Donald Trump and the Restoration of the Republic: A New Era in American History

By David Packer

Introduction

Allow me to pontificate for a moment. Since its founding, the United States has prided itself on being a beacon of 'liberty' and 'self-governance'. Yet, many argue that the true nature of the Republic shifted in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. This monumental legislation created the Federal Reserve System, a 'quasi-private', and I'm being nice here, central banking authority, and marked what critics see as a departure from the foundational principles of a free and sovereign nation.

Fast forward over a century, and Donald Trump’s presidency has sparked a bold and polarizing vision: the restoration of the original Republic. By challenging the status quo of centralized financial control and advocating for the abolition of the Federal Reserve and IRS, Trump is positioning himself as more than just a president—but as a historical reformer.

The Fall of the Republic: 1913 and the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve Act, signed by President Woodrow Wilson, is often seen as the beginning of a new era. By centralizing control of the nation’s monetary system under a non-governmental authority, critics argue that economic power shifted away from the people and into the hands of private banking interests.

This shift fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and its citizens. With the introduction of income taxes via the 16th Amendment, the IRS further entrenched this new structure, enabling the federal government to levy taxes directly from individuals. For many, this marked the end of the United States as a "Republic" and the beginning of what some call the "U.S. Corporation."

Trump’s Vision: Restoring the Republic

Donald Trump’s presidency is widely regarded as disruptive, but what if that disruption is precisely what was needed to return to the country’s roots? Key elements of his "restoration agenda" include:

1. Abolishing the Federal Reserve and IRS: Trump has publicly criticized the Federal Reserve for its role in manipulating monetary policy and fueling economic instability. By proposing the elimination of the IRS and restoring taxation to a constitutional framework, he is directly challenging the structures established in 1913.
2. Reinstating a Real Money Standard: Moving away from fiat currency to a gold- or commodity-backed standard would fundamentally reshape the economy and reassert control over monetary policy.
3. Dismantling the Corporate Entity: By symbolically and legally dissolving the "U.S. Corporation," Trump aims to reassert the sovereignty of the United States as a Republic.

What Number Would Trump Be?

If we consider the Federal Reserve era as a departure from the Republic, the presidents who served under this system might be seen as leaders of the corporate entity rather than the true Republic. The last "Republican" president before the Federal Reserve Act was William Howard Taft, the 27th President. Under this framework, Donald Trump’s presidency could be viewed as the 28th of the Restored Republic. However, if we go back to 1871 when the original District of Columbia was formed as the Corporation of DC then Trump might be the 19th president of the Constitutional Republic!        

The Impact of Restoration

If Trump succeeds in this mission, the implications would be enormous:

• Economic Sovereignty: Ending the Federal Reserve would return control of monetary policy to the people.
• Taxation Reform: Abolishing the IRS could lead to a simplified and constitutional tax system.
• Constitutional Governance: Dissolving the corporate structure would realign government operations with the Constitution.

For many, these changes symbolize a return to the original intent of America’s Founders: a nation of free individuals governed by laws, not interests.

THE MAN

Donald Trump’s presidency is about more than policy—it’s about legacy. If the Republic is truly restored, his place in history will be cemented as a transformative leader who challenged entrenched systems to revive the principles of liberty and self-governance.

Whether one agrees with his methods or not, the significance of this potential shift cannot be overstated. As the saying goes, "History is written by the victors," and Trump’s efforts might just redefine what it means to be victorious in the fight for freedom.

The Weight of our 'Constitution' and Individual Freedom

The U.S. Constitution was explicitly crafted to protect the freedom of the people from oppressive government actions. It outlines a framework where the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, ensuring that no law infringes upon fundamental liberties guaranteed by its provisions.

• The Supremacy of Constitutional Intent: The Constitution's primary intent is to safeguard personal freedom. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights enshrine this principle, emphasizing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights.
• No Law Can Contradict the Constitution: Article VI establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, meaning no subsequent amendment, law, or policy can override its foundational principles.

The 16th Amendment and Freedom

The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave Congress the power to levy income taxes without apportionment among the states. Critics argue that this amendment violates constitutional freedoms:

1. Mandatory Taxation as Coercion:
2. Conflict with Constitutional Principles:

?? Hypothesis: Foreign Interference Potentials ??

The presence of foreign influence within the U.S. banking system, facilitated through foreign-owned or influenced financial institutions operating in collaboration with the Federal Reserve System, creates a potential likely pathway for 'indirect' (definitions are elusive) manipulation of American monetary policy and, consequently, 'U.S. laws'. This influence is particularly significant in the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, where foreign-affiliated institutions could indirectly impact decision-making through their financial relationships and market leverage.

The Federal Reserve System comprises 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, each serving a specific geographic area of the United States. These regional banks are integral components of the nation's central banking system. While foreign banking organizations (FBOs) operate within the U.S. financial system, they do not own or have direct control over the Federal Reserve Banks.

Foreign Banking Organizations in the U.S.:

Foreign banks engage with the U.S. financial system through various means, including:

• Branches and Agencies: Foreign banks may establish branches or agencies in the U.S. to conduct banking operations.
• Subsidiaries: Some foreign banks own 'U.S.-chartered' subsidiary banks, allowing them to operate under U.S. banking regulations.

These entities are subject to oversight by the 'Federal Reserve' (A Proverbial LOOP as they have overwhelming authority and Influence), and other regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with U.S. laws and to maintain financial stability.

Was This The First Interference - The Titanic Connection

The sinking of the Titanic in 1912 has long been tied to conspiracy theories regarding opposition to the Federal Reserve:

• Key Figures Lost: Wealthy individuals such as John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isidor Straus perished on the Titanic. These men were opposed to the creation of the Federal Reserve.
• Survivors Linked to the Fed: Proponents of these theories point to individuals like J.P. Morgan, a major supporter of the Federal Reserve, canceled his plans to board the Titanic last minute.
• Concerning Claims: Are the connections between the Titanic disaster and the Federal Reserve inception and simultaneous ratification of the 16th amendment coincidental?

Engagement with Federal Reserve Banks:

While foreign banks operate within the U.S. and interact with the Federal Reserve System, they supposedly do not hold ownership stakes in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, but this is a slippery slope. Ownership of these regional banks is limited to 'U.S.-chartered' member banks, which can be and are foreign owners as listed above in 'Subsidiaries' structure, which are required to hold stock in their respective Federal Reserve Banks. This structure ensures that control and governance of the Federal Reserve Banks remain within domestic, but yet there are Loop Holes allowing foreign ownership of U.S.-chartered institutions. Puzzling? Not really. There are safety in numbers, so if a concerns wants control, what better way to do it than under guise of oversight, but yet Loop Holes around obstructions. Remember, foreign companies and people can create a U.S.-chartered subsidiary bank, and as such they then can be part of the Federal Reserve Bank - at least in theory. These are powerful entities, so we will probably never really know the truth. The point is... why would this be allowed? It's simple, foreigners can not own banks here especially part of such a powerful, influential organization with ultimate power (Influence) over our laws and nation?

Application to the 12 Regional Banks:

1. Engagement with Foreign Financial Institutions:
2. Market Dependency and Policy Sensitivity:
3. Legislative Implications:

Provoking Thoughts:

Foreign influence, direct or indirect, has the potential to shape U.S. monetary and legislative outcomes by leveraging financial operations tied to the Federal Reserve's regional banking system. Safeguarding against such influence requires strict rules and disallowances or controls concerning foreign banking interactions and transparent governance within the Federal Reserve framework. Perhaps it is too broken now to really fix, and needs an extremely overhaul.

• Nullification by Principle: If the Constitution's intent is to protect freedom, any amendment, law, or policy that undermines this intent could be deemed invalid. By this reasoning, the 16th Amendment contradicts the foundational structure of the Constitution and could be considered null and void.

Treason by Design: Allowing private citizens to control the nation’s monetary system and profit from mandatory taxation could be interpreted as a betrayal of public trust, violating the principles of self-governance and freedom.        

Conclusion

By its very nature, the 16th Amendment, coupled with the Federal Reserve’s establishment, challenges the Constitution’s core purpose of protecting individual freedom. Any legal structure that mandates the surrender of personal earnings under penalty of law and centralizes wealth in private hands directly conflicts with the Constitution's principles and intent, rendering it ??? 'constitutionally invalid' ???.

The restoration of the Republic and freedom may hinge on revisiting these pivotal historical decisions to realign governance with the Constitution's original purpose.

Evidence Outlining That 1913 Was The Year of The Coup D'etat

If you've read this far than you're ready for the big guns:

Here I am emphasizing the stark differences between a constitutional republic and a corporate entity. The Founding Fathers intentionally designed the United States of America to operate under the principles of common law and constitutional governance, which prioritize individual freedoms, state sovereignty, and limited federal power. Let’s unpack this further:

1. Constitutional Foundations

• The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1789, was meticulously crafted to establish a government by the people, for the people—not a corporate framework.
• The Constitution: Clearly defines the roles of the three branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial).

° Ensures that governance is rooted in common law, which derives from natural rights and emphasizes individual liberty and justice.

° Limits the scope of federal power while granting states significant autonomy.

2. Why the Founders Avoided Incorporation

1. At the time of the Constitution’s drafting, corporations existed but were viewed with suspicion due to their connection to monopolies and foreign influence (e.g., the British East India Company).
2. The Founding Fathers intentionally avoided creating a corporate framework for governance because:

• Liability and Accountability: A corporation operates under maritime/admiralty law, emphasizing commerce, contracts, and profit. Such a structure would prioritize financial interests over individual rights.
• Power Dynamics: Corporate governance centralizes power and prioritizes shareholders (or equivalent stakeholders), which contrasts with the Constitution's decentralization of power.
• Sovereignty: Incorporation could allow external influences (e.g., private interests or foreign powers) to infiltrate national governance, undermining independence.

3. The Shift in 1871

• The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a municipal corporation for Washington, D.C., for administrative purposes. While this act was limited to D.C., it introduced the concept of "corporate governance" into the nation’s capital.
• Over time, some argue, this model allowed corporate interests to infiltrate the broader federal structure, leading to a gradual shift from constitutional principles to financial and legal frameworks rooted in admiralty law.

4. Maritime/Admiralty Law vs. Constitutional Law

• Maritime/Admiralty Law: Focuses on commerce, contracts, and profit. Prioritizes financial liabilities and obligations.
• Constitutional Law: Protects unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rooted in the sovereignty of individuals and states, not financial interests.

When a nation shifts toward operating under maritime law principles (as some claim happened post-1871), the emphasis on freedom, sovereignty, and justice can erode, replaced by systems of control centered on debt, taxation, and financial obligations.

5. The Core Difference

The Constitution was designed to uphold freedom and decentralization, while incorporation inherently shifts focus toward control, profit, and centralization. The absence of incorporation in the original governance structure was a deliberate safeguard against tyranny.

Ultimate Conclusion

The Constitution and corporate governance are fundamentally incompatible. The Founding Fathers foresaw the dangers of centralized corporate-style governance, opting instead for a decentralized republic grounded in individual rights. The shift to a corporate framework, whether intentional or gradual, marks a departure from the original intent of the Constitution, raising critical questions about sovereignty, accountability, and liberty.

So... it's obvious our Founding Fathers who fought to save us from Tyranny never wanted the USA to be a corporation and operate under it's guise using corporate law. That means... all of this was Treason. You can argue semantics all you want but the truth is a massive cover-up and a power grab from the private sector.

#Trump2025 #FederalReserve #ConstitutionalLaw #EconomicPolicy #MonetaryPolicy #CentralBanking #PresidentialPolicies #FinancialRegulation #USPolitics #EconomicReform