1.3K
Downloads
39
Episodes
Advocating a return to the state sovereignty of the Articles of Confederation as the best defense against centralized tyranny.
Episodes
Thursday Jan 02, 2020
Thursday Jan 02, 2020
Episode 39 January 3, 2020
CLP topic category: Irreconcilable Differences.
Polarization and the Inevitable Disunion of America.
Introduction.
Our podcast today expands on Zack Beauchamp’s article, “The Constitution Was Not Built For This,” to explain that the ideological polarization in America will lead to a civil disunion.
We argue that Beauchamp, a socialist writer for Vox, is correct that Madison’s Constitution of 1787, was not built to resolve the growing polarization between socialists and natural rights conservatives over the nation’s mission and purpose.
We argue that socialists promote class conflict and racial polarization as a strategy to overthrow the government in order to replace the current government with socialism,
Typical of the left wing hope for polarization is the article by Sam Tanenhaus, The Promise of Polarization, where he argues that “Ideological division was once seen as the solution to America’s political gridlock.”
In leftist language, “gridlock” is when socialists cannot convince Republicans to collaborate with Democrats.
Beauchamp writes,
“Republicans’ in the House who did not vote against Trump’s impeachment reveals a broken system — and a democracy at real risk of failure. … the GOP’s willingness to back the president to the hilt, in spite of clear and obvious evidence of abuses of power, speaks to an urgent threat to American democracy: Our constitutional system is ill-equipped to withstand extreme polarization.”
Beauchamp makes the same observation as Bill Maher that the result of polarization is that the two sides see each other as ultimate enemies, not a citizen-compatriots.
Beauchamp writes,
“Under conditions of extreme polarization, the two camps start to see the other side as not merely a political opponent, but an existential threat to the American way of life.”
For Beauchamp, the impeachment is simply a necessary first step in removing the voting rights of 63 million conservatives, in order to make progress to a hoped-for one-party socialist tyranny.
His argument is that Republicans in the House, who did not support the left’s drive for impeachment, are intolerant and are contributing to polarization.
In our first section, we argue that Madison’s Constitution was designed to ameliorate commercial and financial conflicts between the natural aristocracy and common citizens.
Madison assumed that all citizens understood that the purpose of the Revolution was liberty, and did not design the rules to resolve the first principles of the national purpose.
In our second section, we explain why Madison’s Constitution is inadequate in solving ideological polarization. We argue that Madison’s Constitution is a failure that cannot be fixed in order to ameliorate the divisions in America.
Victoria Nourse, a left-wing law professor at Georgetown University, explained her concept of a crisis, as opposed to a constitutional failure,
“A constitutional crisis is a fight among branches of government in which neither side backs down, and there is no clear resolution within the constitutional system.”
She is right that Madison’s Constitution offers no solution to polarization, but mischaracterizes the impasse as a constitutional “crisis.” Madison’s rules assume a national consensus among citizens that does not exist, and is a failure, not a crisis.
The socialists have a coherent strategy of using polarization to divide American citizens in order to implement a socialist state.
In our third section, we extend the comments of Beauchamp to include a representative range of left wing opinion to demonstrate that the desired outcome of polarization is the implementation of a one-party socialist state.
We conclude our podcast with the observation that natural rights conservatives must begin to see the Democrat socialists as an existential threat to individual liberty.
The only non-violent solution to polarization is for conservatives to create a new democratic republic, with a new constitution, that establishes individual liberty as the end goal of the nation.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for January 3, 2020.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Irreconcilable Differences and is titled, “Polarization and the Inevitable Disunion of America.”
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Friday Jan 17, 2020
Friday Jan 17, 2020
Episode 40. January 18, 2020
CLP Topic Category: Democrat Party Socialism
Obama’s IRMAA Stealth Tax to Punish Retired Americans.
Introduction.
Our podcast today expands on Rush Limbaugh’s allegation that Democrats seek to punish success. We provide an analysis of Obama’s 2015 IRMAA stealth tax as an example to support Limbaugh’s allegation.
IRMAA stands for the Social Security income-related monthly adjustment to the social security retirement check of retired citizens. The effect of the tax is to reduce the monthly income retirement check, if the tax payer had a capital gain financial success in the previous 2 years.
The stealth tax punishes retired citizens who take a one-time capital gain on real estate or stocks and bonds. The capital gain is reported by the IRS to the Social Security Administration, without the citizen’s knowledge, or consent, and the gain bumps the citizen into a penalty bracket for earning too much income.
The one-time capital gain event overrides the entire life-time of earnings, used to calculate a citizen’s monthly Social Security retirement check.
In 2018, there were approximately 10 million citizens caught by the IRMAA punishment trap. The IRMAA is equivalent to a 2.2% surtax on income. The revenue from IRMAA flows to the general government coffers, and is not used to offset the social security deficit.
The Democrats use the tax code to punish citizens who do not conform to the socialist correct-think vision of “income fairness.”
Limbaugh stated the income fairness allegation against the Democrats,
“The entire Democrat Party is structured to punish success, or at least make voters think that they are going to punish success. Obama seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes success, and he speaks negatively of the country.”
Most observers probably think Limbaugh is talking about the Democrat’s desire to punish rich or wealthy Americans, primarily because of the Democrat’s class war ideology that the rich do not pay a fair share of their income in taxes.
Typical of the Democrat’s anti-rich mantra is the statement by Elizabeth Warren that serves to heighten class hatred between Americans.
Warren deploys the socialist class envy ideology to convince voters that the American economic system is rigged against the average citizen, and that when she is elected, the Democrats will punish the wealthy citizens by taxing them.
Warren stated,
“People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here’s the painful part. They’re right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in profits. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. And Wall Street CEOs, the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs, still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors and acting like we should thank them.”
According to the Democrat mantra, only the Federal government is powerful and righteous enough to overcome the unfair outcomes generated for working-class citizens by the rigged economic system of capitalism.
IRMAA contradicts the “tax-the-rich” mantra by describing how the Democrats inflict punishment on middle class citizens, not just the rich.
The Democrats punish middle class citizens by taking away social security benefits when the socialists deem the behavior of achieving a capital gain success as unacceptable.
Our podcast does not argue about the technical merits of IRMAA, or it’s justification as a method of raising revenue from retired citizens to offset the Social Security unfunded liability.
Rather, we explain the socialist logic that supports why socialists seek to punish success.
The logic of the Democrat socialist ideology of using the power of government to enforce fairness is captured by Obama’s statement, in 2010.
Obama stated,
“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”
We explain that IRMAA is a representation that a one-time capital gain is not fair because the gain means the citizen has made too much money.
We conclude that nothing will ever change the behavior of Democrats because they deeply believe that they are the sole, ultimate judges of what constitutes fairness.
Victor Davis Hansen explains that the Democrat strategy is to eliminate political opposition in order to gain a one-party political monopoly, like the one that existed in North Carolina and Louisiana, in the 20th century.
If the Democrats succeed in gaining the one-party monopoly, they will permanently punish citizens, through secret, stealth taxes, like IRMAA.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for January 18, 2020.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Police State Socialism, and is titled, Obama’s IRMAA Stealth Tax to Punish Retired Americans.
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Sunday Feb 02, 2020
Sunday Feb 02, 2020
Episode 41. February 1, 2020.
CLP topic category: Irreconcilable Differences
An American Conservative Revolution In the Midst of A Socialist Civil War
Introduction: The Difference Between the American Socialist Civil War and the Second American Revolution.
David Armitage's book, War, Civil War, or Revolution, (2017), provides a useful method to understand the current constitutional crisis in America.
According to Armitage, a civil war emphasizes the essential unity of the combatants, after the war ends, while a revolution involves a civil dissolution of the existing order.
Applying Armitage’s definition, the American socialists are engaged in a civil war with conservative patriots, because socialists want both sides to “remain members of the same political community,” after the end of the socialist civil war.
The socialist logic for continuing the existing constitutional arrangement is easy to understand: the socialists need the middle class and wealthy to continue to contribute their taxes and wealth to the socialist elites, because the socialist regime cannot function without exploitation of the wealthy.
Armitage explains that revolution involves the overthrow of the existing constitutional arrangement, and replacing the old regime with a new regime.
In other words, in a revolution, the people tearing each other apart do not share a common culture and political community. In fact, as Professor Thompson reminds us, “the two sides hate each other,” and share no common or cultural values.
In contrast to the unity of the combatants at the end of a civil war, the two sides in a revolution have no on-going relationship with each other because one of the sides does not exist, anymore.
This is the stage of conflict in America today between Democrat socialists and conservatives. The socialists despise non-socialists, and share no values with the founding principles of the nation.
But, the socialists need their hated capitalist system to keep functioning, at the end of the civil war, because capitalism generates tax revenues.
If they achieve victory of their socialist civil war, they will seek to rule non-socialists in a one-party, totalitarian government, under the guise of the current Constitution.
The solution for conservative patriots is to recognize the irreconcilable values with Democrat socialists, and engage in a revolution to form a new nation that reclaims the principles of liberty.
In the second American Revolution, conservatives seek an unconditional, permanent split with the socialists.
In other words, the conservatives must win the second American revolution in order to divorce themselves from the socialist tyranny, after the civil war.
From the socialist perspective, their hatred of conservatives is engendered by the Marxist ideology of class hatred between the capitalist class and the working class.
Professor Thompson, of Clemson, writes,
“It is not an exaggeration to suggest that liberal and conservative Americans hate each other. There are now two Americas and the division is not between “haves” and “have nots” or between whites and blacks. The coastal, blue state, Ivy-educated ruling class has contempt for flyover, red state, trailer park deplorables and vice versa. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a nation that hates itself cannot stand.”
While Armitage's definitions are useful for understanding the difference between civil war and revolution, his definitions are not useful for explaining America’s first revolution.
In that revolution, a civil war was being fought at the same time that a revolution was being fought to form a new nation. There was a civil war inside of a revolution.
When the British General Clinton changed his strategy from taking New York, in order to focus on taking the Southern states, he ordered several detachments of loyalists in South Carolina to carry the attack against the patriots.
British regulars were not used to any great extent in the Carolina theater. According to one historical account,
“the Carolinas were subjected to furious partisan warfare. With minor use of British troops, the south became embroiled in a civil war marked by horrendous and indiscriminate violence… The patriots had to fight a civil war and fight one of the greatest armies of the world at the same time.”
For a great period of time in South Carolina, the Tory loyalists were successful in vanquishing the patriots, and engaged in horrific torture and slaughter of patriot prisoners, who had surrendered.
The success of the loyalists abruptly changed at King's Mountain, when the loyalists met a patriot army of 900 frontiersmen, commonly called the “Over the Mountain Boys.”
From that defeat, General Cornwallis marched his regulars and Tories to Guilford County, N. C., where they engaged General Greene and the American regular army.
The fighting at Guilford Courthouse was so brutal and intense that Cornwallis ordered his soldiers in the rear of the line to shoot the soldiers in the front, in the tail, to make them advance against the Patriots.
The experience at Guilford was so devastating to the British troops that they refused to leave their quarters in Yorktown to engage the Americans again.
Louis Gohmert’s analysis of the current conflict in America could be improved if he adopted the “civil war within a revolution” model to explain the Democrat socialist behavior.
Gohmert describes the socialist initiative to nullify the 2016 presidential election and impeach President Trump as a “Communist Revolution.”
Gohmert states,
“I think it is better to characterize it as [a] communist revolution. That’s what they’re about, and whether you want to call it progressivism, socialism, communism, that’s what they’re about, and we’re already seeing … communism’s hatred of religion, and specifically Christianity. It’s a threat to what has always been an American way of life.”
The more accurate analysis of the socialist behavior involves a progression of behavior from resistance to the transfer of power, to the open rebellion of a coup, then to the sedition of the bureaucrats in the deep state, and finally to civil war.
Our podcast today will place these stages of the socialist tactics into the argument that reconciliation with the socialists is impossible.
Nothing will ever change the ideology, or the behavior, of the Democrat socialists, who will continue to push for victory of the glorious socialist state, in order to subjugate non-socialists.
To paraphrase President Trump,
“No matter how many witnesses you give the Democrats, no matter how much information is given, like the quickly produced Transcripts, it will NEVER be enough for them. They will always scream UNFAIR. The Impeachment Hoax is just another political CON JOB!”
Our podcast concludes that the only solution to the constitutional crisis is a conservative revolution to restore the original democratic republic of America contemplated by the Patriots in their creation and ratification of the Articles of Confederation.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for February 1, 2020. Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Irreconcilable Differences and is titled, “An American Conservative Revolution In the Midst of A Socialist Civil War.”
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Friday Mar 13, 2020
Friday Mar 13, 2020
Our podcast today is the introduction of a new book by GabbyPress, titled The American Millennial Attraction to Socialism.
The book is available for purchase at Gabbypress.com for $21.99.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for March 13, 2020.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category The Democratic Republic of America.
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Introduction.
Our book extends the analysis of the Annual Report on US Attitudes Toward Socialism to explain why so many young Americans are attracted to socialism.
We describe a much more fair and just economic system than socialism for the millennials to support.
Our book compares the four major economic models in the world in order to help millennials better understand their possible choices about the best economic system, judged from their own perspective of fairness and social justice.
The chapters in our address the topics of:
- The American Millennial Attraction to Socialism.
- The Chinese Communist Crony Economy.
- The Crony Corporate Capitalist Economy.
- The European Crony Socialist Economy.
- The American Free Enterprise Entrepreneurial Economy.
- Envisioning A New American Knowledge Creation Innovation Economy.
- Buchanan’s Fair Constitutional Rules as the Foundation of the Entrepreneurial Economy.
We argue that Chinese communism, European socialism, and American crony capitalism, are all variants of crony capitalism that attempt to use government to distribute financial benefits to politically connected agents.
The key common characteristic of the three crony collectivist economies is profit exploitation by the elites over the production value produced by the non-elites.
Cronyism exploitation replaces the Marxist concept of capitalist exploitation of the workers with crony exploitation of non-elites.
The set of cronies who benefit from cronyism attempt to use the political system to maximize a group collectivist concept, which is commonly described as a social welfare function.
In their case, their selfish social welfare function acts as a substitute for individualist national welfare function.
In the 3 collectivist economies, the entire society is seen as a synthetic entity, whose national welfare is measured by aggregate social indicators like GDP, fairness and income equality.
The propaganda of the collectivist society is that the elites know better than common citizens what promotes social welfare, and must, therefore, have the unchecked political power to exploit the production value of the non-elites in order to obtain the tax revenue to achieve better social welfare outcomes in fairness and income equality.
In contrast to group social welfare, we argue that only one economic system attempts to maximize individual welfare, which we call the American Free Enterprise Entrepreneurial Economy.
In the individualist innovation economy, social welfare is judged by aggregating all individual welfare functions into a national social welfare function.
Individuals are free to maximize their own welfare, and have property rights to enjoy the profits that they create through their own individual initiative.
We argue that young Americans do not know the difference between group social welfare functions and individualist welfare functions, and do not know how to evaluate the fair outcomes between a collectivist economy and an individualist economy.
In the collectivist societies, the concept of fairness is judged by political elites who determine fair outcomes, after income has been earned.
In the individualist societies, fairness constitutes the ability of the individual to appropriate the income that they produce.
Millennials are attracted to socialism because they believe that the socialist economic systems are more fair than their concept of American capitalism, which is the crony corporate capitalist version of capitalism.
Most young people in America do not know the difference between Milton Friedman and Lord Keynes, and end up in the economic muddle of Milton Keynes, embracing a fairy tale socialism that is antithetical to their desired state of fairness and social justice.
We explain that innovation economics is the most fair system, and that if millennials understood how the free enterprise entrepreneurial economy worked, that they would switch their allegiance from socialism to innovation economics.
We conclude that the progress towards a fair American entrepreneurial economy can be improved by visualizing the entire economy as a knowledge creation enterprise, modeled upon the logic of a regional metro block chain, whose end goal is the commercialization of radical new technology, and the creation of new future markets.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com
Sunday Mar 22, 2020
Sunday Mar 22, 2020
Episode 44. March 22, 2020
CLP Topic Category: Vichy Republican Collaborators
Burr’s Betrayals
Introduction,
Our podcast today places the actions of NC Senator Richard Burr’s insider trading of his $1.5 million stock portfolio into the larger context of his 18 year tenure as a Washington crony capitalist.
We argue that Burr is not simply a RINO. Burr is a crony capitalist, who has successfully gamed the system for his own benefit by collaborating with Democrats and lobbyists.
For example, at the request of Democrat Senator Warner, Burr subpoenaed Trump Jr., a second time, for more questioning, in the Democrat’s attempt to keep the Russian collusion hoax investigation going.
Burr’s Senate committee interviewed Trump, Jr., for over 20 hours during the 2 years of Mueller’s coup, trying to assist Mueller in coming up with evidence to impeach Trump.
After the Mueller coup ended, Burr issued the second subpoena to Trump, Jr
At the time of the second Trump Jr., subpoena, Burr said that he had no credible evidence that Biden had colluded with Ukraine, and that he would not use his Senate committee to investigate Biden.
Burr’s collaboration with Democrats has been financially lucrative for Burr. He arrived in Washington with the net worth of a pauper, and he will leave his 18 year public service as a prince, with a net worth over $5 million.
Trading his stocks during a national pandemic, on insider, non-public material information, is simply one technique Burr employs to build his net worth.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for March 22, 2020.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Vichy Republican Collaborators and is titled Burr’s Betrayals.
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Friday Mar 27, 2020
Friday Mar 27, 2020
Episode 43. March 27, 2020
CLP Topic Category: Vichy Republican Collaborators
Who Is It In America That Is Responsible For Implementing the Trade Agreements With China?
Note to visitors: Our podcast today is the Introduction to a much longer document that explains who it is in America that was responsible for implementing the trade deals with China.
The other sections of the longer podcast are:
- The American Roots of Globalism
- The Link Between Globalism and American Crony Capitalism
- Civil Dissolution or Civil War?
- Irreconcilable Differences
You can access this podcast, for free, for one week, at our website.
You can subscribe to our entire archive of podcasts and text at our website for $30 per year.
Introduction:
Our podcast today examines the argument made by Mike Slater, on the tv program, The First, that China is an enemy of the United States.
Slater explains that the most recent Wu Virus is only the latest of three epidemics, in 20 years, unleashed on the world by the militaristic, repressive Communist regime in Beijing.
The most charitable interpretation of this behavior by the Communists is that they are wildly incompetent to control the outbreaks of deadly diseases.
The more accurate interpretation of the behavior, explained by Slater, is that they are an enemy of the U. S., intent on destroying the fabric of American society.
Our podcast today adopts the second interpretation in order to examine what political and financial forces in America were responsible for forming the close ties between the two countries.
We agree with the analysis of Curtis Ellis, in his article, China’s Post-Virus Plan to Destroy America’s Economy, where he states that,
“The “respected voices” calling for America to lift the tariffs on China are simply swallowing Beijing’s sophisticated propaganda. China means to use this crisis to destroy us…Moreover, Beijing sees an opportunity in the pandemic to reverse President Trump’s call to move manufacturing out of China. China’s State Administration of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND), stated: “China will get more opportunities, including in the reduction of pressure for the international industrial chain to transfer away from China . . . The global epidemic has provided opportunities for improving China’s international position and countering anti-globalization.”
We argue that, in the late 1980s, the 1500 member companies of the Business Roundtable were effective in perpetrating a fraud that China was just like any other country in terms of global trade.
We argue that those same corporate actors continue, today, to coordinate their political strategy with special interest lobbying groups and crony capitalist elected representatives, who obtain personal financial benefits from passing legislation that have continued the re-authorization of the deals with China.
The lobbyists for the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote the draft legislation, in 1999, in order for the corporations to obtain huge profits from moving production to China, and then selling those cheap goods back to the American market.
The main political representatives who voted initially to implement the deals, and then voted to re-authorize the deals, are a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, who obtained vast financial benefits from “tribute” paid by the corporations.
The large corporations obtained an 80% cost saving in production of goods in China, and while a small portion of the savings showed up in cheaper goods, the vast majority went to the bottom line profits of the large corporations.
Most of the profits earned from overseas production were never taxed in the U. S., and were never repatriated, in the form of capital investments, back into the U. S. domestic economy
The U. S. corporate profits were reinvested in China, which empowered the successful Chinese economy, and allowed their national champion industries to become wildly profitable.
Elected representatives at the state and Federal level worked together to advocate the public benefits of trade with China.
For example, In North Carolina, Governor Hunt hosted an annual event, called the Emerging Issues Forum, to promote global trade.
Governor Hunt created the Forum in October 1985 to provide a catalyst for the discussion and action needed to move the United States forward in the world economy.
His political mantra was that North Carolina workers must be “competitive” with global workers.
The second conference, in February 1987, drew 1,500 people to the McKimmon Center on the NC State University campus and featured speakers that included Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton, Steve Forbes, Robert Rubin, Jay Rockefeller, Amory Lovins, Al Gore, and Paul Volcker.
While President Trump has correctly ranted incessantly about the unfair trade deals, he never identifies the political or corporate actors, listed above, who are responsible for allowing the trade deals to be enacted.
Citizens need to know who it was in America that engaged in a form of national economic sedition of collaborating with an enemy.
The Wu Virus is helping the citizens understand the extent of the danger caused by trade with China, but the virus has not clarified who is responsible for the economic damage.
Our podcast goes further to explain who these agents are that promoted the trade fraud with China.
We argue that the economic chaos inflicted by the Wu Virus is only the most immediate consequence of trade with China.
Less well known is the negative effect on U. S. labor markets that became overly dependent on service jobs.
In 2000, prior to the trade deals with China,, about 17,000 American workers were employed the production of goods, primarily in manufacturing firms.
In 2000, about 75,000 workers were employed in the service industries.
In 2018, only 12,688 workers were employed in manufacturing and 129,000 workers, or 80% of the U. S. labor force, was employed in services.
The services economy is commonly called the “gig” economy, that features low paying, unstable jobs, that offer no health benefits.
In Governor Hunt’s propaganda of the benefits of trade with China, required North Carolina workers to be “competitive” with China meant transferring North Carolina jobs from manufacturing to the gig economy.
North Carolina’s formerly diversified economy employed about 800,000 workers in manufacturing, before the trade deals.
After the trade deals with China, out of a total state workforce of 5 million, about 400,000 workers were employed in manufacturing, and over 1 million were employed in the service sectors.
The service industry is made up of restaurant workers and retail shops, and is the most vulnerable to mass layoffs from the Chinese disruption to the
- S. economy.
After the trade deals were implemented, the U. S. labor market and economy lacked diversification, and its occupational job structure looked just like the third world economies in Latin America and Africa.
The relocation of medical supply chains by large global corporations also exposed another hidden consequence of trade with China.
When the entire inter-industry manufacturing supply chains moved to China, local towns that relied on manufacturing jobs were devastated. Those local economies became overly dependent on service jobs, and on increased government welfare payments.
More importantly, by moving the supply chains off shore, America’s single most important competitive initial factor endowment of technological innovation was lost.
Technological innovation, prior to the trade deals, used to occur in the metro regional manufacturing supply chains in 350 metro regions, as a result of tacit knowledge creation and diffusion among the small manufacturing firms.
After the trade deals, the citizens discovered that innovation and product commercialization does not occur in the gig economy. Innovation occurs in the industrial supply chains, now located in China.
We argue that the members of the Business Roundtable, and the establishment Republican Party knew, in advance, the economic damage that would be caused by moving the supply chains to China, but calculated that the benefits of their increased profits outweighed the social costs imposed upon American citizens.
Part of their propaganda, at the time, was that there would be high paying, stable jobs in services that replaced the high paid manufacturing jobs. This was a lie, and the elites knew it was a lie, at the time that they used it to change the laws on trade with China.
The dysfunctional American political system is accurately described by Angelo Codevilla, as the Ruling Class, who make decisions that are not connected to the will of the citizens.
Secret decisions by the Ruling Class are the primary cause for the trade agreements with China. The American citizens were never informed about the globalist intent of the elites, or the permanent economic damage caused by the deals, until it was too late.
We conclude that the problem of a dysfunctional crony capitalist system and the centralized Ruling Class elite tyranny in Washington cannot be fixed, under the existing Constitution.
The ideology of globalism, in both the socialist Democrat and crony corporate Republican Party is too entrenched, and the unelected power of the deep state agents are too deeply embedded in the government apparatus to be dislodged by common citizens, through periodic elections.
We conclude that nothing binds the globalist factions together in a common national mission with Trump’s national sovereignty ideology.
The global Democrat socialists will never voluntarily obey the unwritten American rule of law because they will never share the cultural belief that all persons, institutions, and entities are subject to the equal application of the law.
The crony global corporate elites will never, willingly, give up their trans-national global trading privileges to share power with common citizens, in the current framework of the representative republic.
The establishment Republicans, like Senator Burr, of North Carolina, derive too many financial benefits from collaborating with the Democrats and global corporations, to change the status quo of power, or the distribution of tribute.
The solution for citizens is to follow the advice of Jefferson, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to the ends for which it was created, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.
The best, non-violent, idea for dealing with the irreconcilable ideological differences is a civil dissolution of the nation and the implementation of a new government, based upon the framework of state sovereignty, under the provisions of Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the state compact clause.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for March 27, 2020.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Vichy Republican Collaborators and is titled, Who Is It In America That Is Responsible For the Trade Agreements With China?
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
Tuesday Mar 31, 2020
Tuesday Mar 31, 2020
Re-connecting the New Constitution to the Declaration of Independence.
CLP News Network Episode for June 6, 2018.
Laurie Thomas Vass
The Citizens Liberty Party News Network clpnewsnetwork.com
Note to viewers. We believe that the ideological differences between socialists and conservatives are irreconcilable and that conservatives must prepare for what comes after the National civil dissolution. We advocate the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation, based upon a democratic republic of states.
This is the introduction of a much longer podcast, available at podbean. The other sections of the podcast include:
Section 1. Thomas Burke. Author of the Articles of Confederation.
Section 2. Madison’s Flawed Preamble.
Section 3. Strict Construction of the 3 Preambles.
Section 4. Interpreting the Purpose of Government Derived from the 3 Preambles.
Section 5. The Guiding Principles of the New National Government .
The full text and audio of the most recent podcast is available for free at clpnewsnetwork.com. The entire text and audio archive of all the CLP News Network podcasts are available for an annual subscription of $30.
Introduction.
In the natural rights individualist society, the role of government is to reduce the chance situations that other individuals, or the deep state agents, will deploy the police power of the state to override the individual citizen’s freedoms of choice in pursuing their sovereign life mission.
The government serves this function by administering the rule of law provided by the constitutional framework of collective decision-making, whose goal is to secure just outcomes to the laws that individuals give to themselves.
“No one is born into moral subjugation to political power,” stated Jefferson.
Jefferson wrote that when citizens leave the state of nature to create their government, “all men are created equal… in nature all humans are equal…not subject to the rightful authority of any other human being…in a state of nature no rightful authority exists in nature. No man is subjected to the will or authority of any other man,” he wrote, over and over again, from 1776, to the very last letter he wrote in 1826.
Jefferson believed that individuals are rights-possessors, with equal inalienable rights to pursue their own happiness, manage their private lives, and be free of government coercion in their person and their property.
Jefferson’s natural rights principles were:
- Equality among citizens to participate in government.
- Privacy of citizens from the invasions of agents of government.
- The right to vote in free and fair elections.
- The protection of the natural and property rights of individuals as the supreme goal of government.
- Equal access to the courts and equality before the law.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration as a compact between citizens in each state to establish a rightful centralized political power, dedicated to protecting the natural rights of citizens that are left incompletely protected within each state government.
The adoption of the Declaration, in 1776, and the subsequent adoption Articles, in 1781, moved the citizens of the United States toward a constitutional egalitarian individualism, with an appeal to natural rights.
Jefferson’s constitutional arrangement, as expressed in the Articles, was based upon the common moral values in the Declaration.
Madison’s constitution was not.
Conclusion of Introduction.
We believe that the differences between Democrats and conservatives are irreconcilable and unresolvable, under the current Constitution.
On every single principle of a natural rights republic, the Democrats socialists have an alien, subversive, view of America.
Today, nothing binds the two factions together in a common national mission. The socialists will never voluntarily obey the unwritten American rule of law because they will never share the cultural belief that all persons, institutions, and entities are subject to the equal application of the law.
The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation.
We advocate the creation of a new constitution, based upon on the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation, which changes the representative republic to a democratic republic.
Our constitutional principles of government are on our Democratic Republic of America website.
You can follow our daily commentary on twitter, at @ltvtoo.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com
Wednesday Apr 01, 2020
Wednesday Apr 01, 2020
Episode 38 December 13, 2019
CLP topic. Vichy Republican Collaborators
America After Trump?
Introduction.
Our podcast today extends Angelo Codevilla’s recent analysis about the future of America, after the 2020 election.
We use Codevilla’s analysis to examine the future of America from the perspective of what happens to the establishment Republican Party, what happens to the Trump conservative movement, and what happens to America, as a nation.
Codevilla asks,
“The instant after the 2020 elections… the real question is: What will become of us? What can we, what must we, do for ourselves?...Not even winning a bloody civil war against the ruling class could accomplish such a thing as returning the nation to its founding principles.”
Codevilla argues that restoring the country to its founding vision is “out of the question.” He says,
“Constitutional conservatism on behalf of a country, a large part of which rejects common citizenship, is impossible.”
Codevilla cites the work of F. H. Buckley, in his book, American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup, to argue that the framework of state sovereignty federalism, in the Articles of Confederation, offered a better pathway for protecting the natural rights of citizens than Madison’s centralized representative republic.
Our podcast argues that Codevilla’s analysis of the impossibility of returning to the founding principles is correct. He argues that the deep state, which Codevilla calls, the “ruling elite class,” are too far entrenched in the existing government to ever return to a government based upon the consent of the governed.
The establishment Republicans, represented by Karl Rove, are the administrative organization of the deep state, and the State Department bureaucrats who showed up in the impeachment hearings to testify against Trump, are directed by the global ruling class leaders of the deep state.
To paraphrase V. O. Key, in Southern Politics in State and Nation, the agents of the deep state do the bidding of the global elite, without prompting, because they both share a deep ideological commitment to advancing global socialism.
According to the Democrat’s interpretation of impeachment, Trump abused his power by not obeying the agents of the deep state.
In her recent book about Trump, Nikki Haley identifies Tillerson and Kelly as members of the deep state governing apparatus. She explains that Tillerson and Kelly attempted to recruit her in the attempted deep state coup against Trump.
Rush Limbaugh sees Haley as the possible leader of the Trump conservative movement, after 2024. He thinks that the Republican Party is actually the Trump conservative movement, and that Haley has been converted as a Trump protégé.
Limbaugh writes,
“Now, I actually believe that the Republican Party doesn’t know it yet, but it is Trump’s party.”
Limbaugh believes that Haley is not willing to have the Republican institutional establishment returned to Karl Rove after the 2020 election.
In his article, “Nikki Haley fires the first shot in the GOP's post-Trump war,” J.T. Young, states that,
“Haley has signaled that she will not side with those desiring to return the party to its establishment. Establishment Republicans believe Trump to be just a momentary break in their political and policy continuum. After Trump, they will both purge the Trump interlopers and regularly beat a vulnerable Democratic Party now hostage to its left wing.”
Neither the establishment Republican Party of Karl Rove, nor Nikki Haley, as the leader of the Trump conservative movement, can overcome the irreconcilable differences between the socialist Democrats and natural rights conservatives.
Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and American Action Network are the defacto Republican establishment political front groups that use the Republican organizational apparatus to promote the interests of America’s wealthiest families and global corporations.
Rove, and his groups, are best seen as Republican Vichy Collaborators, with the socialists, to implement a new world order. Rove is a political operative of the deep state, and takes his orders from the global ruling class.
Trump’s conservative political movement does not have a coherent political ideology of individualism, and Haley’s recent book about Trump does not address Codevilla’s argument about the entrenched power of the ruling elite class.
Unlike the establishment Republicans of Rove, the socialist Democrats have a coherent anti-American ideology, based upon grievance and victimization.
After 2020, the Democrats will continue to advocate the transformation of America into a global socialist nation, ruled by the deep state elites.
The socialists are driven by their ideology that socialism is better than individualism, and they will never stop undermining America until they implement a totalitarian socialist regime.
There is no other side to the war over the future of America because Rove’s establishment Republicans do not have an ideology of individual freedom.
This podcast concludes that Codevilla and Young are correct in their assessment that America is over.
The obvious competitor ideology to socialism, after 2020, is to return to the revolutionary Spirit of ’76, and the restoration of the American Democratic Impulse.
The only peaceful, non-violent strategy for solving the irreconcilable differences is a civil dissolution of the nation, based upon a vote in each legislature to either join the new Democratic Republic of America, or cast their lot with the new Socialists States of America.
Wednesday Apr 01, 2020
Wednesday Apr 01, 2020
Episode 37. December 6, 2019.
CLP topic category: Democrat Police State Socialism.
Introduction.
Our podcast today re-examines the destruction, in August of 2018, of the UNC Confederate monument, known as Silent Sam,
Our podcast places the criminal act of destroying the monument into the larger historical context of the Democrat’s effective use of violence to obtain their goal of a one-party political regime.
Our podcast argues that there is an unbroken historical continuity, from 1898 to 2019, in the violence of the Democrat Party, using the cover of “white supremacy” as the justification of the violence to obtain political goals.
The argument made in this podcast is that there never was a “New South.”
As both W. J. Cash and C. Wright Mills correctly describe, the history of North Carolina is an unbroken continuity of the lawyers, bankers and merchant power elites in the Democrat Party using violence to obtain political goals
In the era of Julian Carr, the Democrats used the war cry “Negro Rule,” to erect the racial apartheid system that lasted 80 years. The violence of the Democrats created a one-party, totalitarian white supremacist society,
In the modern era, the Democrat Party uses the war cry, “white supremacy,” to justify their acts of violence to eliminate opposition. In their telling of history, the Republicans are a racist party, and Trump is a white supremacist.
In other words, the term “white supremacist,” is a useful political term, that has no legitimate meaning, other than as a propaganda tool for the Democrats to legitimize their violence.
Our podcast argues that the destruction of Silent Sam was a carefully coordinated attack, led by Carol Folt, a Democrat, whose text messages on August 20, 2018, show her collaboration with antifa and the police to “stand down,” four minutes before the statute came down.
The main conclusion of the podcast is that violence works as an effective tactic for Democrats, and that the destruction of Silent Sam was a huge political success for the Democrats.
But, the victory over Silent Sam will never be enough for Democrats.
The Democrat’s goal is to use violence to create a totalitarian society, where only politically correct socialist ideas are allowed, under the penalty of death.
We believe that the differences between Democrats and conservatives are irreconcilable and unresolvable, under the current Constitution.
On every single principle of a natural rights republic, the Democrats socialists have an alien, subversive, view of America.
Today, nothing binds the two factions together in a common national mission. The socialists will never voluntarily obey the unwritten American rule of law because they will never share the cultural belief that all persons, institutions, and entities are subject to the equal application of the law.
The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation.
We advocate the creation of a new constitution, based upon on the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation, which changes the representative republic to a democratic republic.
Our constitutional principles of government are on our Democratic Republic of America website.
You can follow our daily commentary on twitter, at @ltvtoo.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Wednesday Apr 08, 2020
Wednesday Apr 08, 2020
Episode 46. April 5, 2020.
CLP topic category: Irreconcilable Differences.
Crossing the American Rubicon to Divorce the Democrat Socialists.
Our podcast today is titled, Crossing the American Rubicon to Divorce the Democrat Socialists. This podcast audio and text is just the introduction to a much longer article, available at clpnewsnetwork.com.
The other sections of the longer article are:
Section 1. Irreconcilable Differences With The Democrat Socialists
Section 2. What Comes After the Collapse of Madison’s Representative Republic?
Section 3. Crossing the American Rubicon Restore the Natural Rights Republic.
The full audio and text of this podcast is available for free, for one week. The entire historical archive of all CLP podcasts is available for an annual subscription of $30.
Introduction. The End of Madison’s Representative Republic.
Our podcast extends the recent comment by Jesse Kelly, Host of ‘I’m Right’ on the television channel, The First.
Kelly tweets,
“We need a national divorce. I have no common bond with these people. There is nothing keeping us together. Let’s get through this pandemic and start working out the details.”
We argue that the current ideological differences between Democrat socialists and natural rights conservatives are irreconcilable and irresolvable.
We cite the historical case of the Roman Republic that collapsed when citizens lost trust and allegiance to the Roman rule of law.
We argue that the ideological differences involve fundamental disagreements over the mission of the nation, and we use the original principles of the nation to argue that a representative republic can only endure if it is built upon shared cultural values that bind the citizens into a common mission.
We use the analogy of a failed marriage to argue that there is no longer any love between socialists and conservatives, and that the best course of action is to admit that Madison’s representative republic is over.
Coming to grips with the fact that the national marriage is over means crossing the American Rubicon, to create a new constitution for a new nation, built upon the state sovereignty framework of the Articles of Confederation.
And, like the end of a marriage, crossing the divorce Rubicon means bidding our former spouse good luck, goodbye, and God speed.
The Roman Republic was based upon allegiance of citizens to obey the unwritten rule of law. The allegiance to the rule of law was voluntary. The allegiance was sustained because Roman citizens shared a widespread cultural value of personal honor that compelled voluntary allegiance to obey the rule of law.
The fall of the Roman Republic was caused by a widespread moral decay of the traditional Roman social and moral codes of behavior, both in the elites and the common citizens.
The traditional values that Roman citizens shared were virtue, individual dignity, self-discipline, and sense of duty.
Cicero explained the fall of the Roman Republic as the collapse of morality by saying,
“Everybody demands as much political power as he has force behind him. Reason, moderation, law, tradition, and duty count for nothing.”
In other words, the Roman Republic was based upon respect for the unwritten rule of law that compelled voluntary obedience to the written law. When the respect for the unwritten rule of law eroded, the Roman Republic ended.
When Caesar reached the Rubicon, from his conquest of Gaul, he was aware that respect for rule of law was ending because he had become a victim of the corruption of the Roman Senate.
Before he crossed the Rubicon, he invited a number of Roman historians and philosophers to come to the river and describe the situation in Rome.
They described the rampant corruption of the Senators, who were using the government to enrich themselves.
After his discussions with the historians, he reached his own psychological Rubicon that the Roman Republic was over. Part of his motivation to cross the Rubicon was to end the corrupt Roman Republic.
In crossing the Rubicon, Caesar precipitated a 6 year civil war with Pompey, the leader of the corrupt regime in the Roman Senate.
Like Caesar, American natural rights conservatives must cross their own psychological Rubicon that the national marriage with Democrat socialists is over.
The conservative’s ideological divisions with socialists are irrevocable and irreconcilable.
Like the Roman Senate, the national government has been captured by a centralized, global, elite tyranny that uses the agencies of government to enrich themselves.
Like the Roman Senators, the corporate and socialist ruling class elites in Washington have a profound disrespect for the rule of law, and a profound hatred of non-socialists.
Madison’s Constitution is no help to citizens in eliminating the tyranny, because Madison’s institutional rules of the Constitution did not contemplate a disunion between citizens in the principles and mission of the nation.
Madison’s rules were designed to check and balance commercial financial social classes, not ideological differences over freedom and liberty.
The ideology of socialism does not fit into Madison’s Constitution because it is a unified philosophical view of the world. As the socialists use the term in their propaganda, the ideology is aimed at achieving a future state of “social justice,” not protecting and preserving liberty, today.
Attempting to “fix” Madison’s Constitution with amendments does nothing to change the behavior of Democrats, or restore their respect for the rule of law.
Polybius wrote,
“Once people had grown accustomed to eating off others’ tables and expected their daily needs to be met, then, they found someone to champion their cause... they instituted government by force.”
The socialists, as predicted by Polybius, expect the government to meet their daily needs, and they are committed to taking over the government by force to eradicate a society based upon individualism.
The Democrat socialists masquerade as American citizens because they need the basic liberties of the nation, in order to destroy the liberty of the conservatives.
Natural rights conservatives must adjust their mental image of Democrats in order to accommodate the new, changed political reality that Democrats hate America, hate conservatives, and are dedicated to taking away fundamental civil liberties.
Conservatives must bring themselves to the conclusion that there are only two options open for dealing with the socialists.
Either the nation can embark on a civil dissolution, where both factions form their own nation, or the citizens can embark on a civil war, where the victor imposes order on the losers.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for April 10, 2020.