from The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

* * *

A Foundation Upon Which to Build

To undertake the task at hand, we must understand some concepts that were common knowledge to those who gave us this great nation though have since been lost, by various means, to our current process of thought.  The principle concept is an understanding of "the State of Nature".  That is the condition in which we find ourselves, if there is no government. 

If we find ourselves in a State of Nature, we are living in a world absent de jure government.  Each does by only his own moral and ethical constraints, absent legitimate government constraints.

Within a community, it s necessary to moderate each of our individual characteristics and develop a common set which all are bound by.  This is the simplest form of government outside of family.  It is a community with common goals and constraints -- and, a method of dealing with those who violate others within that community.

Common elements for such a community are language, moral values, and heritage.  These three common elements provide for a cohesive community.  Similarly, a state and a nation must also have the common characteristics, though being a much more diverse lot, the larger the government, the less imposition on individual rights.

However, those common elements must, to some degree, be existent, for a nation to truly have the proper foundation to preserve the traditions of its past, to have a cohesive present day, and, a model for its future.

For nearly a century, the fundamentals of those elements within the United States were clearly defined.  However, in more recent times, those "truths' have been distorted and been lost to our contemporary thoughts.  To better understand those founding principles, see "We the People", but, Who are We.

Since our purpose is to Restore Constitutional Government, as intended by the Framers, perhaps it would behoove us to establish some principles on which to judge whether and individual has sufficient understand of, and, respect for, those principles.  The Principle Faction its relationship to lesser factions is discussed in "Factions -- the Chains of Oppression".

Some Thoughts

This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.

The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed.  The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position -- that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.

There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict.  Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to "pick the ground" for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.

In the selection of 'targets', outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.

Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.

There is also the moral consideration -- that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today.  When they make a decision to "target" someone, or, something, they should consider just how the "target" would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions.  The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act.  If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.

On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.

Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the 'target', the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.

If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed.

Some considerations for the evaluation of a 'target':

  • Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the 'target', acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
  • Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
  • If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?

Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient 'friends" (collaborators) of a foreign power, these 'friends' who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered.  The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential 'targets'.