Educational Videos

The CLP videos are organized into three topic categories:

  1. The Natural Rights Constitution of the Liberty States of America
  2. Creating A Natural Rights Republic
  3. The Politics of Democrat Party Socialists

The text for each video is under the video.

Topic Category #1:Video #1.

The Natural Right Of U.S. Citizens to Start Over With A New Constitution

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this video is a production of the  Citizens Liberty Party News Network

Introduction: Do Not Resuscitate

Madison’s constitution, of 1789, is a failure because it failed to prevent an unelected centralized elite tyranny from exercising dictatorial powers over citizens.

The constitutional crisis in America of deep state agents who exercise illegitimate authority is a direct result of  the defective checks and balances in Madison’s flawed document.

There is no legal method to fix the problems of the lawless tyranny, and there is nothing of value left in preserving Madison’s constitution, or amending it. The flaws in Madison’s constitution are so severe that “fixing” it with amendments would simply end up, again, in a centralized tyranny of elites.

There is no reason to try to “fix” the constitution because there are no common values holding the citizens of this nation together in a common mission.

The social and cultural values of the Democrat socialists do not connect at any point with the cultural and social values of natural rights conservatives.

It is time to admit that the American government is a failure and, start over, with new two constitutions. One for the socialists. And, one for the natural rights conservatives.

Daniel Horowitz is coming to this same realization. He has the right idea about the need for a new political movement. But, he has not quite reached the conclusion that in order to solve the crisis, a new constitution is needed.

In his series of articles about the Republican cave-in on the omnibus budget, Daniel Horowitz wrote, “Conservatives lack a basic vision for the country and the apparatus, commitments, and consistency to see it through. Conservatives are homeless and have been for quite some time. We need a new party and a new movement. We need bold new leaders with innovative ideas that are rooted in timeless principles. We need to convene a Convention of States to deal with this problem systemically.”

“It takes a new movement to start a new party,” said Horowitz, “but it takes a new party to build that movement; otherwise it just gets sucked into the black hole of the GOP.”

Horowitz asks: What’s Next? But, he does not explain the mission or values of the new political movement.

While his analysis is a refreshing contrast to the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh advice that conservatives  keep voting Republican, albeit “conservative” Republican, Horowitz fails to offer any concrete strategy for his call for a new political movement.

This article extends the Horowitz analysis by offering the historical and legal justification for jettisoning Madison’s failed constitution and starting over with two new constitutions, one for The Liberty States of America, the new natural rights republic, and the other for the Socialist States of America.

The new natural rights conservative movement that Horowitz is imagining is already here, and is called the Citizens Liberty Party. Its mission is to manage the civil divorce between Democrat socialists and natural rights patriots and to manage the creation of two new constitutions.

The Democrat socialists want their own new constitution that does not contain gun rights and free speech, but protects unlimited, state-funded abortion rights.

They have a natural right to pursue their new vision, but they have no moral right to impose their vision on the 63 million citizens who want nothing to do with the slavery of government socialism.

In order for the Democrats in California to leave the nation, and form the new Socialist States of America, they will require the political support of natural rights conservatives to call a convention of the states to replace the existing constitution.

In other words, as the final act of union, the two enemies within the divided nation must work together, one last time, to implement the civil dissolution, and to manage the transition to two new separate, independent nations.

Unlike other conservative calls for an Article V convention of the states, this article advocates that the both the socialists and the conservatives follow the lesson taught by Madison to use a convention states to draft their own new constitutions

There is no legal need for the socialists or the conservatives to abide by Article V.

The purpose of the convention of states is to offer citizens in each state a choice of 3 constitutional options:

  1. Allow the citizens of a state to vote to maintain its membership in the current S. constitutional framework, to be called the Former United States.
  2. Allow the citizens to vote to join the Socialist States of America, in confederation with California.
  3. Allow the citizens to join the Liberty States of America, the new natural rights republic.

Madison’s Historical Precedent of Starting Over

It is an incontrovertible historical fact that Madison, and the legislature of Virginia, called for the constitutional convention to “fix” the Articles of Confederation, which formed the first government of states rights.

This initiative by Virginia is the guiding legal historical moral authority that states must follow today in calling for a convention of the states. Five states joined Virginia back in 1786, and that is all that would be required today to call the convention of states.

The Congress, so assembled at the time, had nothing to do with this initial call for a convention, and the Congress today has no legal or moral authority to stop states from abolishing the current form of government.

Madison did not intend to amend the existing constitution. He knew when he left the Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, in Annapolis, in 1786, that the Articles of Confederation would be replaced.

If he had promoted his efforts as “amending” the Articles of Confederation, he would have been legally obligated to follow the amendment process laid out in the Articles.

Madison intended to “fix” the Articles by starting over with an entirely new constitution, based upon the British social class mixed model of government. His model of government envisioned two social classes, the natural aristocracy and the commoners.

The two social classes would “check and balance” each other, and in order to prevent a centralized tyranny.

In other words, in order to unleash a centralized national government designed to benefit the natural aristocracy, Madison had to start over. The rules in the Articles had created a “perpetual union” and they were too cumbersome for Madison’s revolutionary mission.

Madison’s subterfuge of starting over with an entirely new constitution was a well-known fact of the 51 delegates who met in Philadelphia.

Nathan Dane, the representative from Massachusetts to the Convention, stated that since Madison’s “constitution appears to be intended as an entire system in itself, and not as any part of, or alteration in the Articles of Confederation” the Congress was powerless to take any action thereon.”

Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts, speaking about the Virginia resolution to establish a new national government stated, “The commission from Massachusetts empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This is the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.”

Madison’s motivation for “fixing” the Articles was based on the purported weakness in the Articles that allowed farmers to pay their taxes and their loan debt in paper money issued by the states.

Madison, and the 51 elites who wrote the new constitution, wanted to be paid in gold and silver, not paper money. In order to accomplish this goal, the elites had to eviscerate the legal authority of the states to issue money.

By the supreme law of the land, Madison’s constitution forced the farmers to pay in gold. And, the penalty for not paying their debts in gold, was confiscation of their land by the new central government.

This technique of elites obtaining farmer’s land explains the huge accumulations of land by the natural aristocracy during the period of time after 1789.

Because of the enduring functionality of Madison’s constitution for the elite classes, the same legal technique worked well after the Civil War in the debt-lien system of debt peonage, when the Plantation elite consolidated their holdings of land owned by the common farmers in the South.

When farmer’s failed to “pay out” at harvest time, the local merchants and bankers took the farmer’s land.

In order to protect the new government from the “tyranny of the common class majority,” who sought to oppress the “minority” of elites by being paid in paper money, Madison insulated the government from common citizens.

Madison’s constitution contains 8 fundamental flaws that stacked the deck in favor of the natural aristocracy.

He formed a branch of government, called the Senate, which would always be in the hands of the “virtuous” natural aristocracy.

And, Madison created a federal judiciary that was never subject to recall or vote by the commoners. The natural aristocracy in the Senate had sole power to approve the judges, for a term of life.

The great strategic political mistake of the state’s rights opponents to Madison’s centralized nationalistic government was not offering a complete state’s rights constitutional alternative for citizens to consider in 1787.

Madison’s nationalists were able to re-label themselves as “federalists” and to call themselves “the founding fathers.” They knew at the time that this label was a lie.

They knew that they were nationalists, in favor of a strong central government, and not federalists.

To the farmers, the term “Federalism” meant states rights, and the federalist ruse was successful in confusing the farmers to support the so-called “federalists.”

The choice offered to citizens by the federalists was to accept or reject the new constitution. And, the process of ratifying the new constitution was based upon force and fraud, not the legitimate consent of the governed.

The patriot’s mistake of not offering a constitutional alternative allowed the so-called federalists to label their state’s rights opponents as “the anti-federalists.”

“Anti-federalism meant against states rights, and in favor of a centralized national government. The mis-named anti-federalists would more accurately be labeled states rights populists.

The states rights proponents assumed that the Articles of Confederation would be seen by citizens as the logical alternative to Madison’s rules, but the Articles were not on the ballot in the fraudulent ratification process.

The fundamental fraud perpetrated by the federalists was deploying force and subterfuge to overthrow the first constitutional government of America.

The federalist fraud consisted of 3 inter-related illegal acts the federalists committed in implementing their new form of government.

  1. The delegates from each state exceeded their authority granted to them by their state legislatures to “fix” the Articles. The delegates from Massachusetts were instructed by their legislature to “solely” amend the Articles of Confederation to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.”

The Empire State’s delegates were under the same instructions as those from Massachusetts. Several weeks into the Philadelphia convention, two of the New York delegates realized the fraud and left, leaving only Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton was prohibited, by the instructions of his legislature, from casting any votes, without the other two delegates. Instead of following his instructions, Hamilton signed the new constitution, on behalf of New York.

Hamilton later argued that he had not exceeded his authority, knowing in advance that he was lying.

In Federalist #78, Hamilton explained the importance that he attached to acting within his delegated authority. Hamilton wrote, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”

In other words, Hamilton argues in #78 that his signing of the finished document, on behalf of New York, according to Hamilton, was “void.”

George Mason, the delegate from Virginia, stated that the delegates were “appointed for the special purpose of revising and amending the federal con­stitution, so as to obtain and preserve the important objects for which it was instituted.”

When Mason discovered the intent of Madison to overthrow the Articles, he refused to sign the finished document.

  1. The 51 elites in Philadelphia adopted an illegal process to ratify the new constitution. Even though the delegates acted under the authority of the states, they never asked either Congress or the state legislatures to approve the proposed Constitution.

Rather than follow the constitutional process of amending the Articles, the federalists adopted a resolution for separate ratifying conventions to be held in each state.

Their resolutions for ratification were placed in a separate document that was not attached to the main finished document submitted to Congress. The contents of Articles XXII and XXIII were passed, in secret deliberations, as a separate formal act adopted unanimously as an official act of the Convention.

The resolutions for ratification presented a unique, revolutionary process. The resolutions stated, “The ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”

Congress subsequently sent those partial documents to each state, with no recommendations on how each state could proceed with calling the extra-legal ratifying conventions.

The resolutions did not contain safeguards on how the delegates in each state would be selected, resulting in special interest manipulation by the federalists to stack the conventions with supporters of Madison’s arrangement.

The selection of delegates in several states was done in secret, not by the vote of the citizens.

In other words, the ratifying conventions did not derive their authority from “the consent of the governed.” The delegates to the state ratifying conventions derived their authority to ratify the new constitution from a grant of authority that they gave to themselves.

In Pennsylvania, when the delegates to the ratifying convention learned of the fraud for ratification, they refused to attend, causing a lack of quorum.

The federalists in Pennsylvania sent out the secret police to restrain two delegates, against their will, and held them against their will at the convention, in order to preserve the subterfuge of a legitimate quorum.

The ratification of the new constitution in Pennsylvania was not legitimate.

The state’s rights leaders, like George Mason, called the ratification fraud of Madison’s nationalists exactly what it was. Mason wrote, “this outrageous violation employed all the arts of insinuation, and influence, to betray the people of the United States.”

In the only actual vote of citizens in any state on the new constitution, the citizens of Rhode Island rejected the Constitution by a vote of 2,714 to 238.

The citizens of North Carolina’s, at their 1788 convention, refused to adopt the constitution because it did not contain a citizen’s Bill of Rights. The federalists used their financial power on exports to manipulate and coerce North Carolina into ratifying the constitution, in 1791.

  1. The revolutionary character of what Madison did to overthrow the government is evident in that Madison, and the federalists, disconnected the new constitution from the founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

The American Declaration established the clear legal supremacy of the states. The States created the Union. The States created the Articles of Confederation. The States ap­pointed the first members of Congress.

Madison overthrew the nation’s first government, which was based upon the supremacy of the states and substituted a British social class system that was based upon the supremacy of the elites.

Because the British social class mixed system empowered the elites, from the get-go, that same social class of elites were able to obtain unchecked, unelected power in the swamp.

That same set of unfair rules would also allow global socialists to obtain unchecked power in the deep state apparatus to impose their socialist tyranny.

While Madison’s constitution is illegitimate and wildly undemocratic, it has had the attribute of being stable, as long as the two political parties continued to represent their respective social class interests.

When Obama converted the Democrat Party from a working class political movement to a global socialist movement, the force that provided political stability for Madison’s two class system was terminated.

No part of Madison’s text refers to the founding document.

No part of his text states that the purpose of government is to protect and preserve citizen natural rights.

No part of his text states that citizens have a natural right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government when the government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created.

Madison cleverly stated that his constitution was made to “form a more perfect union.”  His perfect union is not connected to any American legal or historical precedent. It is a de novo, radical subversion of the national values that formed the nation.

Madison connected his document to the constitutional traditions of Great Britain.

Because his document is philosophically vacuous, Madison’s subversion of moral values allows the socialists today to substitute their version of Marxist moral values for the values upon which the nation was based.

For Democrat socialists, “a more perfect union” means a global socialist totalitarian government.

The differences between Democrat socialists and natural rights conservatives about the founding principles of the nation are irreconcilable. The Democrat socialists reject the principles stated in the Declaration, and are justified in deploying their logic that America is a racist nation because Madison’s constitution is not connected to the Declaration.

The main point of my argument is that Madison’s U. S. constitution replaced the natural rights constitution, which was based upon the principles of the Declaration. The socialists will never accept the founding principles because those principles are not supportive of their goal of a global, socialist government.

In order to fix the constitutional dysfunction caused by Madison’s British constitution, his constitution must be replaced, not amended.

For natural rights conservatives, the new constitution should restore the founding principles of the Declaration.

The Two Amendment Clauses

The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and were ratified by the 13 states on March 1, 1781.

The Articles created a “perpetual union” of the 13 states. The opening paragraph, titled, A Pledge of Perpetual Union stated that “Each state must accept and agree to follow the decisions of the United States in Congress assembled. The states must follow all of the rules as stated in the Articles of Confederation. The union of states is meant to last forever.”

Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation specified that any amendments had to be ratified by all thirteen states, in contrast to Madison’s ratification processof special interest controlled conventions, in just nine states.

The Articles stated, “And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

The moral principle requiring 13 states to amend the Articles was patterned after international trade treaty law that no nation could be bound by a treaty without its consent.

This same logic of international trade law applies today in justification of the socialists in California to form a confederation with other like-minded states, in forming the Socialist States of America

There is noth­ing in the text of the Articles of Confederation, particularly Arti­cle XIII, that suggests that Congress had any power to actually initiate, or call, for a convention of states.

Ar­ticle XIII required all amendments to be first proposed by Con­gress and then ratified by all thirteen state legislatures.  Madison’s constitution was not approved by Congress, nor by the state legislatures.

In contrast to the amendment process in the Articles, Madison’s constitution created a convoluted process to thwart citizens from initiating amendments. His second method of amendment in Article 5 has never been used successfully to amend his constitution.

His second method requires that 34 state legislatures call for a constitutional convention. The proposed amendments must subsequently be approved by 38 state legislatures.

The obvious flaw in Madison’s amendment process is as evident today, as it was when it was adopted.

Madison’s fundamental flaw is that his amendment process offers no solution for citizens to restore the rule of law, when the central government becomes tyrannical, yet is unwilling to amend the constitution because it would disrupt the elites arbitrary power?

George Mason stated that it “would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”

Madison agreed with Mason and promised that, “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.”

In The Federalist #85, Alexander Hamilton stated that when states submitted the proper number of applications, Congress was “obliged” to call a convention and that “nothing is left to the discretion of Congress.”

The main point is that Madison’s amendment process did not require Congress to initiate the amendment process.

But, the central government has become oppressive and tyrannical, and Madison’s amendment process for ratification is too convoluted for citizens to overcome the oppression.

The only solution to end the elite tyranny in the swamp is for citizens to start over, with the socialists forming their own new nation, and natural rights conservatives restoring the original natural rights republic, based upon the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

Citizens who like the existing constitutional arrangement can vote to remain in the Former United States. 

Conclusion

During the period of time right before the Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote:

“All power exercised over a nation must have some begin­ning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

Madison’s Constitu­tional Convention was called by the states. This is the one, most important, historical and legal principle from Madison’s usurpation that is significant today.

Madison, and the 51 delegates to his convention in Philadelphia, exercised illegitimate power because they assumed power without the consent of the governed.

They assumed power to eliminate the Articles, for the most base and venal reasons, to create a constitution that would empower and benefit themselves.

Madison usurped power in 1789, in exactly the same way that the undelegated, unrepresentative elites in the swamp today, usurp the power of citizens.

Madison’s usurpation, in 1789, caused the elite usurpation of constitutional authority today, in 2018.

While the rules adopted required nine states for ratification, four states did not ratify. One state, Pennsylvania, ratified in an illegitimate, fraudulent, ratification.

The consent of the governed was never obtained in any state because of the way Madison stacked the deck against the citizens.

While Madison and Hamilton argued in their Federalist Papers that no state was bound to obey the Constitution until its peo­ple gave their consent, the federalists coerced and subjugated the citizens of North Carolina, over a period of three years, to submit to the illegal authority of Madison’s constitution.

The federalists met in secret in Philadelphia. They drew the window blinds and did not issue public statements of their deliberations.

The notes that were taken of the convention by Madison distorted the truth to fit his agenda of overthrowing the Articles and empowering the elites.

The representation of the delegates at the convention was unilaterally undemocratic.

While 95% of the citizens at the time were farmers, not one farmer was present at the convention. The representatives were drawn exclusively from the rich and well-born, intent on placing a saddle on the backs, and riding the common citizens, with spurs and whips.

The mission of subverting the Articles was so important to the elites that they left the issue of slavery unresolved, knowing in advance that this omission would likely cause a civil war.

While the elite federalists held in common the notion that black people were entitled to natural rights, by God, they implemented a system of government that suggested that black people were entitled to 60% of the natural rights of white people.

But, the essential lesson of history, from Madison, is that his Constitu­tional Convention was called by the states. This most important historical and legal principle provides guidance for today.

Horowitz asks: What’s Next?

What comes next is a national political movement of 63 million Trump voters who accept that Madison’s constitution is a failure, and follow Madison’s example of starting over, with a brand new natural rights constitution.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party.

Topic Category #1:Article on SSRN. No Video

The Constitutional Economics of A Natural Rights Republic

Laurie Thomas Vass, The Citizens Liberty Party

Different institutional arrangements in the apparatus of government, and different configurations of constitutional rights, produce different rates of knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion. There is only one constitutional configuration that produces maximum economic growth, based upon maximum rates of knowledge creation and diffusion.

James Buchanan suggested that different constitutional rules produced different social welfare outcomes.
One of the unknown variables in Buchanan’s model is the loyalty and trust that citizens extend towards each other in financial and political transactions, not simply in the current unit of time, but in future units of time.
The issue of trust involves the reliance of a citizen that another party to a financial exchange will reciprocate in the future on keeping promises that involve a future payment.
In other words, for example, can a banker extend trust to a debtor to repay the loan?
Or, can a venture capitalist trust the entrepreneur to make good on the promise of a future capital gain?
Buchanan noted that allegiance to the rule of law, and obedience of citizens in following the constitutional rules, could vary among different cultural and institutional arrangements.
The differences in the level of citizen rule obedience between societies was explained by Buchanan in terms of the perceived “fairness” of the rules.When social and economic rules are perceived as unfair, citizens have no logical justification in voluntarily following the rule of law.
The issue of fairness can be resolved, according to Buchanan, when citizens are involved in the deliberations about creating the constitutional contract.
In Constitutional Economics, James Buchanan wrote that “Uncertainty about where one’s own interest will lie in a sequence of plays or rounds will lead a rational person, from his own self-interest, to prefer rules and arrangements, or constitutions, that will seem fair, no matter what final positions he might occupy.”
As noted by Buchanan, “Individuals are recognized to possess their own privately determined objectives, their own life plans, and these need not be common to all persons. In this setting, rules have the function of facilitating interactions among persons who may desire quite different things.”
The main point of the Buchanan constitutional economic model is that the level of rule obedience depends on how the rules are interpreted by an individual citizen in affecting that citizen’s life plans.
The economic term for “life plans” is individual utility function, also known as individual welfare function.
Conflicts between citizens over the “fairness” of constitutional rules, when individuals desire “quite different things,” must be resolved by reference to how the rules are made and enforced.
Only one configuration of constitutional rules, and only one method of citizen participation in the making of fair constitutional rules, creates maximum rates of economic growth, and maximum diffusion of welfare benefits.
That single constitutional configuration creates the maximum level of trust among citizens, so that citizens can trust each other to obey the rule of law.
It also creates the maximum rates of knowledge creation and diffusion among citizens.
Maximum rates of knowledge creation creates maximum rates of technology innovation.
Technological innovation, as suggested by Solow, accounts for most of the economic growth in a free market economy.
That single constitutional configuration is the Natural Rights Republic, which citizens in America created in 1776, when they left the state of nature to form their first constitutional contract, called the Articles of Confederation.

Buchanan’s Constitutional Economic Rules

Buchanan’s rules are aimed at overcoming part of the dilemma associated with the issue of individual choice in choosing the constitutional contract, when citizens leave the state of nature.
Individual choice, in the free market system, is essential to constitutional economics because economic individualism is linked to equal political natural rights.
Socialism, or collectivism, is not based upon individualism, and those constitutional values are not comparable to the welfare outcomes of the individual choice model because aggregating the welfare of groups is not the same logical process as aggregating individual welfare functions to determine the best social welfare outcome.
Buchanan’s rules aim at creating a society based upon mutual reciprocity of fairness and trust.
The issue raised by Buchanan is that it is impossible for citizens to rank the “best” set of rules if everyone’s preference rankings are not given the same weight.
In his book, The Theory of Public Choice, II, Buchanan defines an individual from the brain’s rational choice attribute. He states, that, “…we can simply define a person in terms of his set of preferences, his utility function. This function defines or describes a set of possible trade-offs among alternatives for potential choice.”
In other words, Buchanan’s constitutional economic model assumes, as its first principle, equality of individual preference rankings, that are subsequently aggregated into a social welfare ranking, in order to judge the “best” constitutional arrangement.
Buchanan noted Kenneth Arrow’s issue of irrational social welfare rankings in a socialist society, when some individual’s welfare is given more weight than other individuals in the social preference rankings.
Rational consistency in the ranking of end goals of a democratic society, Arrow concluded, in Social Choice and Individual Values, was impossible when individual preference rankings were not equal.
Given the unequal preference rankings in socialism, consistency in rational decision-making, according to Arrow, could only be achieved in a dictatorship.
What Arrow meant by the condition of dictatorship is the ability of one individual preference function to become the social preference ordering, regardless of the preference functions of the other individuals.
In creating the constitutional contract, citizens in a collectivist society, who desire different things, would attempt to skew the constitutional rules to meet their own individual preferences.
The constitutional public purpose in socialism would mean whatever the elite special interests in control of the government, say it means, at the time in history that they happen to be in control.
In Buchanan’s conception, when there is not equal weightings in individual preferences, there is no logical rule making mechanism to prohibit the elected socialist representatives from substituting the maximization of their own welfare function, as a part of them imagining that their own welfare improvement is the same thing as a social welfare improvement.
Once a centralized government bureaucracy is created that is removed from the consent of the governed, the bureaucracy develops its own interpretation of the social welfare function it presumes to maximize.
Compliance with the rule of law in socialism would become arbitrary because citizens would not have prior knowledge of what behavior served the public purpose, at any moment in time.
The logical conclusion of Buchanan and Arrow is the well-known warning about socialism that it requires an elite tyranny to impose rule adherence on citizens, who are viewed as components of social identity groups, not as sovereign individuals, with their own unique welfare function.
As a consequence of this dilemma in socialism, the constitutional public purpose of a socialist government cycles endlessly, over time, in a do-loop that changes whenever the elite dictators change.
The voluntary rule obedience in Buchanan’s individualism gives way to totalitarian dictatorship in socialism, using the police power of the state to impose rule adherence.
The great virtue of Buchanan’s competitive free market system is that voluntary, cooperative social behavior coordination can be achieved without tyranny and totalitarianism, when citizens have certainty about the fairness of the rules.
The common term to describe this outcome of fairness, in the natural rights republic is, “equal justice under the law.
In The Reason of Rules, Buchanan and Geoffrey Brennan, addressed how free markets and individual freedom were intertwined in a natural rights system of rules.
For Buchanan, the organizations within the institutional arrangement established the playing field upon which economic and political transactions took place.
Buchanan’s distinction between the institutional rules of the game, and the organizations in society, flows over to his distinction between policy choices made by elected representatives, and the rules of politics of electing representatives.
Both policy and politics, under the reason of Buchanan’s rules, requires a certain type of shared morality about the end goals of the rule of law. Buchanan advocated an allegiance to a moral law as a general rule of law, similar in concept to Locke’s emphasis on liberty.
While Buchanan’s initial definition of the individual identifies the brain’s rational choice function in terms of self-interest, he later ties individual self-interest back to socials rule obedience that results from an awareness of the welfare of another individual by suggesting the possibility of an interdependent utility functions.
Buchanan argues that the voluntary citizen compliance with the rule of law, based upon moral reciprocity in the constitution, leads to rule obedience because all citizens are subject to the uncertainty that they may, one day, find themselves at the bottom of the economic totem pole.
In other words, human rational choice leads to voluntary constitutional rule obedience, under Buchanan’s rules.
Rule obedience, in Buchanan’s free market system, leads to fair economic outcomes in the distribution of incomes.
Buchanan’s entire voluntary, cooperative system depends on a shared cultural belief and faith in an individual’s capacity to be the best judge, and the best guardian, of their own individual welfare.

Natural Rights Economic Growth Theory

Quantity and price adjustments in equilibrium theory, do not lead the society to any pre-determined optimal end point at all. Prices, in the market, are not independent variables that serve to guide society to some magical point of social optimality.
Prices are dependent variables that are caused both by the interaction of the set of rules and legal entitlements enacted through a constitutional convention, and by investments made in previous periods, under supply and demand conditions that existed in those prior time periods.
Price adjustments are a reflection of changing rules and laws, not simply the result of changes in supply and demand forces. Price adjustments lead to equilibrium not social welfare maximum.
Any point along the production possibility frontier will generate a non-unique set of prices, if the distribution of income between social classes is changed. The set of prices at that point of production possibilities reflects the existing distribution of income.
There is only one constitutional configuration of rules that produces maximum social income. That constitutional configuration is the natural rights republic because it starts out with the assumption that its function is to create “maximum” happiness.
No other constitutional configuration starts out with this social goal.
Change the constitutional rules on private property, for example, and the distribution of income between the classes is changed, and, voila, a new set of equilibrium prices occurs, at that point of consumption and production.
Prices are not freely and exclusively determined in the single present unit of time. Prices in the present time unit are partially determined by the level of investments made in prior units of time according to the rules established by the constitution.
Investment decisions about the future are made using discounted market prices that heavily bias the decision towards the present. With this bias in the investment decision process, justice, defined as a market exchange value, is always being discounted by its monetary value, just like incomes and jobs are discounted in the future units of time.
In other words, to return the conundrum known as “Arrow’s Paradox,” if the constitutional bedrock of laws does not contain the telos of upward occupational mobility, happiness, and fair rules for the competition of income, then the subordinate laws that are passed by Congress will not provide logically consistent outcomes.
The economic consequence of Arrow’s paradox of lack of fairness, is static income distribution for the majority, and unequal incomes for a tiny minority of elites.
Static income distribution means loss of technological diversity and, contingently, the elimination of the forces that contribute to economic growth.
Only one set of constitutional rules aims at increasing future incomes, which are obtained if new markets emerge, which have new products, that consumers favor over the old products.
New products and new markets may emerge, given a specific configuration of cultural values and laws that favor individual initiative and the appropriation of rewards based upon individual merit.
Under another set of constitutional rules, income distribution is static, and new markets, based upon the commercialization of new knowledge, do not emerge.
For example, under the 8 years of the Obama regime, incomes were static and economic growth did not occur.
The new future markets are contingently created as a result of knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion, which contingently, may lead to commercializing new product ideas.
At any moment in time, in Buchanan’s individualistic economy, technological conditions may be changing, and the main question of economic theory is to predict what type of economic environment is likely to emerge in future time periods, given the prior conditions.
The economic predictions would be based upon an investigation into the dynamics of feed back effects from the current final demand market based upon consumer preferences for new, technologically-advanced products, offered by new ventures, in comparison to the old existing products, offered by incumbent firms.
The most important social rules for explaining and predicting economic growth in the natural rights republic are the rules for individual initiative to create new ventures and appropriate profits.
Future economic growth (G), is dependent on the knowledge variable, K, which reflects the marginal contribution of a vintage sector, s, to the rate of innovations, which is the “…rate which an old idea becomes obsolete and the rate of diffusion of older ideas into current general knowledge.”
In other words, future economic growth depends on the consumer acceptance of a product innovation in the current period of time. When many new products find new future markets, new markets may emerge, creating entirely new flows of income, where none had previously existed.
Future economic growth, in an individualistic economy, is a Bayesian probability distribution function of the consumer acceptance of the new product compared to the old product.
Knowledge, as a social asset, is linked to an increase in future social incomes, as a result of new products and the emergence of new markets.
As William Baumol has noted, social rules and laws regarding appropriation of income set the economic reward structure of income for a national economy.
The behavior and adaptations of humans in markets change as a result of the introduction of novelty, which causes the “structure” of market relationships to change. Most of the novelty in markets, but not all of it, is related to the introduction of new technology in both products, and the way products are made.
The human response to novelty is contingent, and depends on the mental ability of humans to anticipate the future. What humans do in markets when new products are introduced depends on what humans anticipate other humans are going to do when they see the new product for the first time.
Most human economic activity is based on the biological ability of humans to anticipate what other humans are going to do, and imagine a course of action to take under different scenarios. The shared cultural value of trust, in the natural rights republic, allows individuals to imagine and visualize a common future with other citizens.
In other words, in a natural rights republic, the human response to novelty is “intentional.”
Whereas, in socialism, the response, by citizens, to novelty is fear and a preference for the status quo arrangement of power.
Generally, in the absence of a constitutional mandate that points to the goal of open competition for income, the reward structure associated collectivist rules about income distribution are manipulated to the benefit of the most powerful set of elites who obtain power over setting the rules and the laws.
Markets change when humans anticipate the behavior of other humans by imagining the future, and trying out, mentally, what may happen under different hypothetical scenarios. The behavior choices confronting humans are restricted and limited by laws and social customs, which vary by market and by geographical region.
The rational choice set of behavior in future markets being imagined in the brains of humans depends on the freedom to choose, and the freedom to pursue an individual course of destiny, once the choices and decisions about the future have been determined.
Individuals who happened to born and live in a natural rights republic have greater individual freedoms to create a different future market environment, for themselves, than individuals who happened to be born in a socialist society.
Markets characterized by property rights, and cultural values of trust and reciprocity would create a different set of imagined future choices in the brains of humans than markets that did not possess this resource set.
Freedom, in individualistic capitalist markets would generate different mental images than the absence of freedom, in socialistic, or collectivistic markets where the future choice sets are determined by self-appointed elites.
In the presence of novelty, changes in behavior of an individual are reflected in choices and decisions made by consumers. The change in behavior acts as a communication or signaling mechanism to other humans, in much the same role that neoclassical economists suppose that prices act as a signaling mechanism that equilibrates supply and demand.
Short term price-based decisions made by consumers depend on temporary, fleeting, relationships that occur, as the Walraisiain auctioneer instantaneously clears all markets, at all times, both now and in the future.
Longer-term strategies are time-based, not price-based, and depend on how permanent relationships are modified by constitutional rules. Most of the permanent relationships require the anticipation of who to trust in future exchanges based upon the cultural values of reciprocity and mutuality.
Given a certain set of civil rules and the rule of law, markets would evolve differently than under another set of civil rules or the absence of the rule of law.
Laws and customs determine prices in the market, and consequently, also determine income distribution, not the other way around.
When these consumer behaviors about novelty, in a natural rights republic, occur with some high frequency, the behaviors can be described as having law-like properties that have the logical pattern: “If such-and-such environmental conditions occur, then we would expect humans to exhibit such-and-such behaviors.”
Trust allows human imagination in the realm of economic behaviors to be fulfilled over a long period of time, which may eventually lead to the emergence of new markets, if the cultural value of trust is inherited over successive generations.
Trust is a moral and cultural value that is inherited when the social and legal structure is characterized by a certain configuration of civil rules of exchange and laws regarding property and appropriation of profit.
Current market selection leads to future market emergence very slowly because wants and preferences develop gradually, as consumers learn about product technology, and as they shift preferences from older product technology to newer product technology.
What happens in a natural rights republic when innovation occurs is that many different humans see the phenomena and use many different mental images to interpret the meaning of the innovation.
The slow emergence of a common social perception among different humans means that the market is providing the validation of the interpretation.
When many mental images reach the same conclusion and behavior is based upon the interpretation, the meaning of the innovation is validated across market environments.
Given a certain type of prior social and political conditions in political power and cultural values, the economy could be predicted to take a certain type of trajectory.
Given another constellation of political power, for example, socialism, the economy would maintain the status quo.
There is a Bayesian probability attached to each configuration of political power and cultural values, based upon the degree of belief about the future held in the mental images of humans in a natural rights republic.
As the conditions in the social environment change, new opportunities for technological combinations and mutations appear, which can be tried out, or “selected” by the consumers.
In other words, in constitutional economics, the basic theoretical premise is that some event or condition in a prior time period affects, or “maps on to” events in later time periods.
The Bayesian statistical analysis would be applied to beliefs and expectations in the current period that related to the appearance of entirely new technological coefficients in the national economic interindustry matrix.
The appearance of new interindustry coefficients serves as the evidence that new products are being selected by consumers.
The appearance of something new, in this case a new technological product, causes humans to imagine the future possibilities that the new thing creates.
The future that they are imagining creates the conditions of contingency that the Bayesian analysis can investigate.
Given a set of prior expectations about the future, the novelty may cause a new set of expectations, which can provide probability distributions or estimates of the most likely future market that may emerge.

Economic Growth In A Natural Rights Republic

The process of economic growth and the emergence of new markets in a natural rights republic can be described by a series of “then if” contingent logical statements:

• If exit events in the past create a pool of entrepreneurial profits, then if,
• The entrepreneurial profit is used to fund new ventures that create new products, then if,
• Technological genetic crossover occurs between two products, then if,
• Consumers and markets select new products, then if,
• Complementary markets are created, then if,
• New patterns of income distribution are created, then if,
• New technological knowledge is created, then if,
• New technological knowledge is diffused, then if,
• New production assets are “called forth” from the expanding production possibilities frontier, the assets have a greater probability of being “inherited” by subsequent generations of products, and the evolution of the market can continue through a future attractor macro bifurcation and the emergence of an entirely new market.

The claim made in this paper of a single “best” national social welfare function relies on a series of social political concepts that a society possesses, as initial factor endowments.
The function of the constitutional rules is to organize these concepts into a coherent set of rules that citizens voluntarily agree to follow, based upon their level of trust that other citizens will also follow the rules.
1. Institutional Social/Political Structure Concepts
• Degree of individual civil liberties and civil rights.
• Degree of property ownership rights and rights to transfer title of property.
• Number of voluntary membership civic clubs and civic/ professional organizations.
• Degree of population ethnic diversity.
• Degree of occupational diversity.
• Degree of interlocking networks in civic, social and professional organizations.
• Number and diversity of non-government media and communication channels.

2. Institutional Information Network Structural Concepts
• Infrastructure of telecommunications and mass media.
• Number of mobile communication devices in use.
• Number of journals, newspapers, websites.

3. Information Network Units of Analysis
• Rate of speed of information diffusion/contagion of new ideas.
• Rate of marketing or advertising expenditures on new products.
• Rate of political campaign contributions to incumbents.
Given a certain configuration of constitutional values, the rate of economic growth can be visualized as a point in the current period of economic equilibrium.


The economy is seen breaking away from equilibrium towards some future unknown attractor point, in time period 2.The oscillations around the growth trajectory become smaller, representing the concept that the future attractor point is a new future point of economic equilibrium.
At the point of equilibrium, in time period 1, vested financial and political interests have political allegiance to the status quo distribution of income, making it hard for the economy to break away from equilibrium.
In this case, Buchanan’s model suggests that the social welfare of the elite special interests have become the surrogate national social welfare function.
Official corruption, in this case, is the use of government resources to promote private financial enterprises and the personal financial interests of business and political elites in the economy.
One technique of political control of the elites is to limit economic growth is to control the creation and diffusion of knowledge. In socialist societies, there is only one official version of knowledge and all technological innovation is under the control of the elites.
In other words, from the perspective of existing equilibrium theory, the resource allocation for existing products may be efficient and in competitive price equilibrium over a period of time when prices are declining to the end point of zero market demand.
But, unless the constitution limits the corruption of the elites, in favor of future economic growth, the national economy will not grow. The economy will stagnate.
The act of “ knowledge creation,” is defined by the appearance of something new that did not exist before. If knowledge can be defined as a national economic asset, or a pool of knowledge, then that pool or asset must be measurable and additions to knowledge must be distinct.
The knowledge creation and diffusion are an essential precursor condition that allows entrepreneurs to take a risk on starting a new venture.
A nation that had once possessed this type of institutional structure, rules, laws and trust, could easily slip into the orbit of a Nash attractor point and experience the effects of Mueller’s Ratchet of economic decline.
In other words, knowledge, as a national social asset, cannot be subjected to political manipulation and political control and still create economic growth, and if control over knowledge creation is attempted, knowledge, as an asset, erodes.
Knowledge is a social asset, and is an essential precursor resource for product innovation. Product innovation and future growth depend on the ability of citizens to imagine new future markets, and commercialize those new product ideas.
Knowledge creation is not a price-based activity, but is dependent upon the economic structure of interindustry relationships that exist in the current time period of the economy at equilibrium.
To the extent that the temporary price-based relationships at time period 1 are characterized by forward linkages from intermediate demand to final demand, and backward linkages, from final demand to intermediate demand, the rate of technological knowledge creation will be greater.
To the extent that the national structure of interindustry relationships feature both vertical flows of production technology information, up and down column coefficients, and horizontal flows of information of demand information, along row coefficients, the rate of technological knowledge creation will be greater.
This constraint on information flows generates a recursive effect of knowledge transmission via players’ mobility across firms which affects simultaneously the players’ payoffs and the number of active players engaged in market competition.”
New mental images in the brains of individuals, in other words, imagination, which is the basis of knowledge, is not amenable to external political control, as a variable in an individual’s welfare function.
In other words, despite what the elites do to limit knowledge, human brains are always spinning out new alternatives and new ideas about how to make life better and have more control over individual destiny.
Only one constitutional configuration allows entrepreneurs the maximum liberty to actualize their new product ideas. All other constitutional configurations tend to inhibit and control knowledge creation, in order for the elites to direct social welfare benefits to themselves.
The knowledge creation and adaptive learning in the natural rights republic creates new markets when current expectations about the future, based upon individual guesses of entrepreneurs, are confirmed by collective expectations of other citizens and consumers.
The new products and new ventures that the venture capitalists create act as a market signaling device, in an information feedback system in the intermediate demand markets that function to coordinate mutually reinforcing expectations between the entrepreneurs and the consumers.
In a natural rights republic, a future market becomes the present market based upon product technological inheritance and technological variation in product improvements, linked by consumer selection of the newer, better products.
In a natural rights republic, product heuristics mutate, in a process of product innovation, and consumers and capitalists modify their behavior by improving strategies in a constrained maximization environment by buying the new and better goods that are produced at lower costs than existing goods and are sold at prices that yield a slightly higher (marginal) profit for a brief period of time.
That brief period of time is represented as time period 2, in the graph. It is the new equilibrium point, based upon the emergence of new markets.
The end goal of the natural rights republic is economic growth, based upon the maximum rates of new knowledge creation and diffusion.
Maximum rates of knowledge creation and diffusion depend on widely-shared values of trust that citizens will obey the rule of law.
Only the natural rights configuration of constitutional values, based upon equal individual preference rankings, can create the new future markets that create economic growth, and new flows of income, where none had existed before.

Bibilography:
Arrow, Kenneth Joseph, Social Choice and Individual Values, New York, Wiley, 1951.
Buchanan, James M., Constitutional Economics, Oxford, UK., Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell, 1991.
Buchanan, James M., Theory of Public Choice: Political Applications of Economics, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1972.
Buchanan, James M., and Brennan, Geoffrey, Reason of Rules, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Buchanan, James M., and Congleton, Roger D., Politics By Principle, Not Interest, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Vass, Laurie Thomas, Predicting Technology: A Practical Guide For Technology Managers and Marketing Professionals To Identify Future Market Opportunities, 3rd edition, GABBY Press, 2017.

Topic Category #1:Video #3.

The Constitutional Economics of Tariffs

I am Laurie Thomas Vass,

Note to readers: This article is the full text version of a 4 part video. The video above is Part 1. The Introduction. You can see all 4 parts at YouTube.

Introduction

The two economic theoretical premises that serve to support the case of the current free trade proponents, who oppose the Trump tariffs, are:

1. Sovereign nations have an identifiable national welfare function.
2. Sovereign nations have an identifiable set of factor endowments that establish a comparative advantage in production with trading partners.

Neither of these premises are valid in the current debate over the Trump tariffs, and therefore, most of the argument in favor of “free trade” are invalid.

The proponents of so-called free trade use the term “free trade” as a political tool to gain political support for a set of trade policies that are extremely detrimental to the national economy.

The current theory of international free trade derives, initially, from David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which states that countries get richer when they specialize their production in things they are relatively good at making, and trade the surplus for things they are relatively bad at making.

Ricardo argued that international trade makes all nations richer because it ensures that labor in any single country is used more efficiently. The neoclassical tradition of economics suggests that any improvement in labor productive efficiency will eventually lead to greater national income.

Ricardo, and later Bertil Ohlin, who improved Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, were entirely focused on improved production efficiency, and not concerned about income.

Like the two invalid theoretical premises above are assumed to be accurate, most proponents of so-called free trade just assume that increased production efficiency in either labor or capital will eventually lead to increased income, when the global economy reaches equilibrium.

The current political opponents of Trump’s tariff have never presented empirical data on the purported increase in U. S. national income because there is no data.

Even if there was evidence on increased national income, the data would show that the distribution of income is skewed to the top 5% of the national population, and most of that increase is not in personal family households, but in large global corporations.

Given the way the trade agreements were implemented, the total aggregate national income does not increase as a result of the free trade, but the distribution of income has shifted from households to corporations, who gain a bigger piece of the income pie.

Because the U. S. corporations have a U. S. address, their entire global net revenue shows up in the national income accounts. The profits that they make overseas are never repatriated to the domestic U. S. economy, but are used by U. S. corporations in foreign countries to finance foreign operations.

The corporate income that is gained in so-called free trade does not benefit the national social welfare because the foreign profits never make it back to the U. S. income streams.

As an added political benefit for the global corporations, as long as they leave their foreign profits overseas, they do not pay U. S. income taxes on the foreign income.

Diagram 1.1 Trends In Corporate Profit Rates Following So-Called Free Trade Agreements.

In order for the Trump critics to present a valid economic argument in favor of the trade agreements, they would be required to state the variables in their conception of the “national” social welfare function, and then make an argument that the trade agreements moved the national welfare function to a higher income level.

The argument made by proponents for so-called “free trade” is that each nation in the global economy will reach a better social welfare outcome, as a result of “free trade.”

There is no empirical data to support their claim.

Their theoretical argument can be demonstrated in models, but there is no empirical research that confirms their side of the argument of the benefits of the free trade agreements.

The models show, that in theory, and in fantasy, the winners in global trade make so much more income that they could “hypothetically” compensate the 95% of the losers, and, therefore, the national economy would benefit from “free trade.”

“Sometimes, achieving an efficient outcome requires the winners of free trade to compensate the losers,” said Kevin Kliesen, an economist with the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank in his article, Trading Barbs: A Primer on the Globalization Debate.

After his review of the standard operating assumptions in favor of global trade, he adds the important caveat that he takes from another branch of economics called welfare economic theory.

He notes that the great increase in profits for corporations, since 1992, may require the corporate winners of global trade to provide some compensation to all the Americans who have lost their jobs and their incomes.

“Estimates of the net benefits that flow from free trade are substantial,” notes Kliesen. “International trade has increased real household income by between $7,000 and $13,000 since the end of WWII, according to a study by economists Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Hufbauer,” (The Regional Economist, October 2007).

The use of the term “household income” by Kliesen leaves the mistaken impression that somehow the corporate profits derived from “free trade” increase the family household income of ordinary American citizens.

Not so. In economic theory, all that the models purport to show is, that if, corporate net income found its way into the domestic economy, that the increase in income would possibly increase the average American household income by $13,000, per year.

In economic theory, it is only necessary to show that the winners could “hypothetically” compensate the losers. The winners are not required to pay actual cash to the losers.

This outcome is a result of the neoclassical tradition of focusing on “production efficiency,” and not focusing on income. This sleight of hand is the major technique of deception deployed by Trump’s critics, when they make their arguments for so-called “free trade.”

Like the theory of global climate warming, where the damage to the global environment from “man-made” carbon pollution can be demonstrated in models, the empirical evidence for either free trade or climate warming, does not exist.

Rather, the evidence that does exist demonstrates the U. S. economy has suffered great structural economic damage as a result of the so-called free trade agreements implemented in the late 1980’s.

The top 5% of the population has enjoyed an incredible increase in profits and incomes, while the other 95% of the population has suffered misery from the trade agreements.

The people who oppose Trump’s tariff never talk about the unfair income distribution that resulted from their “free trade agreements.” They never address the structural economic damage to American capital markets and income multipliers

Rather, their entire argument against tariffs and in favor of free trade, depends on
trade balances, which have absolutely zero economic relationship to increased labor productivity or improved national social welfare.

Trade balances measure international flows of capital and income between national central banks, not improvements in national social welfare.

The best explanation of why the leaders of America, who negotiated the policies that harmed the social welfare of citizens, is provided by the constitutional economic framework of James Buchanan, who was a professor at George Mason University, in Virginia.

His framework can explain why they implemented their policies 40 years ago, and why current free trade proponents today oppose the Trump tariffs.

The constitutional economic argument I am making is that when the globalist corporate Republicans implemented the “free trade” agreements, they substituted the financial welfare of their special interests, as if the special corporate interests represented the national social welfare, to the detriment of citizens in the 350 U. S. metro regions.

Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. The demand that was previously provided by foreign imports is replaced by domestic supplies. The internal domestic supply chains provide the supplies to U. S. producers at a cheaper intermediate demand price than the formerly imported finished goods

The opposition to tariffs is due to a set of large corporations who use the special interest political system to direct financial benefits of global trade to themselves.

In other words, to paraphrase Buchanan, the welfare function that the political elites maximized in the trade negotiations, was their own.

President Trump is right when he states that Americans got a “rotten deal” in the trade negotiations.

The Constitutional Economics of Tariffs in the Natural Rights Republic

In a recent news story about the Trump tariffs, a steel worker in Pennsylvania stated that after the trade agreements had been \implemented, “the U. S. steel mills were left to rot.”

Like so many media accounts of the trade deals, the worker did not identify who was responsible for negotiating the disastrous policies.
James Buchanan and Geoffrey Brennan, in The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy, have offered an explanation of why the global corporate Republican wing of their party implemented the so-called free trade agreements.

They explain that national and local elected Republicans have selfish personal interests that they promote, as opposed to some conception of promoting the public good or the common wealth.

During the pre-election period, the Republican corporate politicians make promises to coalitions of conservative voters to obtain a majority of votes. After the election, they shift from their promises of serving the special interest coalitions, to using government resources to serve their own interests.

Following Buchanan and Brennan, the current constitution has no rules for prohibiting this behavior, and more importantly, no procedures for the citizens to reclaim their lost freedom, after the constitutional public purpose has been subverted by special interests.

David Landes, In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, wrote, ”If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. In the pursuit of wealth, failure or success are ultimately determined from within, not imposed from outside.”

Landes identified the social/institutional variables that, historically, seemed to contribute to the wealth of nations. These variables were:
• private property rights,
• individual civil rights,
• legal rights of contract,
• consistently stable institutions of government with peaceful measures for the transfer of power.

Buchanan applies the 4 variables of Landes to explain the how the unequal constitutional power in Madison’s constitution results in unequal economic opportunity.

Buchanan discusses the relationship between free markets and governmental power. He states that “…for most persons, the independence offered by the presence of market alternatives offers the maximal liberty possible.”
His main theory is that the 4 natural rights identified by Landes are instrumental in obtaining “maximum individual liberty.”

In other words, there exists a unique set of cultural and political values in America that enable citizens to obtain maximum individual liberty, which allows citizens to pursue their happiness.

For Buchanan, maximum individual liberty results in the greatest rates of upward occupational mobility, and upward mobility results from the greatest rates of economic growth.

The common name of this set of American cultural values is “the natural rights republic.”

When Buchanan discusses the question raised by Hobbes about the force that compels citizens to obey authority, he reaches the same conclusion that Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Buchanan reached 200 years earlier.

“No individual knows in advance where the individual may end up, given the choice between one set of constitutional rules or another,” writes Buchanan.

In the natual rights republic, Buchanan writes, “a rational individual, with a rational self-interest, would choose fair rules for all, aimed at the greatest freedom for all.”

In other words, when American patriots left the state of nature, to form the new nation, there was no prior path or model for them to follow. They implemented constitutional rules that relied on voluntary obedience to the rule of law

As Buchanan points out, in constitutional decision-making under uncertainty, the patriots sought rules that had maximum equal rights for all, with special privileges for none.

The fair constitutional rules provided the context for the autonomous, voluntary citizen obedience to the rule of law.

The end goal of the Articles of Confederation, the new nation’s first constitution, in this application of rational self-interest, was individual freedom. Madison’s constitution of 1787, replaced the first set of cultural values with his conception of the British social class system of politics.
Essentially, Republicans at the national and local level relied on the Madison British class system to pursue their selfish personal interests by promoting the interests of their corporate special interests.

The Republicans used their elected authority in Washington to derive maximum financial benefits for themselves by attaching their own private utility function to the financial utility function of the global corporate special interests.

The main point of the Buchanan and Brennan model is that Madison’s constitution does not contain the process to resolve the conflict between global corporations and the sovereign rights of citizens.

They note that constitutional conflicts must be resolved by reference to fair constitutional rules, and that the current constitution is not based upon fair rules because it elevated the elite interests above the common working class interests.

The current constitution does not address this conflict and citizens have no way of regaining their freedoms. The conflict must be managed in a way that serves the freedom of citizens in America, while providing mechanisms for domestic corporations to compete with foreign corporations.

Trump’s tariffs are aimed at correcting the economic consequences of this constitutional malfunction, created when the Republicans substituted their personal financial interests for the interests of 95% of the American population.

The Negative Economic Consequences of “So-Called Free Trade”

William Greider, in his article, A New Giant Sucking Sound, describes the emergence of the global market as “a race to the bottom.”

“Globalization is entering a fateful new stage,” writes Greider, “in which the competitive perils intensify for the low-wage developing countries much like the continuing pressures on high-wage manufacturing workers in the United States…As one economy after another sinks into contraction, national governments try to support output with tax subsidies…”

Martin Wolf, in Why Globalization Works, states, “Not only is it very difficult (for most citizens) to know what is going on, but most citizens have no interest in doing so. They are “rationally ignorant…”
He states, “It is impossible for the citizenry to reach sensible decisions on most of the matters that come before governments.”

The reason that the two economic premises stated at the top of this article about the benefits of international trade are not valid because, in the global market, nation’s no longer have an identifiable sovereign national economic interest.

The national sovereign interest has been replaced by the global corporate interest.

The national sovereignty, identified above as one of the essential premises for “free trade,” has been replaced by an allegiance to a global, one-world market, operated for the benefit of global bankers and large corporations.

The main problem for American citizens in the natural rights republic is that the functioning of the global economy in the hands of the corporate leaders, is invisible, and deliberately so, as a result of the way the current American special interest political system operates.

President Trump’s language for the special interest political system is “the swamp.”

Mueller, for example, is a special political interest operative of the swamp, doing the bidding of the corporate elites who hate Trump’s America First tariff policies.

The most obvious negative economic effect of the so-called free trade agreements was the direct and indirect job losses in the domestic U. S. economy, in the period of time after 1992.

The direct loss in manufacturing jobs and incomes described in the graphic below can be multiplied by 2, because for each lost job directly lost in manufacturing, another 2 jobs were lost indirectly in the service and supply value chains, called income and employment multipliers by economists.

Those obvious job losses are the main issues in most of the media and academic debate over Trump’s tariffs. That exclusive emphasis on job losses masks three more devastating structural economic losses to the U. S. economy that are not as obvious as the job losses.

Diagram 1.2 The Direct Loss in American Manufacturing Jobs Since 1998.

The three most significant economic effects of the free trade agreements are:
1. The loss of the income and employment multiplier effects that strengthen a fair income distribution throughout the American society. Economists call this loss of income and employment multipliers the “hollowing out” of the American economy. The fair distribution of income, that results from the multiplier effects, supports voluntary obedience to the rule of law.
2. The damage to the process of technological innovation in new product commercialization, and the subsequent effect on the rate of entrepreneurial new venture creation in 350 U. S. metro regional economies. New venture creation leads to the emergence of new future markets, that create future opportunities for upward occupational mobility, and new flows of income.
3. The structural damage to American metro capital markets, that fuel venture capital investments. The former vibrant metro capital markets have been replaced by global banks and global corporations, who control the pace of capital investment to suit their own private, selfish, financial interests.

The primary job losses are a result of companies that no longer exist. When profits from large global corporations do not flow back into the metro domestic economy, small businesses that depend on large corporations to buy supplies from the small business, go bankrupt.

In her report to Congress on Federal programs that support industrial competitiveness, Wendy Schacht cites 350,000 small U. S. manufacturing establishments in 2004. (Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts to Promote Industrial Competitiveness, CRS Report For Congress, Updated August 20, 2008).

The most recent CRS report at the end of 2008, shows that the comparable number of small manufacturing establishments in the U. S. was about 250,000.

As a result of the Republican Party global trade policies, about 100,000 small U. S. manufacturing firms have gone out of business between 2004 and 2008.

Diagram 1.3. Establishment Entry and Exit, Employment Weighted:

The loss of small manufacturing firms destroyed the ability of the U. S. economy to distribute income fairly, because the trade agreements destroyed the income and employment multiplier supply chains that used to distribute income in America, pursuant to the cultural values associated with voluntary obedience to the rule of law.

As the recent research by the Business Dynamics Statistical agency show, the loss of all manufacturing establishments, after 1992, entailed a huge loss of jobs, which have not been offset, either by jobs from the birth of new establishments, or by jobs created by the global corporations.

What changed, after 1992, was that the historical job creation dynamic at work in America had stopped working. Small, new ventures were not creating jobs fast enough to compensate for the loss of jobs in the older bigger corporations. (Business Formation and Dynamics by Business Age: Results from the New Business Dynamics Statistics, John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda, May 2008 Preliminary Draft).

The American rate of job creation from new ventures is too low, and the birth rate of new ventures is too low, to offset the loss of jobs from the trade policies.

The major job losses in America, since 2002, are in the older, larger global firms, who are engaged in offshoring their intermediate supply chains. When they offshore, they destroy jobs throughout the American economy.

The rate of job loss in the older firms is greater than the rate of job creation in new firms. And, the rate of new venture creation in America is headed down.

Diagram 1.4. Net Job Creation By Firm Age

Haltiwanger continues, “About 1/3 of the annual job creation rate is due to establishment entry. The very high rate of gross job creation is balanced with a very high rate of gross job destruction. The gross job destruction rate is around 16 percent on average indicated that about 16 percent of jobs that existed one year prior no longer exist.”

For the past 30 years, (starting around 1987), the political system in America has not addressed the fundamental structural labor market weaknesses created by the Republican trade policies.

Diagram 1.5. Job Gains and Losses

The consequence of the global free trade policies was to destroy the American job creation machine, which is one reason why the economic recession of 2008 has had a “jobless” recovery.

Michael Porter, a professor at the Harvard Business School has summarized the macro economic consequences of the so-called free trade policies. Porter concluded that, “globalization and technological change have put pressure on the U.S. economy and especially on working- and middle-class Americans and consumers.”

Porter asks, “Why are large companies and their owners and managers thriving even as working- and middle-class workers and small businesses struggle? For their success, many large companies rely on access to innovation, capital, and high-quality management.”

Porter explains why global corporations are doing so well, since 1992. “The ensuing globalization and technological progress,” explained Porter, greatly benefited American firms.”

Porter states that median real household income has declined 7%, since 1999, with incomes stagnating across virtually all income levels. Median household income in 2015 remains below the peak attained in 1999.

Between the 1970s and the 1990s, the U.S. economy created private-sector jobs at a long-run rate of roughly 2% per year decade after decade. The job growth rate began to decline around 2001.

Porter states that the number of small business firms created in the U.S. was actually lower in 2010 than the number of small business that went bankrupt. The total number of businesses with fewer than 500 employees has declined by more than 5%, since 1999.

After 2008, the rate of job creation in new small firms was not great enough to offset the loss of American jobs in older bigger corporations. The large older firms were shedding about 4 million jobs per year. The new firms were creating about 1 million jobs per year.

Diagram 1.6. Birth Rate of American New Small Technology Ventures Since 1992

Half of the country’s new business establishments created between 2010 and 2014 were clustered in just 20 counties, in the nation.

Since 2000, all the job growth from large corporations is concentrated in just 20 counties.

In terms of damage to domestic capital markets, Porter states that, “Between 2001, the year before the enactment of the trade and tax laws, U. S. corporate direct investment abroad was $119 billion. At the end of 2004, it was $219.8 billion.
Beginning in the late 1990s, private sector investment for equipment, intellectual property and structures began to decline. For 2010–2016, the average quarterly investment by business as a percentage of GDP was lower than it has been since the 1980s.”

Since 1992, however, U. S. corporations with foreign operations have primarily invested their profits overseas.

In other words, one consequence of the Republican trade laws on U.S. economic growth has been to divert about $100 billion in capital investments to other countries, in a 3 year period.

Since 2002, the rate of business investment in America, especially in the nine high technology value chains, has declined dramatically. Without a flow of investment capital from corporate profits back into domestic U. S. economy, there is no economic growth in America.

The minimum required rate of investment in U.S. corporations just to keep the domestic economy running-in-place, and maintain the status quo is about $100 billion per year, about the same magnitude of the increase in foreign investment made by global corporations, over that same period of time.

Running in place means that the level of investment is just enough to replace and replenish the existing capital stock of machinery and equipment in production plants. Running in place does not produce economic growth, and, in the absence of economic growth, citizens are attracted to the siren song of socialism.

The economic term used to describe the level of investment to run in place is “capital consumption adjustment.” Since 2002, the American economy has not had the minimum level of investment required to run in place.

When the minimum required level of capital investment is not made, the economy ratchets down to a new lower level of economic activity.

This “ratcheting down” effect explains why the Obama economy was so weak. Under Obama’s socialism, the economy did not have enough capital fuel to maintain aggregate economic demand at a minimum level of employment.

Diagram 1.7. Trends In the Minimal Rates of Investment Just To Run-In-Place

As a result of the trade deals, the rate of technology innovation in America has been severely damaged.

Majority-owned foreign affiliates of U.S. MNCs (henceforth, foreign affiliates) performed $27.5 billion in R&D abroad in 2004 after adjusting for inflation, up $4.7 billion or 17.4% from 2003, which was the largest annual increase since a 22% rise in 1999.

In general, changes in foreign direct investment in foreign research and development is directly the result of the trade policies in 1992 and 2002. The trade deals provided financial and tax incentives for U. S. corporations to invest in their foreign operations.

“The high price of ‘free’ trade,” notes Robert E. Scott, “results from a set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. NAFTA contained a number of unique provisions designed to provide special protections for investors in order to encourage foreign direct investment in chapter eleven of the agreement, which concerned investment.” (EPI Briefing Paper #147, November 17, 2003.)

Offshoring innovation has had the effect of removing the most important economic component of the innovation-capital market investment mechanism that used to exist in America.

Diagram 1.8. Trends in Corporate Technology Sector Investment Since Offshoring Started

The non-economic term for American technological superiority is sometimes called “American ingenuity.” It is also sometimes referred to, in non-economic documents, as the American cultural value of “self-made” citizens.

The Republican trade and tax policies abdicated freedom in such a way as to make technological innovation the exclusive province of the large corporations, to the detriment of small firms and entrepreneurs.

In abdicating individual freedom, the Republicans served to destroy the American economy of self-made citizens, and replaced it with a society dependent on either global corporations, or the welfare system of the Democrat socialists.

Because of the way that Republicans abdicated freedom, there is no longer a growing middle class of self-made, independent citizens in America.

Economists call the ability of the U. S. economy to innovate America’s initial factor endowment. It is the same variable that David Ricardo would have called America’s comparative advantage.

The reason that the two premises of free trade cited above are no longer valid in the tariff debate is that the so-called free traders managed to destroy America’s comparative advantage in economic growth.

In place of America’s initial factor endowment, they substituted their own selfish, closed, global corporate economy that directs financial benefits to themselves.

At the same moment in American economic history that U. S. corporate profits are not being reinvested in the U. S. economy, the rate of angel capital and venture capital investments in domestic American firms is flat-lining.

A 2002 paper by Stephen Redding of the London School of Economics found that economic growth is contingent upon technological innovation, and is therefore path-dependent.

In other words, the majority of economic growth occurred in those industries most likely to generate or benefit from new technology, and that these industries build on those which came before. They are predicate industries, which could not exist without their respective anchor industries.

Venture capital investments are flat-lining because there are no deals being created at the top of the American new venture pipeline. The deals that used to exist in America now exist in India and China.

Without capital investments in technology commercialization at the top of the pipeline, there is no economic growth.

Without economic growth, there is no job growth.

Without job growth, there is no upward occupational mobility for common citizens.

Without upward occupational mobility in a natural rights republic, common citizens have no reason to obey the rule of law, and they turn to socialism to provide a “fair economic deal.”

Global, one-world socialist government is the political outcome that proponents of so-called free trade wish to preserve in fighting Trump’s tariffs.

The Economc Benefits of Trumps’ Tariffs

In 1789, the U. S. Congress adopted the Pennsylvania Plan of Protection, written by Representative Thomas Fitzsimmons. The Pennsylvania Plan imposed tariffs on steel and wool, among many other items that the elected leaders in Pennsylvania desired to protect.

In his first address to Congress, President Washington stated, “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

One year after the Tariff of 1789 was signed, George Washington noted, “The number of new manufactures introduced in one year is astonishing.”

In 1893, in an article about the 1789 Tariff debate in Congress, William Hill stated “A new patriotism was awakened, and America began to take measures to foster her industrial growth.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

The opponents to Trump’s tariffs do not have a comparable historical record that supports their advocacy of “free trade,” because the goal of free trade, for them, is not economic nationalism. It is globalism.

The opponents of Trump’s tariffs are corporate globalists, and their allegiance is to an ethereal concept of “free trade.” The opponents to Trump’s tariffs are citizens of the world, who cloak their special interests of large corporations as if the corporate interests are the same as the “national economic interest.”

Rather, throughout American history, whenever, and wherever patriots gather to promote the national interest, they act to protect America’s native industries.

Just like in 1789, America’s current native industries are the “anchor industries” that promote economic growth and fair distribution of income.

Trump’s tariffs provide support to two important anchor industries.

The economic benefits of the tariffs are:

1. The re-creation of the income and employment multiplier effects that strengthen fair income distribution throughout the American society. The fair distribution of income supports voluntary obedience to the rule of law.
2. The re-ignition of technological innovation in new product commercialization, and the subsequent effect on the rate of entrepreneurial new venture creation in 350 U. S. metro regional economies. New venture creation leads to the emergence of new future markets, that create future opportunities for upward occupational mobility, and new flows of income.
3. The re-institution of the American metro capital markets, that fuel venture capital investments. The former vibrant metro capital markets have been replaced by global banks and global corporations, who control the pace of capital investment to suit their own private, selfish, financial interests.

In addition to the tariffs on steel and aluminum, Trump must also implement a new type of infrastructure program that supports the flow of capital investment in each of the 350 metro regions.

The small banking and small business capital markets were destroyed by the way the trade agreements were implemented.

The nascent, non-existent metro capital markets will require protection from the global banks, just like the native anchor firms require protection from the unfair trade deals.

Conclusion: The Natural Rights Argument for Tariffs

Part of the fraud of free traders is their political subterfuge that corporate globalism is really about how free markets and free trade spread the economic benefits of growth and prosperity to all segments of the American society.

Markets only perform this function of creating and spreading wealth when markets are competitive.

When markets are not competitive, in other words, when a few big corporate players dominate both the production and the sale of goods and services, markets do not perform their beneficial function of creating and distributing wealth.

This part of the Republican lie is used in a political context to justify monopoly-pricing practices of the large multinational corporations. Global monopoly pricing leads to a boom-bust global economic cycle because it leads to wild speculation in prices and assets.

The enduring economic legacy of the free trade agreements is global economic instability and increased poverty.

By strengthening the U. S. domestic economy with tariffs, Trump returns America to the essential premise of global trade.

The benefits of global trade are only obtained when each nation defines its own national sovereign economic interest, and defends its own sovereign national borders.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party.

Topic Category #1:Video #4.

Voting Rights and The U. S. Constitution

I am Laurie Thomas Vass.

Citizens of America owe permanent allegiance to their nation, and owe a moral obligation to protect the rights of other citizens.
This article expands the legal and constitutional justification for eliminating the Democrat’s right to vote particularly in a proposed national referendum on allowing California and smaller metro regions to leave the current nation to form their own socialist nation.
The argument that I am making is that registered Democrats do not exhibit allegiance to the nation, and all registered Democrats are colluding in Mueller’s attempt to subvert the rights of citizens.
In their continuing plot to eliminate the second amendment, they are trying to eliminate rights of 63 million Trump voters.
If the registered Democrat voters were authentic patriotic Americans, they would not be engaged in the morally reprehensible attempt to use the murder of school children as a political prop to get rid of the second amendment.
If the socialist trolls who run Twitter and Facebook were authentic, patriotic Americans, they would not be suspending accounts in order to limit free speech.
If the globalists in the FBI were authentic, patriotic Americans, they would not be engaged in the treason of overthrowing a duly elected government.
There is no reciprocity in civil exchanges or civil discourse between socialists and natural right conservatives because their basic beliefs about America are different.
One part of the socialist belief system holds the conservatives as immoral, and unworthy of civil treatment.
A second part of the socialist belief system is that they can not tolerate dissent or disagreement about their total vision of American culture and society.
Socialists are engaged in thought-control and censorship, not free exchange of ideas, because socialists, like those at Twitter and YouTube, can not tolerate dissent from their religious ideology.
The root of the socialist Democrat’s evil is their subversive behavior in undermining the freedom of other citizens.
The American Democrat Party performs, on a daily basis, evil acts to destroy liberty, knowing in advance, that their political actions are harming the rights of the 63 million citizens who voted for Trump.

Socialists do not hold these national moral values in common with other citizens.

Moral behavior in socialism is multi-cultural.
In socialist cultures moral values are not based upon the highest value of “personhood,” but are rather based upon the group values of a tribe or the collectivity.
In multi-culturalism, each culture, even ones that believe in the mutilation of young girls, are held to be morally equivalent.
The socialists have an irreconcilable difference with conservatives about moral behavior because socialists do not believe in the values of individualism expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration.
Socialists are totalitarians and police-state authoritarians, but conservatives make the mistake of assuming that socialists believe in free speech.
Conservatives respect the rights of other citizens to speak and write ideas that are contrary to their own because conservatives are aware that the truth of a proposition is difficult to discern.
Conservatives continually make the mistake of assuming that socialists believe in the self-evident truths in the Declaration, because conservatives assume that all American citizens believe in these truths.
This conflict between socialists and conservatives is between individual rights and collectivism. The differences are irreconcilable.
There can only be one side that wins this war.

Treason and Allegiance
Congress defined espionage and treason as an attempt to overthrow the government.
In defining treason, Congress outlined two forms of allegiance: permanent and temporary.
U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and this duty carries with them wherever they go in the world.
The law states, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
My argument is easy to understand. Prior to the election of Trump, Obama, and the Democrat Party, were engaged in the treason of espionage.
After the election, Obama unleashed the Deep State secret police to overturn the Trump election. Mueller, and the FBI, are engaged in the treason of espionage and subverting the government.

Any, and all, registered Democrats who are guilty of collusion with Obama and Mueller, to subvert the rights of citizens, should have restrictions on their right to vote.
All Democrats who are traitors, should be punished by taking away their voting rights.

The rule of law
The basic promise, in the American natural rights republic, that citizens made to each other, was not to use the government’s police power to destroy America’s heritage of individual liberty.
In constitutional decision-making under uncertainty, individuals would seek rules that had maximum equal rights for all, with special privileges for none. The end goal of the rule of law in the natural rights constitution is based upon rational self-interest, aimed at the greatest individual freedom.
The rule of law in America is entirely voluntary. Obedience to the rule of law depends entirely on the application of equal justice under the law.
Paine wrote, “…for where the rights of men are equal, every man must finally see the necessity of protecting the rights of others as the most effectual security of his own rights.” “…freedom and rights mean a perfect equality of them.”
Jefferson wrote, “We come to respect those rights in others that we value in ourselves.”
Locke wrote that when the citizens left the state of nature to form their government that a rational individual, with a rational self-interest, would choose fair rules for all, aimed at the greatest freedom for all.
In Federalist #45, Madison promised citizens that the powers of the central government were limited and defined.
The public purpose of maintaining the rule of law and social order in the natural rights republic is tempered by the equally important public purpose of defining social rules of cooperation allowing for each individual to define and pursue self-interest.
The social rules of cooperation in America are found in the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, and Madison’s constitution of 1787.
The American cultural values of trust and honest fair dealings allowed individual citizens to form expectations about the likely behavior of other individuals in society.
The application of the rule of law in Obama’s socialism is entirely arbitrary, just like the rule of law in the colonies, when King George enforced the rule of law on the colonists.
In contrast to Madison’s equal justice under the law, in Obama’s socialism, Marxian class war, socialist ideology, and white privilege within the capitalist legal system, constitute the context of the rule of law.
In contrast to the individualistic rules of cooperation, in Obama’s socialism, the citizens never leave the state of uncertainty because they never know what the socialist elites will come up with next.
As a result of the uncertainty in socialist rules, the socialist elites must use the coercive power of the secret police to enforce the rules.When citizens can see a criminal, like Hillary, getting away with murder, the citizens have no reason, themselves, to obey the constitutional rule of law.
When citizens can clearly see Mueller’s betrayal of the nation, with no consequence from Sessions, the citizens think to themselves, “Why should I obey the rule of law?”
Mueller and Obama are unrestrained by the American rule of law. They are empowered by their application of the socialist rule of law.
Madison’s principles of the separation of power in socialism is converted into a two-step process between an ideological political party and the apparatus of government, that uses the secret police to enforce the values of “social fairness.”
The rule of law under Obama results in collectivist authoritarianism, just like the outcome in Venezuela.

Constitutional Restrictions on Registered Democrats Voting Rights
Whereas, the Constitution explicitly protects the right to own a gun, no where in Madison’s flawed document does the right to vote exist.
In no part of Madison’s text does he state, “All individual citizens have the right to vote.”
The Constitution simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.”
In the absence of an explicit right to vote codified in Madison’s constitution, the Supreme Court has found no issue with a variety of regulations that restrict the right to vote.
The Supreme Court, for example, has consistently accepted the claims by states that voter registration in advance of an election, is needed for orderly elections and to prove that a voter is a real resident.
Generally, when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of voting restrictions applied by states, it cites in the first paragraph of the opinion , Article I, Section 4, which declares that the states shall regulate elections.
Amendment XIV, ratified by the states in 1868, states:
“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any [federal or state] election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, states that, “no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.” It then says that the state may remove a voter if the voter doesn’t respond to a notice and “then has not voted” in two or more federal elections in a row.
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), the Supreme Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
The majority on the Court ruled that the Indiana law was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. According to Justice Scalia, citing Article 1, the proper level of scrutiny was “whatever the state legislature wants.”
Since that Supreme Court ruling, in 2008, 14 states have enacted and strengthened voter-ID laws.
Arizona enacted a law requiring voters to prove their citizenship by presenting not just a driver’s license but a passport or birth certificate upon registering and a photo ID at the polls.
The city of Albuquerque changed its charter to require a photo ID at the polls.
In Georgia, the legislature voted to require government-issued ID.

This is my conclusion.
The evil pursued by American socialists is the subjugation of the individual “personhood” to the socialist ideology of group “social justice.”
The socialists destroy the liberty of citizens to pursue their individual sovereign life destiny, and substitute the collective socialist pursuit of social justice, where control over an individual’s choices are subjugated to the needs of the “state.”
The Democrats who are currently engaged in “resistance,” are engaged in rebellion.
As in the period of time, just after the Civil War, when Confederate soldiers were required to swear an oath of allegiance in order to vote, Democrats engaged in resistance, should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, before they vote.
Obama and Mueller are engaged in crimes against the nation.
Any Democrat that shows up at the voting place must swear an oath that they have not colluded, or supported, the criminal, treasonous acts of the Democrat Party leadership.
The resolution to the ideological war between conservatives and socialists will require a citizen referendum that grants authority to the state of California to leave the nation.
Each state legislature should prepare the rules for voting in that referendum, including sensible restrictions for Democrats, who can not swear an oath of allegiance to the nation.
Democrat Party leaders should be banned from voting because they committed crimes against the nation.
If the results of the California referendum allow the state to secede, then a second referendum will be held to form the Liberty States of America, where each state can choose to join the new nation, or stay with the former United States of America.
The best, non-violent outcome of the irreconcilable difference between natural rights conservatives and socialists is a peaceful, voluntary emigration of socialists to California.
The first step in that peaceful resolution is to restrict traitors from voting in the proposed citizen referendums.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass. This video is a production of the Citizen Liberty Party News Network.
Thank you for joining me today.


Topic Category 2. Creating A Natural Rights Republic

Video #1. A Nation Irreconcilably Divided Can Not Endure

In his recent NewsMax article about the ideological divisions in America between conservatives principles of liberty and socialism, Jason Devany noted that:

  • 64 percent of citizens said the political system in the S. is dysfunctional.
  • 71 percent said problems with the American political system have reached a dangerous low point.

At the same time that the new citizen survey came out, Walter E. Williams, in his article, “Undermining America,” noted how strange it seems that so few commentators explain why the socialists are so intent on undermining the American rule of law.

“What goes unappreciated,” stated Williams, “is just why America’s leftists’ are motivated to attack the Founders. The reason is that if they can delegitimize the Founders themselves, it goes a long way toward their agenda of delegitimizing the founding principles of our nation. If the leftists can convince citizens that men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were good-for-nothing slave-owning racists, then their ideas can be more easily trashed.”

While Williams can accurately describe the intent of the left’s strategy to attack the principles of individual liberty, he does not describe the genesis of the dysfunction in the U. S. system of government, that allows the left the opportunity to destroy the nation, from within.

The left’s intent is not simply to trash the ideals of liberty held by the Founders.

Their intent is to replace individual liberty, itself, in order to substitute left-wing collectivism. In their world-view individuals only exist as a member of an aggrieved group.

In other words, the left’s target is the concept of liberty, and in order to destroy liberty, they must first destroy the credibility of the leaders who founded this nation.

The genesis of the dysfunction in the American political system is that Madison’s political arrangement failed to prevent centralized tyranny.

Madison promised citizens that if they adopted his constitution that it would avoid the fate of tyranny.

Madison’s constitution is a failure, by his own standards.

Madison’s flaw is that he deliberately disconnected his constitutional rules of procedure from the end goals of liberty, contained in the Declaration.

Unlike the 13 state constitutions, and the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Madison redefined the purpose of government to be the creation of “a more perfect union.”

A more perfect union can be anything the holders of power, or Federal judges, want it to mean.

As Madison noted, “the central function of the legal system is to protect the property rights of the natural aristocracy from the “tyranny of the majority” (working class).

Under Madison’s conception of the rule of law, called the British Social Class (BSC) system, there is no moral end point in his constitution that states the purpose of government is to secure and protect the natural rights of citizens.

In the absence of the Declaration’s stated, constitutional goal, Madison’s rules do not express any shared cultural values that bind citizens together.

The left’s attack on the founders can be interpreted from this perspective because they can claim that the cultural values of socialism are as credible and legitimate as Jefferson’s goal of protecting individual liberty.

In Madison’s system of checks and balances, constitutional laws provide the institutional framework for social stability in economic and judicial exchanges between elites and non-elites.

Under Madison’s constitutional arrangement, voluntary allegiance to the rule of law was supposed to constrain arbitrary government action taken by the natural aristocracy that was not pursuant to established constitutional rules.

For Madison, the quality of virtue possessed by the more rational natural aristocracy, who owned property, would allow the elites to make good decisions on behalf of non-elites, in a type of virtual representation.

Allegiance to the rule of law in Madison’s arrangement was based upon the shared cultural value that the aristocracy knew, better than the citizens themselves, what was in the best interests of  “we the people,” seen by Madison as a collectivist group, not as individual citizens.

As Charles Beard explained, for Madison, “The primary objective of government is the making of rules which determine the property relations between members of society.”

In Madison’s system, the elites (natural aristocracy) had the power to make the laws, and the citizens had the duty to obey the laws made by the elites.

As described by Robert Horwitz, in his book, The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, Madison thought that, if the working class could develop a class consciousness, represented by their own political party, they would not devolve into a dangerous “faction,” one of Madison’s favorite terms.

In Madison’s constitution, individual liberty was not a “faction,” worthy of legal status, in the same sense that he identified the working class and the elites as commercial financial factions, worthy of legal status.

In Madison’s rules, there are only two social classes, the natural aristocracy and the working class. His system of politics would only require, forever, two political parties.

In Madison’s constitution, Jefferson’s cultural value of shared individual liberty was replaced with the cultural value of shared plunder.

The essence of the rule of law in Madison’s arrangement is financial group special interest negotiation over the distribution the spoils of the plunder.

Madison did not incorporate the British multi-party parliamentary system, but preferred to impose a static, two-class interpretation of society, leading to a static, unchanging two-party political system.

When the Democrat Party converted from a party that represented working class citizens to a global socialist party, the American working class lost their constitutional power to protect their natural rights.

In the political system created by Madison, common citizens do not have, anymore, their own political party (faction) to represent their class interests.

The elites and the working class, identified by Madison, in 1787, are the same two classes identified by Marx, in 1867, and embraced by Democrat Party socialists today.

In the modern incarnation, the socialist elites in the Swamp, negotiate with the global Vichy Republicans on distribution of the spoils of the system.

In the hands of the socialists, a more perfect union means the implementation of social welfare justice, as defined by the vanguard socialist party, at any moment in time.

On every single principle of a natural rights republic, the left has an alien and subversive view of the nation’s founding principles of individual liberty.

All the socialists need to do today to gain unchecked reins of power in Madison’s arrangement is to eliminate the Republican Party, with their own anti-American dictatorship, in order to implement their own version of virtual representation.

The left’s promotion of multi-culturalism and importing terrorists is aimed at destroying the cultural values of American individualism and private property.

Once the socialist elites and Vichy Republicans convene in Washington, they operate in a closed-political system, entirely for their own financial benefit, and entirely beyond the consent of the governed.

Madison’s arrangement insulated the elite from political accountability to common citizens.

In the absence of rights of recall, the absence of term limits and the life-time appointment of judges, the citizens in America do not have a constitutional mechanism to alter or abolish this tyrannical form of centralized elite tyranny.

It does not matter how many constitutional amendments that Mark Levin offers, or how many “Conservative Republicans” Steve Bannon can elect.

Madison’s constitution is a failure and beyond redemption.

While 64% of the citizens know that the system is dysfunctional, and 63 million voters elected a conservative President, the socialists continue in their unrelenting attack to subvert the natural rights of citizens, and overthrow a constitutionally elected government, that they despise.

The first step that patriots must take to reclaim their liberty is to admit that the nation is irreconcilably divided between socialists and natural rights conservatives.

The two factions do not share any common cultural values that bind the citizens of the nation together.

A second part of the solution is to help the socialists form their own state in California, where they will not be able to continue to undermine the fabric of  the individualist culture and subvert the ideal of American individual liberty.

Laurie Thomas Vass is the CEO of The Citizens Liberty Party. Her video daily  commentary is available at the website. The text version of the column is available exclusively to members of the Citizens Liberty Party. Membership in the new party available on the website for an annual fee of $25.

Dec 11 Segment 2

Thank you for joining us for the second segment of our program today.

Our second segment is designed to connect our analysis of what is wrong with the American government to solutions that citizens can implement to restore the rule of law and reclaim the spirit of individual liberty that motivated the signers of the American Declaration of Independence.

In my column earlier, I explained that the dysfunction in government is caused by a centralized tyranny of globalists, who believe that a one-world government would be better than the continued existence of America, as a sovereign nation state.

I explained that the obstacles for citizens in eliminating the centralized tyranny is made much harder because of Madison’s flaw of leaving out the end goal of government in his constitution.

The issue that I raised in my column  for the 63 million voters who voted for Trump is how they should respond to the new political reality of the Democrat’s intent to subvert the natural rights of American citizens

The left’s intent is not simply to trash the ideals of liberty held by the Founders.

Their intent is to replace individual liberty, itself, in order to substitute left-wing collectivism.

In their world-view individuals only exist as a member of an aggrieved group.

In other words, the left’s target is the concept of liberty, and in order to destroy liberty, they must first destroy the credibility of the leaders who founded this nation.

The genesis of the dysfunction in the American political system is that Madison’s political arrangement failed to prevent centralized tyranny.

Madison promised citizens that if they adopted his constitution that it would avoid the fate of tyranny.

Madison’s flaw is that he deliberately disconnected his constitutional rules of procedure from the end goals of liberty, contained in the Declaration.

Unlike the 13 state constitutions, and the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Madison redefined the purpose of government to be the creation of “a more perfect union.”

A more perfect union can be anything the holders of power, or Federal judges, want it to mean.

When the Democrat Party converted from a party that represented working class citizens to a global socialist party, the American working class lost their constitutional power to protect their natural rights.

In the political system created by Madison, common citizens do not have, anymore, their own political party (faction) to represent their class interests.

In my analysis of the problem in the national government is that citizens are in the very early stages of a planned coup d’etat to overthrow the Trump government.

Citizens can clearly see that Mueller is laying the foundation of  starting this coup.

There is nothing stopping Mueller from conducting his coup because all of the elites in the swamp want Trump removed.

Trump voters do not have a political party to lead a national political movement to reclaim individual liberty and restore the rule of law.

Citizens do not have an organizational framework to defend their natural rights and defeat the socialists, after Mueller launches his coup.

After the coup d’etat is launched by the elites in the swamp, there will likely be a period of chaos and violence in America.

That period of time can end with one of three different scenarios.

First, the socialists may win, and implement their global socialist tyranny.

Second, the natural rights conservatives may defeat the socialists and restore the rule of law.

Or, third, both sides may call a truce and agree to a civil dissolution of the current nation.

The two sides, the socialists and the natural rights conservatives,  can not live peacefully together.

A nation divided against itself can not endure.

The intractable problem of centralized tyranny in American government can only be solved by a civil dissolution, where the socialists create their own socialist utopia, and natural rights conservatives start over, by reclaiming the Spirit of citizen liberty, proclaimed by patriots, in 1776.

The first step that patriots must take to reclaim their liberty is to admit that the nation is irreconcilably divided between socialists and natural rights conservatives.

The two factions do not share any common cultural values that bind the citizens of the nation together.

A second part of the solution is to help the socialists form their own state in California, where they will not be able to continue to undermine the fabric of  the individualist culture and subvert the ideal of American individual liberty.

Natural Rights Conservatives must join a new political party in America, called the Citizens Liberty Party.

The mission of the party is to lead a national political movement that protects natural rights and restores the rule of law, after 8 years of Obama’s lawless regime.

The CLP is founded on the bedrock principle expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration that the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of citizens and to defend the sovereignty of the nation from external and internal enemies, like the socialists.

When you join the CLP, you will be asked to volunteer to work on one of the local political committees in your home community.

You will also be asked to form a local citizens committee of correspondence to coordinate the external affairs of the Party with other local chapters in other metro regions.

After you join the CLP, you will be asked to upload news articles about events and issues that you think other members of the party would be interested in hearing.

The organizational website for the CLP is at www.citizenslibertyparty.com.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party, and I need volunteers to join me in the fight to defeat the socialists.

Topic Category #3. The Politics of Democrat Party Socialists

Video #1. Obama’s Promise of Social Justice

In contrast to Madison’s equal justice under the law, in Obama’s socialism, Marxian class war, socialist ideology, and white privilege within the capitalist legal system, constitute the context for the application of Obama’s socialist rule of law.

Mueller and Obama are unrestrained by Madison’s concept of the American rule of law.

They are empowered by their own concept of the socialist rule of law. They have absolute moral certainty that their concept of justice is better than the natural rights concept of justice, and that moral certainty empowers them to impose their views on the 63 million Trump voters.

The consequences of elected democrats following their own socialist rule of law were recently described by Garrett Epps, a socialist writer, from Baltimore.Epps described a scenario where a rogue President used the time period between the election and inauguration to subvert the rule of law.

“An interregnum president may issue controversial or corrupt pardons. In either case, the voters have no means of holding their leader accountable,” Epps wrote.

According to Epps, the rogue President would, “govern with a fine disdain for democratic and legal norms—stonewalling congressional oversight; detaining foreigners and U.S. citizens on his “inherent authority”; using the Justice Department as a political cudgel; ordering officials to ignore statutes and treaties that he found inconvenient.”

Epps continued, “The most egregious case arises when a president’s policy and leadership have been repudiated by the voters, either by a defeat for reelection or by a sweeping rejection of his congressional allies in a midterm election.”

Epps pointed out that the U. S. Constitution “should not have permitted a repudiated president to commit his successor to an international conflict that neither the new president nor Congress had approved.”

The most dangerous constitutional malfunction, wrote Epps, was called the “runaway presidency.”

Epps described that Madison’s constitution did not contain rules by which a rogue president could be reined in, especially during the time of transition from the election in November to the swearing in of the new president, in January.

Epps explained that, “runaway presidents have at times committed the country to courses of action that the voters never approved…or uses the office to further a surprising, obscure, or discredited political agenda. Under these circumstances, what poses as bold leadership is in fact usurpation.”

Epps views his job as a socialist propagandist to promote the philosophy of Democrat Party global socialism. His article about a rogue President was about George Bush, not Obama, and was written in 2009.

His article, and his propaganda, provides an excellent example of the twisted logic of the left’s social construction of reality. In their twisted logic, they create an imaginary fantasy about their enemies, as if the fantasy is reality, and then project their own concept of evil onto their hated enemies, in this case, George Bush.

Their socially constructed reality contains a psychological illness that projects their own behavior onto the behavior of the fantasy enemies that they have created.

Epps is a dishonest and untrustworthy citizen because he can not describe Obama for the tyrant that he is.  But, he is perfect in his job as a propagandist because he projects his concept of social justice truth onto George Bush.

The Democrat Party logic of social construction of reality leads to chaos and violence in American society. Their concept of truth is based upon the intensity of their allegiance to the fantasies that they create.

My argument today is that Obama’s social construction of reality is the direct cause of the murder of the 17 children in Florida.

But, beyond perpetrating mass murder, the policies of Obama and the Democrats attack the foundation of individual freedom and natural rights, in favor of European socialist collectivism.

The reason that FBI background checks on the killer in Florida did not work, and will never work, is that the Democrat’s version of reality prohibits the FBI from the data collection on the Democrat’s favored identity politics voting constituencies.

The reality of mass murder in America, since 2008, is that they are committed either by Democrat activists or democrat special interest collectivities, like the illegal migrants, or Islamic terrorists, coddled by Obama as a cultural equivalent to the cultural values of American society.

The reason that the public does not know the identity of the Las Vegas killer is that the news would not promote the socialist concept of social justice.

The killer in Las Vegas is most likely a democrat activist, and that identity would not fit into their social construction of reality.

How Obama’s Promise Program Enabled the Florida Mass Killing

Obama’s twisted logic about America’s inherent racism is the proximate cause of the killings in Florida.

Rush Limbaugh has detailed the origins of Obama’s Promise program that led to the mass killing.

Rush described how Obama constructed his fantasy, that led to the creation of the Promise program. “The program originated from the premise that the Democrats hold that the prison population is disproportionately minority and African-American because of injustice in America,” Limbaugh stated.

“Obama saw a black population of 20%, but that the prison population of minorities is 60%. Ergo the justice system must be tainted. This is what Holder and Obama believe. So they believe that bigotry and racism is resulting in charges and convictions against innocent minority perps, Limbaugh added.”

Obama’s fantasy is that students of color are ‘disproportionately impacted’ by suspensions and expulsions, a situation that leads to a ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ that discriminates against minority and low-income students.

Rush stated, “So, they began a program called the PROMISE Program which promised money to local police departments and school districts for ignoring certain crimes, mostly misdemeanors, but not contained to misdemeanors. And for all of these crimes ignored, there would thus be no charges. And thus no convictions. And thus there wouldn’t be any sentencing because nobody’d be going to jail.”

Ergo, if there is not a criminal record, there is no data in the FBI files, and FBI background gun checks do not pick up the perp’s propensity for mass murder.

The killer in Florida had a long criminal record, but was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama’s efforts to make school discipline more lenient for minorities.

As a part of the Democrat’ psychological illness, they projected their fantasy onto their hated enemies, in this case, the NRA.

Erika Soto Lamb, spokeswoman for Democrats for Education Reform, said, “Like the Parkland High School students did, it’s time to call ‘BS’ on attempts to lay blame on anything other than the culture of gun violence in America and the system of weak laws that makes it too easy for dangerous people to get guns.”

To summarize, the socialists begin their logic with their bedrock assertion that America is a racist and unjust nation. The racism causes social injustice against black people that can not be overcome in the democratic republic.

So, the socialists construct their fantasies about the injustice in America, create policies that cause violence, and then attribute the violent outcomes to their enemies.

The socialist Democrat goal is to convert, or “transform” America into a component of a one-world socialist government. Their model of government is European socialism.

The philosophical end goal of the rule of law for socialists, is a political and legal system of social justice, whose goals can vary, arbitrarily, from time to time, because the socialists do not reason with moral right and wrong rationality, but with their allegiance to their religion of social justice.

The deployment of the FBI to force obedience to the rule of law in socialism, in strict adherence to what the elites in the vanguard socialist political party determine it to be, at any moment in time.

Mueller can best be understood as a global socialist performing his duty to the socialist religion. He is engaged in a coup against Trump, and he is absolutely certain that he is doing the work of his socialist god.

The Logic of the Socialist Religion

Socialists do not believe in individual rationality because their starting assumption denies the reality of an “individual.” In socialist ideology, individuals only exist as a part of their membership in an oppressed collectivist group.

Part of the socialist collective group think is that all members of an aggrieved identity group think and act alike, and that all of them suffer from oppression of the white, ruling, capitalist class.

Citizens accused of crimes by the agents of the FBI are not innocent until proven guilty, but guilty before the fact because of their gender, color of their skin or political party affiliation.

Guilt or innocence is not an objective fact, to be determined on a case by case basis.

Rather, according to Mueller, Trump is judged guilty because of his gender and the color of his skin.

The end goal of their form of logic is not truth, but demonstrating allegiance to their religion.

It does not matter if the topic is the assumed prior guilt of the Duke lacrosse players, or the presumed guilt of Trump in committing an impeachable offense.

Truth for them is showing extreme allegiance to their religion, and the more intensely they demonstrate allegiance, the more “truth” of the proposition.

Rationality is defined as a collectivist religious belief in the values of the commune, or social group. Their religion begins with a shared collective belief that America is an evil empire, primarily because of the sin of slavery.

Mueller is absolutely certain that his deployment of the FBI against Trump serves the public purpose because the agents are attacking the racist forces of evil. In Mueller’s concept of the rule of law, Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election from Hillary.

Mueller’s collusion fantasy is just like Obama’s Promise program fantasy because for both of them, the public purpose is served because both of them are attacking the racist forces of evil.

—————————————–

This is my conclusion

The argument I am making is not simply that the Obama policy caused the death of the children in Florida.

My argument is about the logic of how Democrats think and reason because how they think will not change in the future.

The argument I am making is that in the big picture of the war between socialists and patriots about the future of America can not be obtained through negotiations with the socialists.

In their logic, the socialists, like Obama, are absolutely certain that their policies lead to greater social welfare benefits and social justice, than the individualistic logic of the natural rights republic.

Many more children will be killed in mass killings because of the socialist logic.

But, if the socialists win the war, then all of western civilization’s progress on individual freedom will be lost because the socialists will control the secret police to maintain order.

The two ideologies do not share any values in common because there is no “public thing” in America.

Prior to the election of Obama, American citizens shared a widely-held common definition about truth, reality, and the history of America. The common definition of truth and objectivity was rooted in Western Civilization traditions of scientific realism and empirical observation.

After the election of Obama, the shared cultural values that served to bind American citizens together in a common national identity were replaced by

Marxian class war, socialist ideology, and white privilege within the capitalist legal system.

The socialists live in a false reality that they create. They are quite willing to sacrifice the lives of children in mass murder to promote their glorious revolution.

Obama and Mueller are vicious, violent, hate-filled socialists, who operate with absolute moral certainty that the death of innocent American children is well worth their end state of global socialism.

The 65 million Democrats who voted for Hillary believe in the Obama fantasy, that resulted in the murder of the children.

There is no negotiation, or “reaching across the aisle” with the socialists. The socialists must be vanquished to California.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this video is a production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network.

Please stay tuned for Our Second segment after a brief word from our sponsor.

 

Segment 2 March 12 Obama’s Promise of Social Justice

Thank you for joining us for the second segment of our program today.

Our second segment is designed to connect our analysis of what is wrong with the American government to solutions that citizens can implement to restore the rule of law and reclaim the spirit of individual liberty that motivated the signers of the American Declaration of Independence.

In the first segment, I explained that the dysfunction in government is caused by a centralized tyranny of globalists, who believe that a one-world socialist government would be better than the continued existence of America, as a sovereign nation state.

I explained how the socialists create their own fantasies, and project their hatred of America onto their phantom enemies.

I ended my column with the idea that the best solution for the 63 million voters who voted for Trump is to vanquish the Democrats to their own socialist nation of California.

I have searched for other solutions offered by other conservative thinkers about how to deal with the Democrat’s hatred of America.

While other writers can describe the coming coup d’etat, none of them offer suggestions to citizens on what citizens should do to protect and preserve civil liberties and natural rights.

Most of the talk radio conservatives can rile their listeners up about the leftist threat to individual freedom.

But, when it comes to new ideas to deal with the leftists, most of the conservative commentators suggest voting for Republicans.

The Republicans are worthless as a political party, and they did nothing to confront Obama’s socialist transformation of the nation.

Most of the Republican Party, at the national level, is comprised of Vichy collaborators who support the agenda of a one-world socialist government.

Continuing to vote for Republicans is not a solution.

There are only two sides in this war between freedom and slavery. The socialists, in collaboration with the Republicans, and the 63 million Trump voters.

The two sides, the Democrat socialists and the natural rights conservatives, can not live peacefully together.

A nation divided against itself can not endure. The Republic has died.

On its current trajectory, the nation will end up in a bloody civil war.

The 63 million Trump voters need to move on from the current dysfunction in America, caused by the collaboration of the two political parties, and admit that this nation has reached the end.

The intractable problem of centralized tyranny in American government can only be solved by a civil dissolution, where the socialists create their own socialist utopia, and natural rights conservatives start over, by reclaiming the Spirit of citizen liberty, proclaimed by patriots, in 1776.

Natural Rights Conservatives must join a new political party in America, called the Citizens Liberty Party.

The mission of the party is to lead a national political movement that protects natural rights and restores the rule of law, after 8 years of Obama’s lawless regime.

The CLP is founded on the bedrock principle expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration that the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of citizens and to defend the sovereignty of the nation from external and internal enemies, like the socialists.

The first goal of the CLP is to help the citizens in California form their new state, and help the new state to secede from the current United States.

The second goal is to jettison Madison’s flawed constitution and restore the elements of the states rights constitution of the Articles of Confederation.

If other conservative writers have a better idea, they need to state it in public. Otherwise, they need to advocate that their readers and listeners prepare for civil war.

The organizational website for the CLP is at www.citizenslibertyparty.com.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party, and I need volunteers to join me in the fight for American freedom.

Topic Category #3. Video #2..

The Murder of Truth and the Death of the Republic

I am Laurie Thomas Vass and this is the Citizens Liberty News Network.

Congressman Louie Gohmert has recently been appearing on national media outlets, expressing the hope that just one Democrat leader, somewhere, would come forward to support the truth content of the David Nunes memo.

Representative Adam Schiff, speaking on behalf of all Democrats, has said that the Nunes memo is false.

The differences about the truth content of the Nunes memo are irreconcilable because Democrats reason with a different form of logic than conservatives. The form of logic used by Democrats is reasoning from a false premise.

The truth content of the dossier depends on whether it is consistent with the Democrat’s socially constructed reality that Trump stole the election from the rightful winner.

To Schiff, the Nunes memo is false and the dossier is truth because the premises of the dossier confirms his prior conviction.

The truth content of the dossier acts as the logical confirmation of Trump’s guilt. The contents of the dossier act as the evidence for the Democrat’s conclusion that Trump is an illegitimate President, and must be removed from office.

For Democrats, the truth content of the dossier is not a mistaken conclusion, it is an article of their religious ideology of socialism.

For them, the dossier is the truth. They do not see the truth the same way that Gohmert sees the truth.

The reason that Representative Gohmert will never hear a Democrat confirm the truth of the Nunes memo is that the Democrats must show extreme allegiance and fidelity to their religion by continually invoking the conclusion of their form of logic.

The argument I am making today is that the Democrat’s social construction of truth means the death of the Republic.

When Obama converted the Democrat Party to an overtly globalist party, the Democrats murdered truth.

With the Democrats continually lying about Russian collusion, the Democrats have succeeded in killing the Republic.

The death of the Republic would not be avoided, even if the criminals in the Obama administration are tried and convicted of treason, for attempting to overthrow the Trump government.

Nothing about the Democrat’s quest for a socialist state would change, after the convictions.

The American Republic required all citizens to share a moral commitment to telling each other the truth. The Democrats would continue to subvert the Republic because they do not believe in its founding moral values of truth and trust.

Before there was wide-spread trust among American citizens in financial and political exchanges, there was truth.

Before there was the rule of law, there was the requirement of truth.

Before there was “Equal protection under the law,” there was the requirement of truth.

Before there was “Innocent until proven guilty,” there was the requirement of truth.

Before there were American natural and civil rights, there were shared self-evident truths, “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Truth, for American citizens, meant that a statement or proposition is in accord with the observable facts, or reality, or fidelity to an original, first principle.

A Republic requires citizens to extend loyalty and trust to each other in financial and political transactions, not simply in the current unit of time, but in future units of time.

Trust is a moral and cultural value that is inherited when the social and legal structure is characterized by a certain configuration of civil rules of exchange and laws regarding property and appropriation of profit.

The issue of trust involves the reliance of a citizen that another party to a political or financial exchange will reciprocate in the future on keeping promises that involve a future commitment.

In other words, for example, can a banker extend trust to a debtor to repay the loan?

Or, can a venture capitalist trust the entrepreneur to make good on the promise of a future capital gain?

Or, can a voter trust the candidate to make good on the campaign promises, after the candidate wins the election?

The shared cultural value of trust, in the natural rights republic, allows individuals to imagine and visualize a common future with other citizens because they trust other citizens to honor their promises.

Most of the permanent relationships in America require citizens to anticipate who to trust in future exchanges, based upon the shared cultural values of reciprocity and mutuality.

The shared cultural values of truth and trust worked for 240 years to bind the citizens together in a shared national mission.

For Thomas Paine, the natural rights republic had to be built on the truth, moral truth, about individual liberty, not on the coercive power of a tyrannical King to compel obedience.For Paine, when citizens left the state of nature to form civil society and civil rights, those rights were based upon a moral rational truth of equal natural rights. The moral rational truth, for Paine, was “knowable.”

For both Paine and Jefferson, truth was reached through the convictions of open inquiry and examination. Paine said that, “universal moral truth must be knowable.”

In other words, as Jefferson would write, the truth of individual liberty, was logically “self-evident.” Self-evident, used in this context, is the logical conclusion, knowable by deductive reasoning, that citizens would reach about the end goals of their society.

For example, Jefferson’s statement that all men are created equal is stated as an observable ‘knowable” fact that could be determined by any citizen in the Republic.

The truth content of Jefferson’s statement is the correspondence of the statement with the facts. Correspondence with facts means that another person “sees” the observable facts, and verifies the validity of the correspondence with the facts.

A logical truth is a type of analytical, scientifically verifiable statement. A logical truth is not relative or multi-cultural, and a logical truth can not, at the same time, be both true, and false.

Socialists do not believe in absolute moral truth.

Truth, for socialists, and for socialist critical legal scholars, is relative, and socially-constructed, and is not based upon observable facts. Truth for socialists is based upon their false premise that America is a flawed and racist nation.

All socialist reasoning and logic flow from this false starting first principle.

The Trump dossier about Russian collusion can not be both true, for socialists like Schiff  and at the same time, be false, for conservatives, like Gohmert.

For socialists, like Schiff, the truth content of the dossier is not rooted in objective observable facts.

The truth of Schiff’s reality rests in how the dossier promotes his concept of social justice. His truth is confirmed by how many other socialists demonstrate extreme allegiance to their socialist religion.

When Schiff makes his statements about the truth of the dossier, 65 million Democrat voters confirm the “truth” content of Schiff’s assertion.

Lying, from the perspective of Schiff, is not really lying because the false statements he knows he is making, are used to promote his greater cause of global socialism.

For socialists, the end goal of converting America into a global socialist state justifies lying, under all conditions.

In the left’s social construction of reality, the Duke lacrosse players were guilty of raping the poor black woman, not because the objective facts demonstrated the validity of the false allegation, but because “truth” for socialists requires them to believe that white Duke lacrosse players raped a poor black woman.

The job of Democrat political elites is to determine and define the truth content of the proposition, from the vantage point of the collectivist entity. No other form of truth is admitted into their logic because, in socialism, there is only one official version of the truth.

There are 65 million Democrats who deeply believe the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players.

There are 65 million Democrats who voted for Hillary who deeply believe in the truth of the Russian collusion dossier.

A nation, divided against itself, on the meaning of “truth” can not endure.

The American Republic can not endure, because the socialists see sovereign individual citizens, as a part of a collectivist group, not created as equal citizens, but born into inescapable oppression and poverty by a ruthless capitalist system.

The truth of the proposition is that America can not be, at the same time, a global socialist state, and a free sovereign state.

Nothing will change Schiff’s mind because his belief system requires him to accept the socially-constructed truth that America is a flawed and racist nation.

In Schiff’s belief system, only a socialist elite, like Schiff, is capable of correcting the original sin of slavery.

When Maxine Waters calls for Trump’s impeachment, the truth content of her proposition is that Trump will oppress minorities and disadvantaged groups, not that Trump, as an individual, has committed an impeachable act, or that he has committed a racist act.

When Maxine Waters calls for Trumps impeachment, or more recently her call for Trump’s assassination, 65 million Democrats accept the “truth” content of her statement.

The gap about the meaning of truth between the collectivism of the socialists, and the individualism of the Republic, is irreconcilable.

The behavior of Schiff is exactly what conservatives can expect for the foreseeable future from 65 million Democrat voters, until the socialists succeed in imposing their totalitarian dictatorship.

Or, until they are vanquished and removed to their own socialist state of California, the home of both Schiff and Waters.

They will never tire of subverting the Republic because it is a part of their religion.

The problem for conservatives is that the 65 million Hillary voters want more socialism, and are convinced of the “truth” content of Schiff’s interpretation of the dossier.

My argument is that socialists, like Schiff, who are willing to put the citizens of the Republic through this misery are capable of doing anything to get their way, including getting rid of Trump, either by impeachment, or, as Waters advocates, by killing him.

My question to conservatives is why would you continue to put yourself through this misery of living with Democrat socialists, like Schiff or Maxine Waters?

There are no common shared moral values that bind socialists into a national union with conservatives.

Natural rights conservatives need to come to grips with the reality that the Republic is dead.

The Republic required truth and trust among citizens in order to function.

The Democrats, like the mindless socialist zombie Schiff, killed the Republic because he could not tell the difference between telling the truth and telling lies.

Schiff is not trustworthy American citizen. He is a citizen of the globalist socialist state.

It is time to mourn the death of the Republic.

It is time to vanquish the Democrats.

And, it is time to move on to the creation of the Liberty States of America.

Thank you for joining us for the second segment of our program today.

Our second segment is designed to connect our analysis of what is wrong with the American government to solutions that citizens can implement to restore the rule of law and reclaim the spirit of individual liberty that motivated the signers of the American Declaration of Independence.

I explained that the dysfunction in government is caused by a centralized tyranny of globalists, who believe that a one-world government would be better than the continued existence of America, as a sovereign nation state.

I used the example of the Russian collusion dossier, prepared by the Democrats, as a way of describing the difference between the meaning of truth between Adam Schiff and Louie Gohmert.

The gap about the meaning of truth between the collectivism of the socialists, and the individualism of the Republic, is irreconcilable.

The behavior of Schiff is exactly what conservatives can expect for the foreseeable future from 65 million Democrat voters, until the socialists succeed in imposing their totalitarian dictatorship.

Or, until they are vanquished and removed to their own socialist state of California, the home of both Schiff and Waters.

The Democrats will never tire of subverting the Republic because it is a part of their religion.

The problem for conservatives is that the 65 million Hillary voters want more socialism, and are convinced of the “truth” content of Schiff’s interpretation of the dossier.

My argument is that socialists, like Schiff, who are willing to put the citizens of the Republic through this misery are capable of doing anything to get their way, including getting rid of Trump, either by impeachment, or, as Waters advocates, by killing him.

My question to conservatives is why would you continue to put yourself through this misery of living with Democrat socialists, like Schiff or Maxine Waters?

There are no common shared moral values that bind socialists into a national union with conservatives.

Natural rights conservatives need to come to grips with the reality that the Republic is dead.

The Republic required truth and trust among citizens in order to function.

The Democrats, like the mindless socialist zombie Schiff, killed the Republic because he could not tell the difference between telling the truth and telling lies.

Schiff is not trustworthy American citizen. He is a citizen of the globalist socialist state.

The issue that I raised in my column  for the 63 million voters who voted for Trump is how they should respond to the new political reality of the Democrat’s hatred of America.

In my analysis of the problem in the national government is that citizens are in the very early stages of a planned coup d’etat to overthrow the Trump government.

Citizens can clearly see that Mueller is laying the foundation of  starting this coup.

A Democrat, like Schiff, fully supports this coup because it promotes his belief that Trump is a hate-filled, racist bigot who stole the election from Hillary.

Trump voters do not have a political party to lead a national political movement to reclaim individual liberty and restore the rule of law.

Citizens do not have an organizational framework to defend their natural rights and defeat the socialists, after Mueller launches his coup.

After the coup d’etat is launched by the elites in the swamp, there will likely be a period of chaos and violence in America.

That period of time can end with one of three different scenarios.

First, the socialists may win, and implement their global socialist tyranny.

Second, the natural rights conservatives may defeat the socialists and restore the rule of law.

Or, third, both sides may call a truce and agree to a civil dissolution of the current nation.

The two sides, the socialists and the natural rights conservatives,  can not live peacefully together.

A nation divided against itself can not endure.

The intractable problem of centralized tyranny in American government can only be solved by a civil dissolution, where the socialists create their own socialist utopia, and natural rights conservatives start over, by reclaiming the Spirit of citizen liberty, proclaimed by patriots, in 1776.

Natural Rights Conservatives must join a new political party in America, called the Citizens Liberty Party.

The mission of the party is to lead a national political movement that protects natural rights and restores the rule of law, after 8 years of Obama’s lawless regime.

The CLP is founded on the bedrock principle expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration that the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of citizens and to defend the sovereignty of the nation from external and internal enemies, like the socialists.

When you join the CLP, you will be asked to volunteer to work on one of the local political committees in you home community.

You will also be asked to form a local citizens committee of correspondence to coordinate the external affairs of the Party with other local chapters in other metro regions.

After you join the CLP, you will be asked to upload news articles about events and issues that you think other members of the party would be interested in hearing.

The organizational website for the CLP is at www.citizenslibertyparty.com.

As I said in Segment 1, it is time to mourn the death of the Republic.

It is time to vanquish the Democrats.

And, it is time to move on to the creation of the Liberty States of America.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party, and I need volunteers to join me in the fight for American freedom.