unconstitutional laws that delegate congressional constitutional mandates. For example, the Constitution, in Article I Section 8 REQUIRES THAT CONGRESS:

To return power back to Congress, re-establish constitutional government, and restore the balance of power between the Legislature and the Executive, MAKE EACH CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HEAD OF THE AGENCY WITH DIRECT CONTROL OVER THE AGENCY INSTEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH APPOINTEES.

End the lack of congressional influence over the federal agencies by MAKING CONGRESS DIRECTLY IN CHARGE OF THE AGENCIES. Congressional committees will run the agencies and it will be clearly defined what each committee must take to the entire congress for approval. No longer will Congress have to beg for information and be stonewalled by the agency because the congressional committee will have direct hiring and firing authority over the agency. Employees of federal agencies will now be accountable for their actions because elected representatives who answer to the American voters will be able to fire them for corruption, collusion, insubordination or poor performance.

The congressional committee could appoint/hire an agency "executive" or "administrator" to execute their orders. This model already works well at the local government level where county governments, run by a Board of Supervisors, have a county executive that executes their orders.

Past unconstitutional executive orders would never have been possible had congress not delegated their constitutional duties to the executive branch.

The congressional committee, not the executive will dictate how congressional funds are spent at the agency as the Constitution requires.

Confirmation that Congress was to be more powerful than the executive branch is confirmed in Federalist No. 51:

b) Return to a Constitutional Military

Since WWII, America has fought in Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq without the declaration of war from Congress that is required by the Constitution.

OUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL MILITARY STRUCTURE HAS ENABLED THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS. Nowhere else has the Constitution been more ignored by Congress than in the structure of the military.

Most of you will have not previously seen what you are about to read. Don't limit your knowledge by accepting what others tell you. Think for yourself. Read the Constitution for yourself. Read the Federalist Papers and study the Founding Fathers.

The American military structure required by the U.S. Constitution consists of:

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution assigns the duties to Congress to declare war, to "provide and maintain a navy", to "raise and support armies", and "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions (emphasis mine all)." Government violations of these constitutional requirements include:

The Founding Fathers opposed a permanent standing army because they knew that a standing army combined with a powerful executive was a threat to peace and liberty. Based on our $22 TRILLION DOLLAR national debt, OVER $2 TRILLION OF WHICH IS FROM THE COST OF THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ALONE, and our approximate $700 BILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL DEFENSE BUDGET, they have been proven right.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison despised a standing army because they thought that a standing army combined with a powerful executive was a threat to peace and liberty. They have been proven right.

Thomas Jefferson quotes that a standing army is a threat to peace can be found here.

James Madison saying the same can be found here.

Federalist No. 41, written by James Madison and one of the most relevant Federalist essays for today's America, is full of content indicating that the Founding Fathers did not support and the Constitution does not authorize a permanent standing army. The term RAISING is routinely used to describe armies. Where standing armies were to be raised during times of peace, they were to be for SELF DEFENSE not for stationing them in foreign lands to protect foreign countries as they are currently. In Federalist No. 41, Madison writes that standing armies crush liberty from the high taxes that are needed to fund them, that a navy will be provided and MAINTAINED to protect America from danger abroad, and that the limitation to the term of 2 years for the support of a standing army was meant to be a precaution against maintaining a permanent standing army:

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal.

Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security.

Instead of deriving from our situation the precious advantage which Great Britain has derived from hers, the face of America will be but a copy of that of the continent of Europe. It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes.

Note that because the fiat currency federal reserve system we have today didn't exist when the country was founded, the Founding Fathers saw high taxes as the threat, not government debt and out of control government borrowing and spending to fund the standing army. Madison continues:

Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added.

And a few sentences later, referring to the length of appropriations to fund the standing army, Madison writes:

... and that the American (Constitution) ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.

Click here. to read the entire text of Federalist No. 41 with the relevant content highlighted.

In Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton, responding to criticism of the Constitution for allowing standing armies controlled by the executive branch (a criticism that at the time was invalid because the Constitution gave no such right to the executive, but now does apply since Congress has delegated its required duty to control the military to the executive), wrote:

...that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.

Thus TROOPS WERE TO BE RAISED BY CONGRESS not the EXECUTIVE and the clause which FORBIDS appropriating money for more than two years for an army WAS MEANT TO PREVENT A STANDING ARMY FROM BEING MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY.

In Federalist No. 25, Alexander Hamilton responds to those who believed that the Constitution should include words that prevent the federal government from keeping a standing army in times of peace. Hamilton justifies temporary standing armies in times of peace by pointing out that without them we would have to wait to be attacked before preparing a defense, something that is suicidal. Also note that Hamilton's justification for the temporary standing army was for defensive purposes. Hamilton wrote:

If, to obviate this consequence, it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the RAISING of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen, that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense, before it was actually invaded.

In the previous paragraph of Federalist No. 25, Hamilton, on the same topic (responding to those who believed that the Constitution should prohibit standing armies in time of peace), writes:

The supposed utility of a provision of this kind can only be founded on the supposed probability, or at least possibility, of a combination between the executive and the legislative, in some scheme of usurpation. Should this at any time happen, how easy would it be to fabricate pretenses of approaching danger! Indian hostilities, instigated by Spain or Britain, would always be at hand. Provocations to produce the desired appearances might even be given to some foreign power, and appeased again by timely concessions. If we can reasonably presume such a combination to have been formed, and that the enterprise is warranted by a sufficient prospect of success, the army, when once raised, from whatever cause, or on whatever pretext, may be applied to the execution of the project.

In Federalist No. 26 on the same subject, Hamilton writes:

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Read the last sentence above again because it is exactly what we have today. The Founding Fathers believed that standing armies were a danger to freedom and liberty, but they also did not want the Constitution to prevent Congress from raising an army if it was needed, so they included the provision to forbid Congress from funding an army for longer than two years, which they thought, rather erroneously it now seems, would prevent Congress from funding a permanent standing army without a specific reason (i.e. a threat to counter). Their logic certainly indicates that they never anticipated that America would maintain an army in perpetuity, or worse, permanently station troops all over the world. The last sentence in the paragraph above "THEY (Congress) ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO VEST IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT PERMANENT FUNDS FOR THE SUPPORT OF AN ARMY, IF THEY WERE EVEN INCAUTIOUS ENOUGH TO BE WILLING TO REPOSE IN IT SO IMPROPER A CONFIDENCE." cannot possibly make it any clearer that a permanent standing army is unconstitutional.

In Federalist No. 24, Hamilton provides examples of the need for TEMPORARY standing armies:

Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians.

If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy. To this purpose there must be dock-yards and arsenals; and for the defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons. When a nation has become so powerful by sea that it can protect its dock-yards by its fleets, this supersedes the necessity of garrisons for that purpose; but where naval establishments are in their infancy, moderate garrisons will, in all likelihood, be found an indispensable security against descents for the destruction of the arsenals and dock-yards, and sometimes of the fleet itself.


Federalist No. 29 pertains to the militia. In it, Alexander Hamilton writes that the purpose of the militia is for the DEFENSE of the state, that it will reduce the need for a large army, and that no federal army can seize the liberties of the people while a large citizens militia stands ready to defend it:

... it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

In the last sentence of the paragraph above, Hamilton writes that the militia is the best possible security against a standing army. In Federalist No. 46, James Madison reiterates this point when he writes that it is absurd that the federal government could seize power from the state governments by military force and that even if they tried, the state militias would be so much larger in number that they could not be conquered by the federal troops. Thus when armies would be raised they would be small in number compared to the militia and because of that, THE STATE CITIZEN MILITIAS WOULD BE A CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Maybe that is why the federal government eliminated the militias by combining them into the Army.

James Madison, in Federalist No. 46 writes:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment;

Madison can't envision it, but what he writes above is exactly what happened and he CALLS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT MAINTAIN OUR MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT "TRAITORS"!!!! Madison continues:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The citizens militia cannot act as a check on the federal army and be a defender of the liberties of the people, as written by Madison in Federalist No. 46 above, because Congress unconstitutionally combined it with the Army and relabeled it the Army National Guard. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED THE CITIZENS MILITIA AND HAS BECOME A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT THAT ROUTINELY ENCROACHES UPON THE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF AMERICANS AND UPON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE STATES.

Neither Congress nor the Executive can maintain a permanent standing army in perpetuity and place troops all over the world because a permanent standing army is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution must be amended to allow a permanent standing army. If you are a proponent of a permanent standing army IN OPPOSITION TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS then amend the Constitution to add a provision to "maintain" an Army. You can't pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to obey any more than you can pick and choose the laws you want to obey.

A return to a constitutional military structure (e.g., the elimination of the permanent standing army, the return of the citizens militia and the return of Department of Defense control to Congress) will end unnecessary foreign wars because only true threats to America will create the political will for Congress to declare war, raise an army, and fund the war. Raising the army would require volunteers and people would likely only volunteer if there is a real threat to America. They would likely not volunteer if the army was being raised to protect other nations, the flow of oil or to give democracy to goat herders. If a draft was instituted to conscript an army due to the lack of volunteers, public outcry and the political pressure would be tremendous without a just cause.

Military men and women join the military to protect America but find themselves in a foreign country going door to door nation building instead. This would never happen with a constitutional military structure (i.e. no standing army) because raising one to perform this task would face tremendous political pressure and require people to volunteer for it. Because the army already exists and because Congress has delegated its constitutionally required military oversight duties to the Executive, it is relatively easy for America to engage in military conflict. All that is needed is a report, whether real or not, of crimes against humanity somewhere in the world and a willing President and America is in a military conflict without a declaration of war from Congress. Move DoD oversight from the executive to the Congress and eliminate the permanent standing army and we will not have wars without a real need and without a declaration of war from congress.

The absence of a real militia consisting of citizens, not soldiers, is exactly why there is any debate at all about the second amendment. Bring back the citizens militia, with mandatory membership of all males 18-55 years old and voluntary membership of females 23-45 years old and the division over the meaning of the second amendment and the divisive gun rights issue will disappear forever.

Creating a citizens militia will create the largest defensive fighting force in the world and make it possible to disband the standing army, which would save America hundreds of billions of dollars annually, important for a nation that is over 22 trillion dollars in debt. OUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL MILITARY STRUCTURE THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF OUR REPUBLIC just as the Founding Fathers warned. AMERICA'S EXISTENCE IS THREATENED BY THE HIGH TAXES, DEFICIT SPENDING AND DEBT REQUIRED TO CONTINUALLY FUND THE PERMANENT STANDING ARMY, FOREIGN WARS, NATION BUILDING, AND TROOPS STATIONED ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Many of you will still be against eliminating our permanent standing army even after reading the evidence that it is unconstitutional. Maybe you believe it would be unwise because there are too many threats in the world and you wouldn't feel safe without it. There is no doubt that the army has been a fixture in American society for as long as we all have been alive. Maybe your so accustomed to America's permanent standing army that what is known as "normalcy bias" or "paradigm paralysis" prohibits you from contemplating if it is really needed. Consider:

No reasonable threat exists today, either in the homeland but especially abroad, to justify America violating the Constitution by maintaining a permanent standing army in perpetuity. James Madison's quote from federalist no. 41 pertaining to the need for a standing army still applies today:

Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security.

Why is the American taxpayer paying to fund NATO and defend Europe and Japan when it is unconstitutional to keep permanent standing armies in foreign lands? The existence of a permanent standing army is what enables the military-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex is what enables the permanent standing army. Unless the campaign finance reforms in section 1c are put in place, Army defense contractors will spend millions of dollars to fight to preserve the billions of dollars that are spent annually on army contracts. They will say the world is too dangerous and will prophesize the doom of America without an army. Rubbish! Read the Constitution and the Federalist papers I quote for yourself; the Constitution forbids maintaining a permanent standing army. WWII General and Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his presidential farewell speech, spoke on the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower, a highly respected military man who led the WWII D-Day invasion, later as President, warned Americans 50 years ago of business (i.e. defense contractor) influence over government!

c) Return to a Constitutional Judiciary

The power of judicial review (ruling if laws passed by Congress are constitutional) is not an enumerated power granted to the Judiciary in the Constitution; NOWHERE IN ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THIS POWER GRANTED TO SCOTUS.

Article I Section 8 grants Congress, NOT SCOTUS the power TO MAKE ALL LAWS. SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to make law but that is exactly what happens when they invoke judicial review. This is relevant because they are routinely wrong, especially when ruling in landmark cases:

In all these cases, SCOTUS created law with its rulings.

From the examples above it is clear that the opinion of nine justices as to what the Constitution means is what determines what the Constitution means at any given moment in time. The fact that landmark rulings are 5-4 decisions IS AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH OPINION INVOLVED IN THESE RULINGS AND THAT SCOTUS SHOULD NOT BE RULING ON THESE ISSUES.


Since Article III of the Constitution does not grant SCOTUS the power of judicial review, the people, not SCOTUS, are the keepers of the Constitution as required by the tenth amendment.


So what is the solution to return to a constitutional judiciary?

To stop SCOTUS from unconstitutionally creating law using the practice of judicial review, Congress shall create a tribunal in accordance with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, for the sole purpose of hearing cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws created by Congress. This tribunal will be made up of members of Congress, preferably members of the House of Representatives since this is the people's chamber of Congress and they answer to the people in an election every two years.

The law that creates the tribunal shall include the justification of the legality and constitutionality of this law by stating that the Constitution:


A similar process already exists with the court of impeachments in the Senate. Much of the rationale given in Federalist No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton for the Senate to act as a court for the trial of impeachments INSTEAD OF THE SUPREME COURT can also be applied to the House of Representatives acting as the court of judicial review INSTEAD OF THE SUPREME COURT.

Elected members of the House of Representatives, who answer to the people in an election every two years, would then determine if laws are constitutional, not unelected and unaccountable judges with lifetime appointments WHO CANNOT BE REPLACED BY THE PEOPLE. The political viewpoints of SCOTUS judges will no longer be an issue and will be reflected as such during the Senate confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.


The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Elsewhere in Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton wrote that (he believed) the Supreme Court would not substitute their own beliefs (i.e. their will) to overrule the legislature on constitutional grounds (a belief that has been proven to be an error in judgment), but also says that if they do, then the Supreme Court justices should not be distinct from the legislature.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

Hamilton writes above that if the Supreme Court imposes their will over the legislature (Congress), the judges should not be distinct from the legislature; THE CREATION OF THE PROPOSED TRIBUNAL WILL DO JUST THAT.

In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton, referring to the powers of the federal judiciary, tells us that CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY if needed:

From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.

In the last sentence, Hamilton is referring to the paragraph in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to specify regulations and create exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction:

In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This sentence in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create the appellate exception for judicial review by SCOTUS and the Federalist Papers make it clear that the legislature has the authority to change the judiciary if needed.

Several paragraphs in Federalist No. 81, written by Alexander Hamilton, supports judicial review being performed by Congress instead of SCOTUS:

That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested. The reasons for it have been assigned in another place, and are too obvious to need repetition. The only question that seems to have been raised concerning it, is, whether it ought to be a distinct body or a branch of the legislature.

The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.

But perhaps the force of the objection may be thought to consist in the particular organization of the Supreme Court; in its being composed of a distinct body of magistrates, instead of being one of the branches of the legislature, as in the government of Great Britain and that of the State.

In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, "with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make."

To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

In the paragraphs above, Alexander Hamilton recognizes the criticism that SCOTUS should be a branch of the Legislature as it was in Great Britain, recognizes the criticism that the ability of SCOTUS to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution could make SCOTUS superior to the Legislature, recognizes that decisions by SCOTUS would not be subject to the revision or correction of the Legislature, and responds to these concerns by pointing out that if it happens, nothing in the Constitution directly gives SCOTUS this power, and that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to modify the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS for the benefit of the public. THUS THE ELIMINATION OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SCOTUS TO PERFORM JUDICIAL REVIEW (i.e. to "construe laws according to the spirit of the Constitution") WAS PLANNED FOR BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. THUS CREATING THE TRIBUNAL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO INSTEAD PERFORM THIS TASK IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

SCOTUS has encroached on the legislative duties of Congress and it is up to WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO CORRECT IT AS STATED IN FEDERALIST NO. 49:

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.


d) Restore the Constitutional Balance of Power Between the Federal Government and the States.

In Federalist No. 45 James Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

Madison wrote that THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND DEFINED, THAT THE POWER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE AND THAT STATES WILL HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE OVER THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE DURING TIMES OF PEACE. Madison wrote this before ratification of the 10th Amendment, which made it even more clear that all the powers in the Constitution not specifically assigned to the federal government belong to the States.

IS THERE ANYONE IN AMERICA WHO BELIEVES THAT THE STATES ARE MORE INFLUENTIAL IN OUR LIVES THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN OUR CURRENT TIME OF PEACE? America is a Republic but America is also a Federation of States, which means that the States are supposed to share power with the federal government, not be subservient to it. The fact that so many Americans support eliminating the electoral college indicates that this is not well understood. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PRESERVE FEDERALISM FOR OUR STATES TO SHARE POWER WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.

TO RESTORE FEDERALISM AND SUPPORT THE TENTH AMENDMENT, CREATE STATE TRIBUNALS COMPOSED OF MEMBERS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO HEAR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE LAW, then eliminate the appellate jurisdiction for judicial review of state law in federal courts and in the federal tribunal in the House of Representatives. The power of the state governments will now be numerous and indefinite and will have more influence over our lives in times of peace as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45.

One reason the federal government has grown in power at the expense of the state governments is the incorrect interpretation of the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 41, the father of the Constitution James Madison tells us what the general welfare clause means. Madison writes that the term "general welfare" APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC ENUMERATED POWERS OF CONGRESS that immediately follows and it is therefore NOT PERMISSION FOR AN UNLIMITED EXPANSION OF FEDERAL POWER:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison, responding to the concern that the federal and state governments will try to usurp authority of each other, wrote:

They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.

We the People are the only keepers of the Constitution therefore the States will regain their constitutionally authorized powers IF WE ELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION, BELIEVE IN FEDERALISM, AND BELIEVE THAT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND DEFINED. Implementing the tax reforms of section 3 of this plan will also help reduce the size and power of the federal government because citizens will want a low flat tax rate. This means that the federal government funding source will be constantly under pressure to stay low and thus less likely that the federal government will encroach on the duties of the States.

5. Loose Ends

a) Reduce College Costs

Why does a computer science major have to take two history classes as a college freshman to satisfy general education requirements after taking four years of history in high school?

Colleges typically justify their (required) general education and physical education courses in order to make well rounded students. College costs are so high today that we can't afford this luxury. Students will learn more and become well rounded as they get older, after they graduate. It's called getting older and wiser and we all have done it.

To reduce the cost of college, pass legislation that prevents colleges and universities from requiring general education and physical education courses. This will cut the 4 year degree down to about 2.5 years or 5 semesters. The general educations courses would become optional so that those who want to and can afford to go to college for 4 years can still do so. For those choosing the 2.5 year plan, the $100,000 college degree (4 years at $25,000 per year) now costs about $62,000 ($25,000 x 2.5) for a $38,000 savings. The legislation must stipulate that the tuition rate per semester and degree requirements for the major must be equal for both options.

Reduce the costs of books by passing legislation to require all colleges offer non-expiring electronic versions of the required textbooks in downloadable PDF format for no more than $15 each. For those that choose this option, the $300-$500 per semester for textbooks becomes $60-$75 per semester.

Outlaw mandatory requirements for students to live on campus since this almost doubles the cost of tuition. Students who live close enough to commute should have the option of doing so to avoid doubling their college costs.

There is a lot more to do here but this is a good start.

b) Improve Race Relations

The problem: While white civilians and the police believe deadly force with a firearm is justified when confronted by a violent unarmed individual, blacks believe there is no justification, no matter how violent the black person is, for anyone to kill an unarmed black person. This is not isolated to the police as we saw in the Trayvon Martin case. THERE IS NO WAY TO RECONCILE THESE TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS. Therefore the only solution is:

This writer personally believes that many black folks are angry at white people because white people have things and they don't. They don't know why they don't have things like white people do, so they blame racism and what they believe is "white privilege."

What is the reason white people have things and black people don't?

  1. The lack of manufacturing jobs. It used to be that folks who didn't want to or couldn't go to college could get good jobs in factories and have a decent standard of living to raise a family. Those jobs are gone (thanks to the globalist trade policies of Democrats and Republicans) and have been replaced by low paying fast food jobs. The lack of manufacturing jobs is certainly one cause of racial tensions because it is one of the reasons black people don't have things.

  2. Too much immigration. While good for business profits and stock gains (by keeping labor costs low), it depresses worker pay and increases American worker unemployment, especially unskilled workers. This column points out that every time amnesty occurs, crime and black unemployment spikes. Imagine that. Immigrants are taking jobs from American minorities and keeping their wages low.

  3. The fact that business leaders don't share the success of their business with the working class employees in their business as discussed in section 2.

  4. High food and energy price inflation which doesn't affect the wealthy but reduces the standard of living of the middle class and poor as discussed in section 2.b.

  5. Failing schools. Charter schools and school vouchers are absolutely necessary to end racial division in America. Charter schools and school vouchers must become commonplace across America to help minority kids that want to learn get into a better learning environment. Fully fund body cameras for all teachers and use the video to expel the unruly kids who prevent good kids from learning.

Fixing these five problems will tremendously improve race relations in America.

6. Conclusions

For decades Republicans and Democrats have sometimes taken turns and sometimes worked together ruining the country. In eight years as President, Republican President George Bush doubled the national debt from about $5 Trillion to about $10 Trillion dollars. Democrat President Barack Obama, in his eight years as President, doubled the national debt again to about $20 Trillion dollars. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken turns being the majority party in Congress during the Bush and Obama presidencies, so they are both equally to blame there as well.

Both Democrats and Republicans have no answer to fix an economy devastated by their globalist free trade policies, so they increase borrowing and spending to try to create jobs, improve the economy, and fund the welfare state. For decades we have tried Republican and Democrat policies that have led to over $20 trillion dollars of national debt, AND FOR DECADES AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, HAS REMAINED STAGNANT.

What do we have to show for the $15 Trillion dollars in debt accumulated in just the 16 years under Bush and Obama? 16 years of American corporations moving manufacturing jobs overseas and replacing American workers with immigrant workers for the jobs that remain in America. Approximately 40 million Americans are on food stamps and under the poverty line, which is about $25,000 a year for a family of four. The median savings account balance is about $5000 therefore half of all Americans have less than $5000 in savings. All this data is telling us that it doesn't matter if Democrats or Republicans are in charge; too many Americans are not benefitting from Capitalism.

If you are a liberal or a socialist, you have correctly recognized that capitalism needs to take better care of all people not just the wealthy, but you have no policy proposals that will work. History has shown that socialist and liberal policies make people unproductive, dependent on government, everybody poor (as is the case in Cuba), or brings economic chaos (as in Venezuela). Socialists always say that socialism will work if it's done right even though there is no evidence to support this statement and it's never been done before. How can socialism work "if done right" when our government can't even do something as simple as take our social security withholdings from our paychecks and give it back to us when we retire? There is no social security trust fund, just IOUs from the federal government who spent the money. Based on the current condition of our government, there is no evidence that our government could "do (i.e. implement) socialism right" and it makes no sense for socialists to think so. If you are a liberal or a socialist, you must change your solutions to those that help capitalism work for all Americans as the plan presented herein will. The solution is less government not more government.

If you are a conservative and/or a free trade globalist and you still believe that its perfectly fine for a business to move its factories to a foreign country then import their product back into America without penalty, or that its perfectly fine for businesses to cut employee benefits and freeze salaries to minimize "labor costs" while company sales, earnings and their stock price skyrocket, you are ignoring what causes your fellow Americans hardship, what causes the great division in America, and what causes your fellow Americans to join fascist groups and support and vote for liberal and socialist Democrats. The Capitalist system we have is not benefitting the majority of Americans and if it is not fixed soon, the changing demographics in the country and changing mindset of America's youth, dictates that America will likely become socialist in two generations. Conservatives will either agree to and support capitalism reforms, as those presented in the plan herein, or you will lose America to Bernie Sanders socialism and then we will all be Venezuelans.

President Trump is trying to undo the devastating effects on the middle class from the prior 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations that did nothing to stop American companies from moving manufacturing jobs from America to foreign countries like Mexico and China. Under the guise of "free" trade, Democrats and Republicans in the Bush and Obama administrations did nothing while American workers were laid off, factories were moved to foreign countries, the newly foreign-made goods were imported back into America, corporate profits rose, stock values rose, CEO and executive compensation rose, and more corporate and executive donations to political re-election campaigns were made. Everybody won except the American worker. This is what President Trump is trying to fix with no help from Democrats or globalist establishment Republicans. President Trump is fighting for the American working class, as the political equivalent of industry disruptors such as Amazon, GoFundMe and Uber.

Although historic, the gains made for the American worker by President Trump will be limited because business leaders don't share the success of the business with the working class. And when President Trump is no longer President, Democrats and Republicans will go right back to looking out for themselves and not doing what is best for the American people.

All over the world people are unhappy with the elites who run their countries. If you are one of these people in a country other than America, the plan presented here will allow you to re-take control over your government too.

In the movie "The Matrix" starring Keanu Reeves, human beings accept the programming of the Matrix as long as they thought they had a choice. Similarly, We the People accept the American political system because WE THINK we have a choice (the Democrat or the Republican). In reality the choice doesn't matter because neither is looking out for our best interests. REJECT THIS CHOICE, JOIN TOGETHER WITH YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS, AND UNITE BEHIND THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST PLAN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THESE ARE THE POLICIES WE NEED TO FIX AMERICA FOREVER.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNLESS WE COME TOGETHER AND COMMUNICATE THESE NEW POLICIES TO EACHOTHER. STUDY AND LEARN THESE POLICIES then tell your co-workers, friends, parents, teachers, students, neighbors and kids about them. Get others to read The American Nationalist Plan for the American People for themselves. IF WE WANT TO KEEP OUR REPUBLIC, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST COME TOGETHER IN POLITICAL UNITY AND RETAKE CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY.



Originally posted August 17, 2016. Last amended June 12, 2019.

ARCHIVES: Income Inequality: Fact or Fiction?
Pope's Inequality Crusade Violates Tenth Commandment


Email The American Nationalist at: