A New Tool to Win Others

You're in a conversation. As complaints about America's condition pile up, you break in: "Well, I joined AmericaAgain! and we're going to end this mess!"

Then the question comes... "Oh really? What is AmericaAgain! and how will we end this mess?"

Our free PDF eBooklet, Our First Right Now introduces our historic first action: finish ratifying the original First Right in the Bill of Rights. This 20-minute read explains the history of the lost First Amendment and how Trump can help us turn the tide against DC organized crime at last.

Use this booklet to explain our first AmericaAgain! action project and give hope to friends and family.


E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of TacticalCivics Community to add comments!

Join TacticalCivics Community


  • Excellent work, David!

    The following picture has evidence that the amendment was intended have 1 representative per 50,000 people before the clerical error in the final version was introduced:

    Broadside US Senate Bill of Rights Version

    • Historian Stanley Klos has an intriguing theory about all this. He thinks that James Madison put Mr. Otis up to changing that one word 'less' in the last sentence to 'more' before they wrote the final copies of the Bill of Rights. We do know that on July 8, 1789 according to the Journal of the House, a congressman from Georgia named James Jackson, who had won NINE duels in his lifetime, objected publicly to James Madison's attempts to limit the House of Representatives to 200 members. According to the journal of fellow Georgian William Few, congressman Jackson referred to "dragging [Madison] out into the street and shooting him down like the dog he was" for trying to limit representation. 

      Mr. Klos theorizes that Madison got his way by simply having the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. Otis, misrepresent the committee's agreement to change the word 'less' in "the last line but one" to 'more', and instead change the word 'less' IN THE LAST PLACE, to 'more'. Either way, that change of one word made the final sentence ambiguous. And the broadside that you show above, which was produced one month before the final Bill of Rights was sent to Congress for approval, is very clear: the word is 'LESS' in BOTH cases, and that was the original intent before Madison's monkeyshines..

      None of that matters: 11 states ratified it because they understood what we can still understand from simply reading George Washington's statement from the last day of the convention -- or from reading the entire First Article; the intention is clear.

      - At least one representative for every 30,000 people until there are 100 members in the House

      - At least one representative for every 40,000 people until there are 200 members in the House

      - At least one representative for every 50,000 people after that

      This is not rocket science. We must have small districts to keep power and corruption from piling up; and the other two elements of the solution are term limits so we regularly drain the swamp, and taking Congress out of Washington DC to make them work where their sovereigns live, to supervise them. Again: not rocket science.

      No one can use the excuse now that the House Chamber won't accommodate more than 435. Telecommuting and telepresence are used by almost half of all major corporations in America. There are over 31,000 communities in this republic. Even if we ever had 10,000 representatives, technology has now made 'seating arrangements' a moot point.

      It's time to take break Congress up and spread it to 6,500 communities where WE will be watching and in control. Take Congress away from its Deep State owners and end the DC game of thrones.   

This reply was deleted.