July 27, 2009

Jews Preparing to Oust Obama?

It's said that pattern recognition is a sign of intelligence. So those who are intelligent, will recognize the very particular pattern that the Jewish men (Sumner Redstone, Jeff Bewkes, Robert Iger, Rupert Murdoch, Les Moonves, and Jeff Zucker), who run the six major media conglomerates, which in turn control 90% of America's media outlets, use to manipulate presidential politics.

If a president is able to achieve a second term in office, he is immediately put on notice by our Jewish Media Masters, that they are still in the driver's seat. They control the office of the presidency of a second-term holder by using a steady campaign of derogatory propaganda to limit the president's approval rating, in an effort to demonstrate to him that they are in control and if he thinks that a second and therefore final term in office is going to insulate him from their power, he is wrong.

With Nixon they used Watergate; Reagan, Iran-Contra; Clinton, Monica Lewinsky; and Bush the Iraq War to maintain a steady barrage of negative publicity against each so that he would be aware that he still had to do as he was told.

Most politicians understand that the Jewish Media-Money Matrix is the real power in Washington and that if they want to advance or even continue in their chosen professions they had better acclimate themselves to it. But many of them believe that if they can get a second term as president - because this signals the end of their careers and they will no longer be beholden to the media for positive press - they will be able to implement the policies they truly want to implement. A barrage of negative media attention by their Jewish masters, in a president's second term, is the means by which those masters demonstrate that they still hold the whip.

Those odd cases, in which a politician is able to reach the apex of his chosen profession and sit in the Oval Office without an understanding of Jewish Power, are always one term presidents. Jimmy Carter is the perfect example. He locked the Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, and the leader of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, in a room and forced them to negotiate a peace accord at Camp David in 1978. Foolish move. Begin was so incensed that Carter was ousted from office in 1980.

Is Barack Obama the next Jimmy Carter? Both men, by all accounts, have high IQs. Both have a bit of the messiah complex about them. And both seem to be completely oblivious of the fact that the Jews determine their fate.

Because of the tremendous power, their control of our media gives them, the Jewish puppet masters of our politicians can pick and choose which stories to highlight and which to bury, as well as, what value to assign to those stories. With Carter they chose to highlight the hostage crisis in Iran to the exclusion of almost all other stories and they chose to apply the value that the crisis was due to Carter's incompetence, thus ending Carter's career and ushering in the Reagan Era.

It seems the old dogs are up to their old tricks. They appear to be intent on using Obama's lack of citizenship as a lever to force his hand. As a former Muslim and a man with a very powerful black racist identity, Obama sides with all those he perceives as non-White against all those he sees as White. And he sees the Iranians as non-White and the Israelis as White, so he has sided with the Iranians in their conflict. This has made the extremely powerful Jews very angry and they are going to use the birth certificate issue to get Obama to do their bidding against Iran. If he doesn't, he will be out of office.

The only question is, will they wait for the next election cycle or not? I think not. They are already beginning to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings against him. They recently allowed Lou Dobbs to discuss his lack of citizenship on national radio and a Jewish kiosk owner is making national headlines for selling "Impeach Obama" stickers in a mall in North Carolina. Further, Israeli news sources are reporting that Israeli Jews are organizing anti-Obama rallies. They forced him to choose Biden as a running mate precisely because of this scenario. Biden has publicly declared himself an ardent Zionist. If Obama doesn't deal with Iran, Biden will be put in the Oval Office to do so.

Of course, the Jewish Controlled Media (JCM) will do as they always do and look for the magnification effect. In other words, they will look to see what other hay they can make from the scandal and rest assured after they oust Obama they'll find a way to blame "White Racism" for his removal.

Be intelligent, recognize the patterns.

July 24, 2009

On the Existence and Nature of God

Recently, a column by Pat Buchanan, occasioned a mini-storm in that elite sector of the blogosphere where the best thinking is done. In his piece, "Making a Monkey out of Darwin," Buchanan presented a case for declaring "Darwinism" obsolete. Noted evolutionary psychologist, Kevin MacDonald, offered a retort, showing the reasoning buttressing Buchanan's claim to be defective. Others, like the team over at SpiritWaterBlood.com also weighed in on the matter. Great minds all, they never-the-less fall into the dual trap of conflating theology (the study or theory of God) with religion (the practice founded on a given theology) and acquiescing to the false idea that evolution and biblical creation are mutually exclusive.

Let's extricate the various components of this long-running argument. The first question we must ask is, "Does God exist?" If we accept the notion, drawn from the biblical quote that ". . . God created man in his own image" (Genesis 1:27) of an anthropomorphic God in the sky, who created us and deeply cares for us, then we are going to have a hard time proving his existence. But if instead, we define God as something that is known to exist, then we have just proved the existence of God.

Anselm of Canterbury once defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Had he left out the word, "conceived," he would have been correct. The true definition of God is: "That which nothing greater can be." In other words, God is the greatest thing. Surpassing the need to define the word "great" one can simply show that, because no one part of a thing can be greater than the whole, God must be "Everything," or God must be the cosmos. This concept of God can also be found in the bible when it is revealed to John that God is, ". . . the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (NIV Revelation 22:13).

We can conclude that God must be the cosmos from the properties of God as well. It is generally accepted that God has three inter-related and essential properties - He (if God is the Cosmos, "He" is the wrong pronoun - "It" would be more accurate, but force of habit and tradition preclude me from using the latter) is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. Each of these follows from the next. For God to be any of these, He would have to be All-things, or the Cosmos. Because knowledge is power, to be all-powerful He would need to have all-knowledge, thus He would be omniscient. To have all-knowledge He would have to be everywhere all at once, thus He would need be omni-present, in order to be omnipresent He would have to be all things. He couldn't permeate anything to a sufficient level to be omni-present unless He was that thing en toto.

What else can we infer from a God that is the Cosmos? Cosmologist believe that the cosmos is comprised of two elements - space and time. It's further understood that these two things are so closely related and that the correct term for them isn't "space and time" but rather, "space-time."

There are two essential forces in the cosmos the "resolute" force that creates and the "dissolute" force that destroys. In combination these are God. Space is the domain of the resolute force. It is within the realm of space that the Cosmos/God using the trinity of fundamental ingredients - matter (the Father), energy (the Holy Spirit), and consciousness (the Word or the Son) combine to create all that is. Time is, of course, the dissolute force or the destroyer. In colloquial speech, we often say, "an idle mind is the devil's workshop." And, of course, in time all things are leveled or destroyed. The Greek word for time is Chronos. The Romans used Saturn, a corruption of this term, Satan, would eventually come to represent the destructive force for Christians.

Evolution, of which Darwinism or Biological Evolution is a sub-segment, is the process through which the Cosmos/God creates or put more accurately is created, because the creation of God - or that which God creates - is literally the creation of God - or God creating or becoming God. Nihilists believe in the non-teleological or never-ending process of becoming and if the resolute and dissolute forces are equal then they are correct, however, if the resolute force is stronger, then the Cosmos will ultimately resolve perfectly. This perfection would by definition exist outside of time and would account for the understanding of god that allows for such a thing as "free will." Evolution is simply God creating or becoming God.

The biblical account of a six day creative process oddly parallels the creation sequence anticipated by cosmologists. Genesis reports that God created the universe through divine logos or He literally "spoke" it into being. Cosmology believes the universe was initiated by a Big Bang. Curiously, they equate the moment of creation to a sound. If God were to speak everything into being, what would those words sound like? I assume they'd sound very much like a BIG BANG. The first thing He creates, according to the biblical account, is light. Cosmologists also believe that the Big Bang resulted in the instantaneous flooding of the universe with luminescent gaseous particles. In other words the universe was entirely lighted, or restated, the big bang created light.

The next thing to occur, in the Genesis account, is a separation of light from darkness. Science believes the formation of the stars and planets occurred due to gravity forcing the gaseous light particles to clump together, or from the separation of lighted matter from the dark vacuum of space. If you are standing on one of these "clumps," say earth, the rest of them, combined with space, constitute the firmament.

On the third day of the biblical story, the earth is shaped. From the point of view of a cosmologist this is consistent with what they think occurred. Earth was not the first of the objects that came to be from the "clumping" process of gravity, it developed later.

Then The Bible tells us that plant life was created followed by a setting of the lights (the sun and moon) in the heavens on the fourth day. Plant life certainly did come before the rest of life according to evolutionists but the "setting of the lights" is partially inconsistent with the scientific account. Although the moon did come later, as a result of a collision with with earth and another body, the sun came before the earth.

The Genesis version has God creating animal life on the fifth day and Man on the sixth. Both of which are consistent with evolutionary theory. Animals developed after the formation of earth and the flowering of plant life and homo-sapiens, as the most evolved of the animals comes into existence very late in the process.

The biblical creation story is an advanced theoretical but allegorical account of how the universe was created. As allegory it is an almost identical match for how science believes the universe evolved. The disagreement between the two camps - creationist and evolutionist - is both arbitrary and fabricated, and exists solely to enable each group to maintain or garner power, respectively.

July 21, 2009

Identity Politics - A Primer

Pat Buchanan wrote in is most recent column, "Why No Evangelical Justice," that:

. . . Republicans were warned not to give Sonia
Sotomayor the drubbing Democrats gave Robert Bork and Sam Alito -- lest they be perceived as sexist and racist by women and Hispanics -- the threat was credible, for it underscored a new reality in American politics.

What he didn't say is that, the reality it underscored has a name.

Liberalism is simply a mechanism whereby Western
Society is divided into different factions called "identity groups" which in turn are used to destroy the society in order to effect totalitarian global governance. This is called "Identity Politics."

The powers-that-be effectively divide our society into nine different "identities." Not all institutions classify in the same way but this division is representative of the whole.

Those identities are:
1. Jews
2. Homosexuals/feminists
3. Rich and upper-middle class White men
4. Asians
5. Lower-middle class and working class White men
6. Women
7. Hispanics
8. Blacks
9. Other

Although technically #5 has been stripped of its identity and is identity-less. I like to call the other identities, Privileged Identity Groups (or PIGs). The top four PIGs act together to form a ruling class with power distributed roughly as listed. In other words, Jews are the most powerful of the top four identity groups and Asians are the least powerful of those four groups.

The bottom four PIGs act as a permanently oppressed class which must be up-lifted in some way. The ruling PIGs define themselves as the protectors, enablers, and empowerers of the bottom four PIGs.

In order to do this they need an enemy, someone whom they can scapegoat as the oppressors. That leaves the one group that has been stripped of its identity - heterosexual, working class, White men.

If you look at this scheme you'll notice that this identity-less group is placed right, smack-dab in the middle.

Class is now defined as described above and White, heterosexual, working class men are now the despised middle class. Hence the phrase "war on the middle class."

July 19, 2009

Reveries on Ordering-Out

Earlier this afternoon, while working on a YouTube video project with some of my colleagues from North East White Pride, I got hungry and, because I was too busy to prepare lunch, decided to order out. I called up a local pizza joint and ordered a steak bomb with pickles and mayonnaise. That's where the problem started.

Although I considered myself fortunate, that I didn't have to not "press two for Spanish," my sensibilities were still assaulted by the sequence of events that transpired. There was nothing particularly unusual about the events - they're common enough in this medium-sized suburb of Boston with a population that is 10-15% non-White. They happen to me every time I order out, regardless of which restaurant I order from.

As soon as the foreign-sounding person on the phone answered, he shouted, "pick-up or delivery," in a version of English I could barely comprehend. I answered, "delivery." Because I'm a semi-regular customer, he already had my address and shouted it down the telephone-line for me to confirm. Which I did. He then mumbled the cost, first saying it was ten dollars and some amount of change that was inaudible and then quickly correcting himself by saying it was eight dollars and something (the change amount was again, incomprehensible), and told me it would be "about 30 minutes."

About 15 minutes later there was a knock on my door. I answered it, the delivery person of foreign origin stared at me, vaguely insolently, saying nothing. I asked how much the total was and he stated flatly, "eight dollars." I handed him a ten and told him to keep the change, he grunted and walked away.

This exchange reminded me of Robert Putnam's (Harvard's lead diversity expert) recent study that found that multi-culturalism is a community killer. After a career, spanning 30 years, promoting the propaganda that "diversity is our strength" he finally actually studied the matter and found - what those of us not living in an ivory tower, already knew - diversity is destroying us. He says his study shows that, "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down", he said. "We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us."

This is just a convoluted way of saying people of different backgrounds, world-views, customs, and traditions do not a community make. Because it seems that all of the restaurants in my area are owned and operated by foreigners, I am reminded of this fact, every time I order out.

Twenty years ago, when this part of north-eastern Massachusetts was 99% White, ordering out was a pleasant experience. You'd call up, banter with the guy on the phone - in most cases you probably knew him or at least one of his relatives - if it was a girl that answered you'd maybe flirt a little, some young kid would deliver the pizza, there'd be a pleasant exchange and you'd have your food, feeling pretty good about the world.

Whether or not it is because of a language barrier, a cultural barrier, or because they are taught by the current lords of diversity to think of themselves as victims and thus believe themselves to have a right, nay a duty, to be disrespectful to White men, ordering from these foreigners is always a disjunctive and enraging experience.

Over the last half-century or so, much has been made of the rise in "mental illnesses" (depression, anxiety, and other "stress" related maladies) that require medical expertise and prescription drugs to treat. The increase, in such "illness," parallels, almost perfectly, the demographic change in this nation over the same period. It's clear that multi-culturalism is, in part, responsible for this surge and that this increased alienation is responsible for the general breakdown of community life in America.

This increased alienation is, in turn, partially responsible for the surge in crime, the number of failed marriages, the amount of teenage pregnancy, promiscuity and sexual perversity, drug abuse (both street and prescription). Much of which exacerbate, the already barely manageable, disjunction caused by "diversity."

These developments should make one thing clear - diversity is our destruction. It's true aim is the death of White America. We must stop the "browning of America" and restore our customs, traditions, and culture or the American Experiment will surely fail. As a result American civilization will collapse and we will all, regardless of cultural origins, suffer the consequences.

July 16, 2009

Nationalism - The Solution to the Foremost Problem

Many wonder, if there is a foremost problem, then there must be a solution to it. What is that solution?

The solution to Jewish cultural hegemony is nationalism. Nationalism is the historical idea that states are at their most efficient and the citizens of said states enjoy the best balance of security, freedom, and wealth distribution when the population is based on a common language and culture. Nationalism is closely associated with Republicanism - or the right of the people to rule themselves. Historically, it has been the most common form of statehood. It's opposite is globalism. Globalism is closely associated with empire and is a form of government that is structured to benefit elites. Its causes and effects are always to steal wealth from the people and redistribute it to the elites. It is, by definition, multi-cultural.

A well-run society is the product of an optimum balance between the two competing desires of its population - the individuals' desire to be completely unrestrained, on the one hand, and their counter-balancing desire to be prosperous. Anarchy means no government and, in theory, is the perfect expression of freedom. Anarchy does not exist in nature but the closer a group comes to it the more impoverished they are. The foundation of prosperity lies in order and stability. So people consent to governance in order to create that foundation. But because those in government gain power from being in a position of power they become corrupt and seek more power. The end result of this search for power is total government or "totalitarianism."

Totalitarians then (or sometimes synchronously) seek to extend their power over others. Once they achieve a level of control over a society they use that society to dominate other societies. This leads to imperialism. Which extended to its fullest is world domination. This is the end goal of the Jewish Extremists and their collaborators.

Humans have a series of natural sub-groupings all with needs and desires specific to themselves that often overlap or conflict. The fundamental element of humanity is, obviously, the individual. Individuals form natural groups that extend through the following range:

  1. Family

  2. Clan (Extended Family)

  3. Tribe

  4. Nation

  5. Sub-Race

  6. Race

  7. Humanity

Each of these groups has natural advantages and disadvantages as to whether or not they are suitable for providing the building blocks of talent and energy that is necessary to create the balance that humans desire, without creating a system so large that the individual is incapable of recognizing himself. Historically, families, clans, and tribes have proven too small to provide the critical mass of talent and developed skill-sets to produce the highest level of prosperity. On the other hand, the sub-racial, racial, and species groupings have proven too large and unwieldy, which combined with an associated loss of identity and purpose in the individual, leads to difficulty in creating healthy, well-balanced societies. Only the "Nation" grouping allows for the best balance of talent, skill-sets, and identity that in turn allows for the best balance of governance and freedom.

After America's Founding Fathers attended to the problem of establishing a government for their fledgling federation, they turned to the problem of populating and growing it. They understood the idea of nationalism, expressed above, and were concerned with how to increase the population of the federation. They decided to experiment with the idea of a racial nation based on all of the natural characteristics of a typical ethnic nation (i.e. a common language, religion, political system, legal system, system of weights & measures, etc.). All of the accoutrements of a natural ethnic culture extended to the racial extreme. Toward this end, they passed the Immigration Act of 1790, which made non-White immigration into the Union, illegal. Thus was White Nationalism born. They never intended for this nation to be multi-racial or to have any religion other than Christianity (I do not profess to any religion), for they understood that attempting that would doom it. The experiment teetered and tottered for a while but ultimately proved to be successful. In fact, it got so bad that they had to pass another immigration act in 1924 to limit immigration to the percentages of the various ethnicities that were already present in the country.

As mentioned, nationalist states are monocultural and mono-ethnic so Nationalism equates to Ethnic Nationalism. Because America is a nation of many ethnicities, and those ethnicities tend to coalesce into political groupings that are uber-ethnic, or racial, the normal desire for shared culture, traditions, folkways, and history becomes race based. Racial Nationalism evolved from this desire. All races in America, except Whites - are not only allowed - but encouraged, to form raced-based political organizations. This leaves Whites at a tremendous disadvantage in a society that increasingly founds social policy on racial identity. White Nationalism is an organic movement to counter this disadvantage.

July 13, 2009

White Nationalist Debate on the Morning Liftoff Show

As many of you know, I discussed White Nationalism and the issue of White Rights on George Russell's Morning Liftoff show this morning.

Here's a link to the 30 minute interview:

Russell A. James Interview on George Russell's Morning Liftoff

I think it went well, let me know what you think.

July 12, 2009

The Hudson, NH Rally to Protest Illegal Immigration

Yesterday, I attended a rally to protest illegal immigration in Hudson, NH. The event was sponsored by North East White Pride, a group organized to spread awareness of the harm that current government policy is causing to White America and to get local people involved in the struggle against the policy-makers who are imposing these policies on us.

I arrived a few minutes early and because my fellows had not arrived, but many counter-protesters already had, I decided to talk to them and see if we could find any common ground. I was hoping we could at least agree that Whites do have a right to speak freely about the issues that concern us. I was pleasantly surprised at the results. With a few exceptions, they were all very friendly and open to the things I was saying.

I first addressed two young people holding a banner. They politely said that they were only there to support friends who had invited them and weren't prepared to talk about the issues. A woman, Vivian McGuire, who identified herself as a Jew, immediately flew into a frenzy at my questions. She ranted incoherently about how Israelis had the right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians (seriously, she said this) from their (the Palestinians) homeland of Palestine, but that Whites had no expectation of having ethnically or racially homogeneous countries or even communities of their own. She ranted some more about how I was a NaziWhoWantedToKillSixMillionJews, until her husband stepped in front of her and told her to calm down and quit acting so irrationally. He further told her that I had been exceedingly polite and amicable and there was no reason for her to continue ranting.

He then turned to me and introduced himself as Kevin. I gave him my name, we shook hands and had a short, very congenial, discussion. We found that we were in agreement on many positions, particularly about the repeated abrogations of our constitutionally protected rights, especially those centering on the first amendment - like the freedom of association that Whites - and Whites only - have been stripped of by the Civil Rights Act. While we were speaking, his wife continued with her irrational behavior and she was joined in this by a women (of indeterminate race), who kept babbling incoherently about her two black children. Several other people, very civilly, added their two-bits and after a while we shook hands and parted amicably. (Although Vivian and the other women followed me, still ranting).

During this conversation, the Amerasian photographer for the Nashua Telegraph, Corey Perrine, was taking photos and as I walked away stopped me to ask questions. While we spoke he related to me briefly, that he was half Korean and half German and that he would not like it if (either) Korea was being flooded by foreigners in the way that America and the other White countries are being destroyed by out-of-control mass immigration.

During our discussion, the Telegraph's journalist, Albert McKeon, assigned to cover the rally, asked if I would grant him an interview. I told him that, in my experience, the corporate media outlets always skew their stories in a manner that is clearly biased against Whites and that if he promised to present my answers as I gave them and not "spin" them I would grant him the interview. He promised to do so. We talked for about five minutes and I gave him the basics of what I perceive to be the foundation of the White Rights movement. During this time he appeared to agree with much of what I was saying. His story was published today, and unfortunately, he misrepresented most of what I had to say.

As I continued toward my group, I stopped to talk to a small group of antis. I conversed with three middle-aged White women, who all clearly had "issues" with men. The gist of the discussion was that women should have he right to choose to do anything they want no matter how destructive to them, men, children, or society in generally and that society should continue to force men to pay for those choices. For example, one of them volunteered that she stood for "a women's right to choose." I asked her if she was equally supportive of a man's right to choose. She looked confused as if the idea that men should have any choices was completely foreign to her. I then clarified my question by asking her if she felt that a man should have a right to a "paper abortion." In other words, since an abortion is basically the right of a women to determine for herself whether or not she is ready to have a child and raise it until the age of 18 (and beyond), then a man should have the same right and be able to get an abortion-in-law which would basically be a legal procedure in which he could divest all interest and responsibility in a child that he felt he was not prepared to care for, for the next 18 years of his life. She, of course, said no she did not support a man's right to choose that option.

Our discussion went on for a while in this vein, until I excused myself and walked over to my companions. Albert Mckeon joined us and interviewed both of my companions and then came over to me and we talked, off the record, about the political situation, in America today, with him agreeing with much of what I had to say. This is why his inaccurate relating of our interview was so disappointing. Eventually, Kevin came over and talked for awhile, saying that he felt maybe he was "standing on the wrong side of the street." In other words, he thought he should be protesting with us and not the antis. He then said he was going to the 7-11 across the way and asked us if we wanted anything. Later he brought back drinks.

Vivian and her crazy friend came over and started insulting us (which we never stooped to at any point), after awhile they realized they were making fools of themselves and they walked away.

At 2:45 pm there were three of us and approximately 15-20 of them. About half the people driving by honked, waved, gave us the thumbs up, or gave us the finger. I would estimate that of those that reacted to us, 80-85% were positive and the rest disagreed. Most of those that were angry were non-White, vulgar, and rude. I did not see the counter-protesters (although they had a much larger presence) get any significant attention - good or bad - with the exception of one fella who identified himself as American Indian and excoriated the young couple holding the banner for flying a flag that was not the Stars and Stripes.

By 4pm the counter-protesters' numbers had dwindled by half and we were still holding strong at three protesters and getting more responses from the passers-by. At 4:30 four more of our number arrived and they (the antis) were down to two, both of whom left about 15 minutes later. My conversations with them seemed to discourage them. I think that years of media indoctrination that all Whites, who believe Whites should have rights in their own countries and be able to speak openly about how they feel regarding the anti-White policies that have been imposed on us, are really neo-Nazi, racists caused them to be expecting a representative of the White Rights movement to be vulgar and threatening and when I turned out to be pleasant and reasonable they decided there was really no reason to be standing on the side of the road protesting us.

Overall the rally was a success and I think showed that there is much concern on the part of Whites regarding the Illegal Invasion of our country. Hopefully we can restore integrity to our southern border and then be able to focus our attention on all of the other problems that "diversity" is causing for White America.

July 7, 2009

The Freedom Papers

This past weekend's celebration of our country's independence from imperial tyranny, (the very tyranny that is again, threatening to enslave us - Jewish global banking interests) got me thinking about the founding documents that declared and defined the form of freedom our country would embrace. I like to call these documents "the freedom papers." The freedom papers are that well-known collection of documents; "The Declaration of Independence," "The United States Constitution," and the "Bill of Rights," that form the legal backbone of our federal union.

One reason, the Jewish Supremacists and their collaborators are so easily able to dominate the American people is that so few of the people understand these documents. In fact, few have ever even read them. Because of this, the masters of discourse often present us with "experts," that purport to explain the meaning of our legal code. These "experts" claim some title like, "constitutional scholar," and then proceed to intentionally misinterpret our laws. The number of these "experts" with Jewish names is astounding.

The remedy for this problem is for the average person to gain a better understanding of the freedom papers. Fortunately, one doesn't need to be a "constitutional scholar" to do this. The documents are all very short - the "Bill of Rights" is about 1-1/2 pages long and the longest of the documents, "The Constitution," is only about 15 pages long. A careful reading of all three can be done in about 2-3 hours. Our founding fathers wrote these documents to be understood by the stakeholders of society, so consequently, anybody with an above average IQ can easily read and understand these papers.

I recommend you get started today. Here's some links to the texts:

"The Declaration of Independence"

"The Declaration of Independence" states the case for the justification of going to war against the British Empire. It explains the steps the colonists took in an effort to ameliorate and repair the rupture that they felt had occurred between them and their sovereign, and then explains why they were left with no other option but war.

"The United States Constitution"

"The Constitution" explains the structure of the federal government and defines its powers and responsiblities. For instance, the federal government is limited, in criminal prosecutions, to only three cases: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Yet today, the federal government involves itself in all sorts of internal policing of the people, from enforcing draconian, unconstitutional "civil rights" laws to extending protection to women that want to kill their own unborn children. All of which are none of the federal government's business and are forbidden it by the constitution.

It also defines the three branches of the government - executive, legislative, and judicial and defines their structure and assigns their powers.

"The Bill of Rights"

"The Bill of Rights" lists ten rights of the people that the government must, under no circumstances, violate. It guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet there are more than 25,000 laws currently on the books, that do infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms.

Reading these documents will enable the reader to have a better grasp of the basic law of this country and give him a better sense of when his rights are being violated. The 2-3 hours it would take to read them could possibly well be the best spent hours of one's life.

For those who want an even more in-depth understanding of the law, The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers are the source that real legal experts consult. They are longer and more advanced treatises, but are still very accessible to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

I would also recommend reading your individual state's constitution. They can be accessed here:

list of state constitutions

Once one has finished reading these documents, he can claim to be at least as knowledgeable, on this topic as any of the "experts" one is likely to see on TV.