T H E M O V E M E N T

2016 INITIATIVE

A Movement to Reclaim and Restore American Government

 Executive Summary
The 2016 Initiative

The Movement is an aboveground effort to formulate and offer electoral alternatives to the two mainstream political
parties. Our goal is to have a national organization in place for the 2016 elections, with ground operations in all 50
states for the 2016 Presidential primaries. There is a vacuum in the current electoral market, with many Americans
disconnected and disillusioned with the current system of government and political activism. Political parties are
like any other product: they need to be marketed effectively in order to succeed. However, like any other product,
they depend on delivery of satisfaction to their consumers in order for their consumers to transition from one time
buyers to repeat customers.

The simple truth is that the two major political parties in America simply don’t have a winning model. The reason
that they succeed is that they have effectively monopolized the electoral process. Challengers have emerged from
time to time, but their success is usually confined to one election. They are short term phenomenons. The Movement
is intended to become a long term success in American electoral politics, and the 2016 Initiative is intended to be a
road map to the establishment of a viable third party which can eventually displace one or both of the two current
mainstream political parties. Our goal is permanence.

Principles and Mission Statement

The first and foremost principle of The Movement is that property rights are sacrosanct. Any wealth redistribution
schemes which seek to appropriate property or wealth from one group in order to enrich another group are wrong
and constitute a clear encroachment against the equal application of the laws and the Constitution. The use of emi-
nent domain to confiscate property from private landowners for the purposes of transferring that property to private
developers is wrong. We are further opposed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in their current forms, as we
recognize that the government is being utilized as a proxy for the purposes of confiscating the wages of the current
generation of workers and taxpayers in order to enrich senior citizens and other interests. We hold that a republican
democracy, while respectful of the wishes and prerogatives of majoritarian rule, holds certain protections for individ-
ual rights which cannot be infringed on by a tyrannical majority. Chief among those rights is the right to your own
property and wealth, and the principle that the government should only be able to tax wealth for common purposes
like national defense, infrastructure, and the enforcement mechanisms of federal regulatory agencies which enforce
contracts, prevent and prosecute fraud, and ensure that competition is the ultimate arbiter of success in the market-
place.

Our mission is the restoration of constitutionally proper government at the local, state, and federal level. We believe
that in order to achieve this, in order to restore property rights to their sacrosanct place, we must lead an effort to turn
out every incumbent from elected office at the federal level. It is our position that neither of the mainstream parties
respects property rights, and that their key agendas involve gigantic wealth transfer and redistribution schemes from
one segment of society to another. On the liberal or Democratic side, we see an increasing effort to erect and cement
entitlements programs which tax the current generation of workers and taxpayers in order to enrich key constituen-
cies and demographics like seniors and minorities. On the conservative or Republican side, we see increasing efforts
to use taxes in order to fund increased defense appropriations and omnibus spending bills that transfer wealth from
taxpayers to private corporations in the form of no-bid or cost-plus contracts. Both parties have resorted to the use of
fuzzy accounting and they have erected a central banking regime that obfuscates any attempt to reveal its inner
workings to the taxpayers and citizens whose money is routinely devalued by Federal Reserve monetary policy.

The Movement 2016 Initiative

1
Through the expansion of the monetary supply, both Republicans and Democrats have attempted to hide the cost of
their programs by devaluing the existing supply of money. In this way they avoid making politically difficult deci-
sions where tax hikes to offset spending increases are concerned. They deprive not only U.S. citizens of the full val-
ues of their earnings and assets, they also deprive foreign creditors who hold U.S. debt of a full repayment of that
debt. It is antithetical to the idea of sacrosanct property and honest contracts that they would do such a thing.

It is contrary to the national interest that such practices should continue. A government that does not respect con-
tracts, property rights, or individual rights is a tyranny. Rights are sacred and fixed, and the government does not
possess the authority or the liberty to set those rights aside unilaterally for the sake of convenience. The Movement is
intended to press this very message so that when 2016 arrives, we will be positioned with an alternative message to
the message promulgated by the dominant two mainstream political parties.

The Capitol Building

The White House

The Supreme Court

What’s Involved: A Path to Electoral Victory

The 2016 Initiative will require a substantial upfront investment in order to begin operations. Key sub-initiatives are
as follows:

A. Web and Internet Marketing-we will require a webpage, replete with cutting edge design and RSS feeds. We must
also begin immediate development of viral video presentations which can be dispersed throughout the Internet at
popular sites like Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook. The social networking sites will also be key to getting our
message out. We want to recruit on college campuses, through blogs, and various news sites. Moreover, when it
comes to the younger demographic, we want to recruit through slickly produced mini ads and documentaries that
can distributed through Youtube and social networking sites, but also through our own website and Itunes. Eve-
rything should be convertible, downloadable, and easily disseminated so that maximum recruitment is possible.

B. Brochure publication-for the middle aged and senior generations, traditional methods like brochures will be vital
and necessary to communicate our ideals and platforms so that we can recruit.

C. Branding materials-bumper stickers, T-shirts and other apparel, hats, coffee mugs, posters and the like will need to
be up and ready to go ASAP.

D. Candidate development-marketing a political candidate needs to be no different than marketing a political cam-
paign. What we should look for in a potential candidate is someone who is attractive but not threatening, articu-
late but not glib, and ultimately manageable. We want to avoid legacy or dynasty candidates with ties to local or
state political families, as our cachet should center on our outsider and anti status quo stance. We also want to

The Movement 2016 Initiative

2
 avoid candidates with long standing ties to local, state, or national political parties who have run previously and
failed. We are not a second option, and we shouldn’t be doing second run redemption. Candidate development is
precisely that: we take someone who is amendable to our views and ideals, and we teach them how to communi-
cate those ideals and views deftly. We need to know that when we put our candidate in front of a microphone
bank, he or she will be prepared to deal with the media and acquit themselves well.

In particular, we want to avoid candidates who are strongly opinionated on social issues. Social issues are the big
ticket item of the other two parties. Our focus should be on universal concerns shared across all demographics:
namely, economic issues like wages, prices, and jobs. In the past, the two major parties have used social wedge
issues as a distraction from their abysmal record on the economy and on fiscal management. That record is what
we want to debate, because it is their critical weakness. We’ve had two New Deals, a New Frontier, a Great Society,
and a Contract with America. Are we better for having had any of these initiatives? Our opponents will want to
talk about gays in the military, gay marriage, gay adoption, and abortion precisely because they don’t want to talk
about their critical failures economically speaking. 20 recessionary cycles in less than a century speaks to their ut-
ter ineptitude, and that’s what we need to hammer.

It doesn’t matter if you’re white, yellow, red, black, or purple, you want certain things in life: a better salary, a nice
house, financial security, a good life for yourself and for your family. We’re making the argument that the market,
when driven by competition and consumer choice rather than regulation and monopolistic and anti-competitive
practices, can deliver greater prosperity to the greater number of people. The opposition is making the argument
that more laws are needed, and greater amounts of bureaucracy are required, even though we’ve had both for eight
decades and the economy still isn’t delivering for the vast majority of Americans. By stressing universal concerns
and desires through economics, we can transcend race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and any other
classification around.

Despite the fact that the government could provide $13,333.00 for every man, woman, and child in this country
given what it spends in a year, most of us are seeing declining wages, benefits, and battered retirement accounts.
Clearly, the answer isn’t more money for the government or greater amounts of spending to combat our ills. It is
instead a change of government. Our key is to drive this reality home to the American electorate over and over
and over again. Taxes for the status quo represent a monumentally stupid investment for the average taxpayer.
They can do better than a government that pushes them around, takes from them against their consent, and fails to
deliver a better result time and time again.

Our candidates will have to stay on message in order to do this. Media training will be critical. No matter the
question, our candidates should be prepared to bring their answer back to economic or capital concerns. Every-
thing should be tied to the economy. The media will attempt to undermine or distract our candidates, because the
mainstream media in America is an auxiliary of the political status quo. However, there are ways to defeat the me-
dia in their efforts. Take abortion, for example: “What is your position on abortion, Candidate A?” “My position
on abortion is that it is the natural extension of an economic system that has failed women. What woman, if she
had the independence that comes with capital and personal wealth, would choose to terminate a pregnancy? For
that matter, how many women who possessed capital independence and the self-determination which accompa-
nies it would lack access to proper gynecological care and prophylactics? In our society, the most damning indict-
ment of our economic failings where women are concerned is that pregnancy places a woman at a material or eco-
nomic disadvantage.” Everything must be skillfully brought back to matters of economics and capital.

The Movement 2016 Initiative

3
 Our candidates must be schooled in how to seize control of interviews and settings in which they may face unwel-
come or inconvenient questions. Proper preparation eliminates poor performance. Candidate development will
likely be the most expensive and resource intensive part of our program in the initial phase. We will be systemati-
cally grooming candidates at the state and local levels for 2016 and beyond. Our success depends on their prepara-
tion and the performance thereof. Anything less than the total and skillful obliteration of hostile questioners
within the media ought to be considered a failure. We want our candidates prepared to dominate, not to deflect or
to duck.

E. Administrative and Hierarchical Establishment-We need to establish an administrative model where there is a
national and regional emphasis initially, and as we build our organization in states and localities, we can build a
local and state organization as well. It is vital to hold administrative costs to an absolute minimum. We need a
three person team initially: an administrator who possesses a record of organizational success; another individual
whose sole purpose is to refine the message and principles associated with our movement and to train candidates
and personnel at the lower levels in the program; and a fundraiser whose full time job shall be recruiting financial
support and establishing a network of financial donors. The bulk of the grunt work ought to be done through in-
ternships offered to college and graduate students which will fund their education for the semesters during which
they work with us. The idea man shall work exclusively on candidate recruitment and on recruitment in general.

All other consultants and contractors shall be independent of the hierarchy and organization. They shall be re-
tained for specific tasks like IT support, website and graphic design, local precinct organization and strategy, and
various advisory roles. We want them external to the organization, but they should be required to sign binding
Non Disclosure Agreements. Message control and discipline are critical to our success, and we should have a vir-
tual monopoly on the flow of information about our initiatives and efforts. We cannot ensure candid and frank
discussion of strategies and tactics if we have to worry about unwarranted public disclosures.

The initial and upfront investment necessary to get the organization up and running during the first two years of
its existence should be $100 million. In the election cycle, we will require at least that much for our local and
statewide races, as well as any funding we might give to federal candidates running under our banner. A presiden-
tial campaign and a coinciding national election campaign with a slate of candidates running under one banner to
displace incumbents will cost well over $500 million dollars. With that said, the cost of tax compliance in any given
year in this country is some $140 billion or more. Regulatory compliance and licensing requirements involve bil-
lions in fees and filings. Taxes represent another significant drain on resources for investors and traders, as well as
the average Americans we hope to recruit.

Let’s review a listing of the taxes you face as an average individual in America: there are licensing taxes, sales taxes,
income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, state taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, hotel and lodging taxes, lux-
ury taxes, custom duties and tariffs. Even with the upfront taxes, you still face the hidden cost of the corporate
income tax, of which 71% is passed on to consumers and laborers. There are the additional hidden taxes of regula-
tory regimes like distributorships, which, the case of alcohol distilleries and breweries, pass on an additional 20%
price premium to consumers. There are local and regional cartels in healthcare, wholesaling, and various other
institutions which are the sole creation of regulatory requirements, and each of these results in an additional cost to
consumers.

The question is not how you can afford to invest in an alternative to the political status quo. It is instead how can
you afford not to invest in an alternative? The two dominant political parties have been promising change in one
The Movement 2016 Initiative

4
 form or another for their entire existence. Regardless of whatever initiatives they have instituted, one dominant
trend has stayed constant: they require ever greater amounts of money to govern, and they take it regardless of
what you or I think about their agendas or programs. The Republicans and Democrats are not going to improve.
They are not going to change. They have no incentive to change. The existing and dominant political paradigm in
this country is lucrative to the two political parties who currently dominate it and owe their continued prosperity
to its continued existence.

$500 million is a pittance compared to what you’ll lose if they succeed. The 2016 Initiative is designed to mount a
challenge to their dominance that is successful and long term. The reforms instituted in the event of our electoral
success will be hard to reverse.

What’s Possible

There are many areas that can be pared from our existing government. We must begin with Executive Agencies.
Specifically, I believe that we must abolish the following departments for our beginning round: the Department of
Education; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security. The first three departments should present a minimal challenge. Drug Enforcement,
indeed, criminal enforcement is best left to the states. Educational funding is best left to state and local govern-
ments as well, given that it is administered by the state Boards of Education and various local school boards. The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can easily be done away with, as all states have an existing regulatory
apparatus in place to confront the areas and issues handled by such an agency.

The Department of Homeland Security will present a challenge politically. It is an appropriations cash cow. The
corporations who contract business with Homeland Security will fight hard to mount a campaign in the public
domain to oppose its abolition. We need to be prepared for this. When we get our candidates elected, we must
recognize that the fight is only beginning. Sufficient funds need to be kept on hand to fight the public relations
battle which will most certainly occur in the event we attempt to abolish specific departments.

Where entitlements are concerned several key realities must be noted: a repeal of entitlements programs will re-
quire a long term program to gradually undo the specific programs. For instance, where Social Security is con-
cerned, we will require at least two decades of preparation to completely repeal the program. Ideally, any individ-
ual 45 and over would receive Social Security as per usual. Individuals under 45 years of age by a certain cut off
date could be enrolled in private retirement accounts. They could elect to place their withholdings in either a Roth
IRA or 401(k) style account, and we could sweeten the deal by making their contributions tax free both at the time
of the initial contribution and upon retirement. People shouldn’t be penalized for planning ahead for retirement
through taxes on their retirement earnings so that the government can sustain itself.

The individuals who were scheduled to receive Social Security would receive it on certain conditions: they would
have no outside income in excess of a certain amount, and if married, their combined household incomes could not
exceed a certain amount without their eligibility being effected. Social Security as a program ought to be a safety
net for those retirees who actually need a safety net. For those who don’t, Social Security should be removed be-
cause it functions as nothing more than a subsidy to their already ample retirement. This would have the benefit of
lessening the budgetary amount needed to fund Social Security benefits, and it would enable us to gradually phase
out the program itself with a minimum of pain to the recipients. The total time for the program to dissolve should
be no longer than 50 years overall. However, the eligible pool of beneficiaries will be greatly reduced by our re-
forms and the corresponding expense would be minimized by this and by their increasing mortality over time.

The Movement 2016 Initiative

5
 Medicare would be privatized and spun off as a stand alone program funded by the premiums of enrollees. Sen-
iors need medical insurance, and the likelihood that they can get the insurance they require from private insurers
who rightly view them as an undue risk would be unrealistic. Medicare would be self-sustaining from the premi-
ums of enrollees. We want to spin Medicare off and provide a model whereby the enrollees’ premiums are used to
fund Medicare as a whole. The net effect of privatization is that Medicare enrollees would seek only the care that
they need rather than viewing healthcare as a luxury afforded them by a government subsidy which they can ex-
ploit to a maximum degree as they prefer.

For those of limited means, Medicaid would be available, but in greatly reduced form. Ability to pay would be a
factor in both copays and patient maximums. Medicaid would require some form of patient contribution in the
form of a copay or percentage liability.

In Social Security and Medicare reform and privatization, we will have greatly cut nearly 40% of our annual ex-
penditures.

In defense spending, we currently maintain a stockpile of some 5,700 warheads. Strategically speaking, we could
maintain a deterrent and defensive effect with just 300. Moreover, we could lead the world in nuclear non-
proliferation efforts and set a powerful precedent by beginning the unilateral destruction of some 5,400 warheads
of our own volition apart from international accords or negotiations. The savings would likely be significant, and
the geopolitical and diplomatic ramifications would be positive.

We spend some 8 times what our nearest competitor spends in overall defense spending. We could cut our defense
expenditure by half and greatly reduce our presence abroad in order to cut spending overall. The truth is that we
would still be spending some 3 to 4 times what China spends in overall defense funding. Our major strategic rival
is China, and their emphasis is on building a navy to challenge our hegemony in the Pacific. We need to look at
ways of addressing their naval buildup that are not cost intensive, such as a sonar array to detect fleet and craft
movements.

With all of the cuts that are possible, what is also possible is a streamlining of the regulatory process. Simply put,
regulatory compliance is in the 19th century, with mountains of paper forms that are labor intensive to fill out.
While this is ideal for the army of attorneys and accountants who have grown fatter and fatter with each new
round of government regulation and reform, it is a drain on our industry and on investors. Modernization must
take place. The emphasis in regulatory oversight should center on two key areas: the prevention of fraud and the
defense of contracts. Everything else is extraneous.

We want to ensure fiscal transparency on the part of our publicly traded corporations in order to enable investors
to know exactly what they are investing in when they purchase stock. Fraud prevention entails streamlining cor-
porate reporting to simplify the process involved and make it easier to measure whether a company’s books match
its performance.

At the heart of our economy is the contract. Without honest contracting and the trust that develops out of such
contracting, we can have no orderly or legal regimes sprouting forth. In the past, various investors and hedge
funds have viewed themselves as pirates seeking the plunder. If the company in question is legitimately ripe for
the plunder due to underlying instability in its balance sheets, so be it. We must regard hedge funds as fulfilling a
vital role within the economic food chain akin to that of vultures and hyenas. They eat the carrion and clean up the
mess. It is far better that they should perform such tasks than the government, which inevitably has to commit the
taxpayer’s money for bailouts. However, in the event that underlying instability arises as the result of contractual

The Movement 2016 Initiative

6
 malfeasance, the government has a vested interest in defending the company from undue dissolution. We will
have the rule of law and contracts in our markets. The government’s chief purpose is the preservation of its elec-
tor’s property, life, and liberty. The government’s proper role where the breaking or undermining of contracts is
concerned is as a defender of contracts, and by extension, property.

We cannot expect to attract steady and solid capital to our markets if our regulatory regime produces an environ-
ment akin to the Wild West. That’s what we’ve had, and as a result, we’ve had boom and bust cycles for the past
century. We can stabilize the national and global economy through reform of the regulatory regime that is sensible
and simplified down to the aforementioned two areas of fraud prevention and contract defense. What’s more, we
do not require the proliferation of various alphabet agencies to deal with these two areas.

Conclusion

Change is possible, but only if you entertain the possibility first. The Movement and the 2016 Initiative are a way
towards change. The two dominant political parties of the mainstream represent and indeed embody the failed
policies and programs of the past. They will not change. They know no other way than the way that they have
always done things in the past.

With proper investment, and the determination of individuals committed to change, we can affect change that will
irreversibly reorder the course of our nation for years to come. Change is necessary if we are to maintain our place
in the world and affect wider change globally along the lines outlined in the preceding paragraphs.

We can bring broader prosperity through a free market to the electorate, and we can once and for all dispel any
false notions held within that electorate about the efficacy of the free market and capitalism. In doing so, we will
also thoroughly discredit competing ideologies. However, for this to happen, the Movement and the 2016 Initiative
require support in order to move from the abstract to concrete reality. The investment required is significant, but
no more significant than the sacrifices you most certainly will face at the hands of a government which increasingly
holds the property rights of its citizens in low regard. For our government, the means justifies the end. No right is
sacrosanct or beyond the reach of their power to intrude or confiscate. It is time to fund alternatives to the existing
dominant paradigm. As noted above, the investment is significant, but the payoff is liberating and lucrative.

The Movement 2016 Initiative

7
The Movement 2016 Initiative