Episode 50. May 31, 2020 CLP Topic: Destruction of America: Counting the Constitution as a COVID Death

Episode 50. May 31, 2020

CLP Topic: Destruction of America

Counting the Constitution as a COVID Death


Our podcast today is the introduction to a much longer article titled, Counting the Constitution as a COVID Death.

Our podcast uses the CDC distinction made in counting Covid deaths, as it applies to the death of the U. S. Constitution. The Constitution did not die because of Covid, it died with Covid.

The Constitution was already sick, with underlying medical conditions, and resided in a nursing home for old republics.

The Constitution had a weakened immune system, which reduced its ability to withstand an attack from a virulent virus called socialism.

We argue that the Nation is evenly divided between Democrat socialists, who want more socialism, and conservatives, who want nothing to do with socialism.

The broad framework of the differences are individualism versus collectivism, and globalism versus national sovereignty.

Victor Davis Hanson writes,

“Progressives believe the story of America has most often been one of           discrimination, original sin, and a need for constant repentance and           reparations for a flawed past… Red- and blue-state America was already           divided before the covid epidemic hit. Globalization had enriched the           East    Coast and West Coast corridors but hollowed out much in between.”

Conservatives reject entirely this starting socialist premise about slavery, but endorse Hanson’s interpretation about globalization as one of the irreconcilable differences with socialists..

We do not argue about the credibility or legitimacy of the socialist Covid panic arguments. The socialists are using the Covid public relations panic to promote their desire to implement socialism, and their arguments reveal the stark contrast in ideology with conservatives.

We use the issues raised by the Covid panic to argue that the ideological differences are irreconcilable, and that there is no common language or cultural values that can bridge the differences.

We argue that the current Constitution, of 1787, is incapable of resolving the ideological split because the Constitution is founded on balancing the financial interests between social classes, not on resolving ideological differences between collectivism and individualism.

Madison drafted the Constitution under the assumption that the citizens, both rich and poor, would always value national sovereignty over foreign sovereignty. The death knell of the Constitution sounded when both political parties embraced globalism over national sovereignty.

Madison assumed, as did John Adams, that a national core moral value of individual liberty could be taken for granted, and that the main issue to solve in his constitutional rules was the class conflict between the natural aristocracy and common citizens.

Madison feared the collective voting power of the common citizens, and drafted his rules to avoid the outcome of a tyrannical majority of common citizens from oppressing the virtuous minority of wealthy citizens.

As a result of Madison’s fear of common citizens, the citizens have no constitutional mechanism to overcome the tyranny of the Covid lockdown of socialist governors.

As a result of his focus on checking and balancing financial interests, Madison left out entirely the mechanism for citizens to defend their own liberty, if the minority of wealthy citizens ever gained monopoly power in the government.

His Constitution ended in a centralized tyrannical minority using the Covid panic to oppress the common citizen majority. The only peaceful way out of this conflict is to divide the nation into two new nations.

Madison disconnected his Preamble from the principles of liberty in Jefferson’s Preamble in the Declaration, and it is a myth in recounting the history of America to combine and conflate the ideology of the two documents.

“We hold these truths as self evident,” is not the moral equivalent of “in order to create a more perfect union.”

Adams explained that Madison’s Constitution would only work if the citizens always held the core public purpose of liberty for the new nation.

Adams wrote,

“Public spiritedness is the only Foundation of the Republic…There must           be a positive Passion for the public good…established in the Minds of the           People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real           liberty…Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy           to sacrifice their private Pleasure, Passions and Interest.”


As Adams prepared to leave the Office of President, in 1801, he realized that Madison’s Constitution was flawed. He wrote that nothing in the system seemed to be representing what Adams thought was the broader public purpose of liberty.

“The two political parties that had come into existence had defined financial             ends. We have no   Americans in America. The Federalists have been   no           more Americans than the anties…Jefferson    had a party. Hamilton           had a party, but the commonwealth  had none. The two parties would  settle wealth and power upon a minority. It will be accomplished by a  national           debt, paper corporations, and offices, civil and military. These will           condense king, lords and commons, a monied faction and an armed           faction in one interest.”


Adams predicted that the outcome of Madison’s constitutional rules would be to divide the nation into two groups, creditors and debtors.

Adams was correct that Madison’s rules would divide the nation into two groups, but he could not have foreseen that the division would be between globalist socialists and national sovereignty conservatives.

As was the case in 1801, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, today, defend the public purpose of liberty. They are collaborators in the deep state allegiance to globalism.

Part of our argument about the death of the Constitution is related to the absence of shared cultural values between globalist socialists and national sovereignty conservatives.

There are two distinct views of the mission of the Nation, and nothing binds those two irreconcilable views together, as one Nation, under God.

The immediate danger to liberty of the Covid public relations panic is that sizable majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor the socialist solution of confining people to their homes, detaining sick people in government facilities, banning U.S. citizens from entering the country, government takeovers of businesses, conscription of health care workers, suspension of religious services, and even criminalizing the spread of “misinformation” about the virus.

In citizen surveys about Covid, the researchers at Chilton et al. stated,

“Even when we explicitly told half of our sample that the policies may           violate the Constitution, the majority of registered voters supported all eight restrictions, including the speech restrictions.

The two nations within a Nation must divorce because a majority of citizens no longer support the Bill of Rights.

The Spirit of Liberty, under which the Nation was conceived, in 1775, must be resurrected in a new nation, which has better safeguards to protect liberty, and better guardians to protect liberty, than the globalist cabal that despises individual freedom.

We conclude that the new Nation of the Democratic Republic of America can correct Madison’s fear of the common citizens by converting his representative republic into a democratic republic that provides more power to citizens to protect their liberties and freedoms.

This podcast is the introduction to a much longer article, that is available for free, for one week at clpnewsnetwork.com.

The other sections of the longer article are:

Section 1. The Constitutional Authority of the Emergency Declarations to Lock Down Citizens.

Section 2. Covid Death Counts and Mail-in Ballots.

Section 3. Covid Re-open Protests and the Elimination of Gun Rights.

Section 4. Covid Constitutional Death in the Era of Obamagate.

The entire historical archive of all Citizen Liberty Party News Network articles are available of an annual fee of $30.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.

Section 1. The Constitutional Authority of the Emergency Declarations to Lock Down Citizens.

Socialists argue that state governors are doing the right thing to protect the common citizens from the Covid virus by locking down the citizens. The socialists believe that the Constitution provides justification for the emergency orders of the state, and the authority to extend the lock downs, indefinitely.

All 50 states have legislation that allows the governor to declare an emergency. The legislative grant of authority is open-ended, and only ends when the governor declares the emergency over.

For example, in North Carolina, General Statute 166A, on when the emergency ends simply states:

“Expiration of States of Emergency. – A state of emergency declared           pursuant to this section shall expire when it is rescinded by the authority that    issued it.”

In other words, Governor Cooper, a Democrat, can extend the lock down indefinitely, with no outside branch of government overseeing his authority.

In drafting G. S. 166A, the North Carolina General Assembly delegated legislative authority to make laws to Governor Cooper to declare an indefinite emergency.

When Governor Cooper recently extended the lock down for an additional 5 weeks, until the end of June, he was both making law, in the form of extending his initial declaration, and was also the enforcer of law, by the power to direct police to arrest citizens engaged in “non-essential” activity, as defined solely by the Governor.

Under both Madison’s Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution, the delegation of legislative authority to make laws violates the separation of powers.

In both Constitutions, the separation of power was crafted to guarantee the preservation of personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in any one branch.

In making his initial declaration, Cooper was not required to provide data or evidence, to the legislature that an emergency existed.

In his case, his initial declaration cited an “expression of concern” from the North Carolina Nurses Association, that the Covid virus could possibly overrun the capacity of hospitals.

The entire legal process and basis to declare an emergency is for the Governor to simply state that an emergency exists. The law in North Carolina does not require a check against the Governor’s power, or evidence that justifies the use of the emergency power.

Once declared, the citizens have no mechanism of appeal or grievance to end the declaration.

The poorly-written North Carolina General Statute, 166A, resulted in Governor Cooper exercising authority without law. As Supreme Court Justice Jackson argued in the case about Truman’s use of an emergency to take over the steel mills,

“We may also suspect that the Founders suspected that emergency powers         would tend to kindle emergencies.”

The unchecked power of the Governors is the first issue to describe the irreconcilable differences between Democrat socialists, like Cooper, Whitmer, Cuomo, etc., and sovereignty conservatives.

In each case of the Democrat socialists, their ideology is that all citizens, everywhere in the state are the same. In socialism, one size fits all, as a result of the socialist belief in collectivism.

When the socialists use the term, “for the good of all” to defend their lock down, they employ the ideology of Marx and Lenin. In socialism, equality of outcomes means fairness in outcomes, and fairness is applied to all citizens, everywhere.

In his article, “The Death of the American Constitution,” Grady Means explains that the citizens of the nation have divided into two camps. He states,

“Politically, the country has broken into two strong political, almost           religious, factions. One seeks to maintain the structures of governance and    laws in the Constitution. The other displays arrogant confidence in their           personal visions of fairness and the future of the country. It has become an      unresolvable conflict… The concepts of democracy, personal privacy and           property rights are replaced by loosely defined views of “fairness,”           “equality” and “human rights.”

Governor Cooper, and the other Democrat governors, use the ideology of fairness to justify the continuing application of arbitrary police power in the Covid panic because it would be unfair if even one citizen death could be avoided in the absence of a lock down.

From the socialist perspective of fairness, it would be unfair to the citizens in Brunswick County, with 50 confirmed cases of Covid, to be treated differently than the citizens in Wake County, with 700 Covid cases.

According to Barr, the lock down orders were adopted only,

“for the limited purpose of slowing down the spread, that is bending the           curve. We didn’t adopt them as the comprehensive way of dealing with this     disease.”

The socialist argument for unlimited government power is expressed by Philip Rotner, in his article, “Decoding Bill Barr’s Threats To State Coronavirus Orders.”

In response to Barr’s assertion that the lock down orders were for a limited purpose, Rotner adopts the socialist unlimited power of government argument.

Rotner states,

“Who says (that the orders were for a limited purpose)? The measures were   adopted to more broadly stop the virus from killing people. What state           declared that the minute the curve flattened, their orders would automatically          be rescinded, no matter how many people were still dying?”

Rotner cites the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson to defend his argument. He writes,

“in Jacobson v. Massachusetts the Court ruled that the Constitution does not     prohibit government from taking necessary, temporary measures to           safeguard the health and safety of the community in an emergency

Rotner cites the provision in the Jacobson ruling as it pertains to the freedom of religion. He writes,

“The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose           the community . . . to communicable disease.”

In Jacobson, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for the majority.

“On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its           members. There are manifold restraints to which every person is           necessarily subject for the common good.”

Rotner is very careful not to cite Jacobson as the precedent for allowing Virginia and North Carolina to sterilize black people to “promote the public good.”

In Buck v. Bell, in 1927, the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia eugenics law permitting the forced sterilization of Black people thought to have intellectual disabilities.

Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes cited Jacobson in stating,

“Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their           kind (uppity Blacks)…The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination           is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes.”

In North Carolina, the decision in Buck granted the state Democrats the power to sterilize 50,000 blacks, against their will. The forced sterilization in North Carolina began in the mid 1930’s and ended in the 1970s.

From the perspective of socialists, the logic of the Jacobson decision for the unlimited power of government to ban religious services, force sterilizations, and force vaccinations is all part of their world view of more power for government.

As long as Jacobson exists as a constitutional precedent for unlimited government power for governors to suspend freedom of religion and sterilization of Black people, the ideological conflicts between socialists and natural rights conservatives are irreconcilable.

Madison’s Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are designed to limit government power against citizens, and the arguments of socialists for unlimited government power is irreconcilable to the conservative principle of limited government power.

The recursive proposition in Madison’s Preamble is that a “more perfect union” can mean anything, at any time, depending on what the majority of the Supreme Court decides that more “perfect union” means at that time.

The socialist interpretation of a more perfect union, under Covid, aims at using government power to make progress on a socialist nation.

The socialist interpretation of the Constitution is as equally valid as the natural rights interpretation that the mission of the Constitution is to protect liberty from an oppressive government.

Seen from the perspective of socialists, the state’s lock down rules are constitutionally valid because they promote the “common good.”

From the perspective of state sovereignty conservatives, the unlimited power of states to enforce lock down of citizens is tyranny.

The two ideologies are irreconcilable and unsolvable, under Madison’s Constitution.



Section 2. Covid Death Counts and Mail-in Ballots.

The issue of mail-in ballots presents the second Covid issue that demonstrate  irreconcilable difference between socialists and conservatives, that cannot be solved under the existing Constitution.

From the socialist perspective, the Covid virus is so dangerous to the health of voters that only mail-in ballots should be sanctioned as the method of voting.

The socialist use the Covid death rates as evidence to support their argument that in-person voting is too dangerous to the heath of voters.

For example Governor Inslee, of Washington, is claiming that his decision to open up the state depends on “science and data” on death rates from Covid.

The science of death rates is obtained from the cause of death stated on the death certificate. The cause of death is influenced by the financial considerations of how the hospital codes the death as Covid-related.

A Medicare patient who dies, without Covid, would give the hospital $5,000.

A Covid-related death gives the hospital between $13,000 to $39,000.

Conservatives argue that mail-in ballots creates voter fraud for Democrats to steal election results.

Under Madison’s representative republic, the sole power of citizens comes on election day. The citizens in North Carolina, for example, are stuck with a socialist tyrant for governor, until the next election.

As Sean Wilentz wrote, in The Rise of American Democracy,

“The people had no formal voice of their own in government. And, that was    exactly how it was supposed to be, (under Madison’s Constitution), for once   the electors had chosen their representatives, they ceded power, reserving           none for themselves until the next election…The people, as a political entity,           existed only on election day.”

If  the socialists can use the Covid public relations panic to force mail-in ballots, they can achieve their long-held goal of a one-party tyranny.

Lily Hay Newman, writing in Wired, notes in her article, “Vote by Mail Isn’t Perfect. But It’s Essential in a Pandemic,”

“More Americans than usual who “can’t get to the polls” because of the           Covid-19 pandemic… officials will need to set up polling places that enable          social distancing. Voting districts will also need to recruit and pay more poll     workers to support expanded in-person voting and equip them with personal         protective equipment. And every voter should have the option to request a           ballot and vote absentee by mail.”

Jim Newell, a Democrat socialist writer from Slate, writes,

“Among wide swaths of the Democratic coalition, there is an orthodoxy           forming: The party’s purpose is to block and resist Trump at every turn, and    “through that process reinforce their own (socialist) priorities.”

Garrett Epps, a Democrat socialist writer at The Atlantic, wrote in 2012,

“Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, “All           individuals have the right to vote.” It simply rules out specific limitations on      “the right to vote.” A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn’t really a        “right” in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.”

Willis L. Krumholz, a conservative, writing in the Federalist, on May 26, 2020, wrote,

“A nationwide effort by Democrats is underway in at least 16 states to           overturn restrictions on mail-in voting and third-party ballot harvesting.           States where suits have been filed include the swing states of Minnesota,           Pennsylvania, and Florida. The effort is being backed by the National           Redistricting Foundation, a Democratic group headed by the Obama           administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder.”

The conservative argument is that mail-in voting is part of the socialist attempt to nullify constitutionally-protected rights of Republican voters, by overturning the 2016 national election and establishing a future socialist monopoly..

The socialists must find some extra-constitutional method of nullifying both past and future national election results, and that method is mail-in votes because Covid makes it too risky for voters to go to the polls to vote..

The mail-in vote strategy is also part of the Democrat socialist nullification of the electoral college that disenfranchises citizens in non-socialist states who lose their state’s electoral college votes to two most populated states of California and New York.

By voting to join the Interstate Electoral College Compact, the Democrats are taking the first step towards a civil dissolution of America and an evisceration of Madison’s Constitution.

According to Rasmussen, “Sixty-three percent (63%) of Democrats favor eliminating the Electoral College, while just as many Republicans (63%) are opposed.

Those ideological differences about voting are not solvable under the Constitution.

On the very last days of the Constitutional Convention, in September, 1787, Madison inserted a clause to the Constitution that tempered the power of the Slaveocracy by requiring that states adopt a Republican form of government.

From Madison’s notes,

“Alterations having been made in the Resolution, making it read, “that a           Republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to be guaranteed to           each State by the United States,” the whole was agreed to, nem. con.

While Madison’s Constitution guarantees a republican form of government, he did not resolve the issue of state nullification, or secession. And, he did not state that the Republican form of government required an unimpeachable system of voting and counting results.

In arguing for mail-in voting, Mary Steffenhagen, a socialist writer for Salon, makes the obligatory connection between fair voting and the sin of slavery.

She writes,

“The people who responded to stay-at-home orders with outrage and talk of       government overreach are barely getting a taste of how immigrants, the           working class and people of color have been treated by the police for much longer. Police originated as slave patrols in the 1700s and evolved into           essentially security for the rich, paid for by the public. Police regularly           escalate tense situations into explosive violence that harms more than it           prevents or protects, and their current social distancing “enforcement”           measures bear out this historic truth.”

The socialist ideology of overcoming the sin of slavery extends to the imaginary oppression of Black voter suppression.

In his article, “We Need to Rewrite the Constitution to Stop Voter Suppression,” K. Sabeel Rahman, connects social justice to mail-in voting, justified by the Covid panic.

He writes,

“We must use this critical moment (the Covid panic) to drive the kind of           transformative change that makes good on the promise of           Reconstruction (of 1866) . Democracy requires structural reforms that           dismantle the persisting patterns of racial hierarchy and unequal political           power—and reforms that are built to withstand the backlash that           inevitably follow.”


Rahman links the mail-in voting strategy to the eventual transformation of America into a socialist nation.

He writes,

“Ending Donald Trump’s presidency in November is critical. But that action           alone cannot tackle the deep inequities of race and power that continue to   hobble American democracy. When we look at the experience of black and     brown communities, it’s clear that the right to vote doesn’t mean much unless it is closely tied to broader changes to the economic and social           conditions that produce racial hierarchy and economic inequality…If we are     to build a truly inclusive democracy, we need to push to transform our           Constitution and our political institutions across the country.”

Matt Ford, a socialist writer for New Republic, notes that Madison’s Constitution is broken. In his article, Rebuilding the Constitution, he uses the Covid panic to advocate stripping the U. S. Senate of its powers, because the Senate, for Ford, is the locus of racism in Madison’s Constitution.

Ford writes,

“Without a functioning national legislature, Americans will find it far harder          to confront the global recession around the corner and the long-term threat   of climate change right behind it…the only way to cure the democratic   deficit would be to strip the Senate of its powers over legislation. Senators       would still give advice and consent to presidential appointments, approve or   reject treaties, and serve as jurors for impeachment trials.”

In addition to stripping power from the Senate, Ford advocates stripping the President of his ability to hire and fire his advisors.

“The simplest solution would be to remove the president’s power to fire           those officials.”

The socialist ideology of Black oppression is the starting premise of their argument that mail-in voting is justified by the Covid panic. In their social construction of reality, the death count of 100,000 is true and accurate, because it fits their narrative.

The difference in ideology between socialists and conservatives is not solvable under Madison’s Constitution because Madison left blank the part about what constitutes a “republican” form of government

Section 3. Covid Re-open Protests and the Elimination of Gun Rights.

In citing the armed protestors in the anti-lock down protests, Cornell law professor Michael Dorf advocates suspending the constitutional protections of habeas corpus for the protestors.

Dorf writes,

“To “save the nation” from COVID-19, Congress should suspend the writ of          habeas corpus.”

Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that citizens possess the full corpus, or body of the law, in protecting their liberties from unconstitutional arrest and confinement.


Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution states,

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless           when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it”.

Like so much of Madison’s Constitution, the process of obtaining a writ of habeas, a legal document requiring government officials to determine if the confinement is legitimate, is left undefined.

As a result of Madison’s ambiguity, Dorf is able to make his case of the equivalence that the armed protestors are terrorists, engaged in rebellion and invasion.

It was not the protestors that invaded the Nation, according to Dorf,  it was Covid. The Covid public relations panic is simply the latest ploy of socialists to eliminate gun rights.

Dorf suggests that the spread of the COVID-19 virus from other countries to the United States could be construed as an invasion. Dorf’s aim is to use the Covid panic as the justification of the socialist dream of eliminating the Second Amendment.

In his article advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment, Bret Stephens, a socialist Democrat, advocated that Democrat candidates “Go Big,” on repealing the second amendment.

Using the school children murders in Florida as a political prop, Stephens suggested that elected Democrats repeal the second amendment and then send out the secret police to take away guns from non-guilty, gun-owning citizens.

Stephens wrote,

“There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment. Take the     guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away.”

Bill Scher, a socialist Democrat writer for Politico, used the same language as Stephens, in advocating “going big.”

Scher wrote in his October 4, 2017, article,

“These incrementalist moves leave space for a Democrat to go truly big:           mandate registration, licensing and safety courses; ban online sales; limit           purchases to one gun a month; cap the size of magazines and ratify a           constitutional amendment that would supersede the Second to allow broader        handgun bans.”

In the socialist ideology, the unlimited power of governors to claim that gun stores are “non-essential” is a part of the long-term strategy to eliminate gun rights, and part of that strategy is to use the Covid panic to re-define the meaning of liberty.

In her article, “Whose Freedom Counts? Anti-lockdown Protesters Are Twisting the Idea of Liberty,” Dahlia Lithwick, a socialist writer for Slate, makes the case that Covid eliminates the Second Amendment because protestors:

“Assume not simply that other people (Covid victims) should die for your   individual liberties, but also that you have an affirmative right to harm,           threaten, and even kill anyone who stands in the way of your exercising of       the freedoms you demand (gun rights).

Lithwick makes the obligatory connection between gun rights and slavery. She cites the writing of another socialist to state:

“The freedom to harm, (gun rights) has its lineage in the slaveholder’s           constitutional notion of freedom. Slaveholders disavowed a state that           secured any form of communal freedom—the freedom of the           community from slavery, from disenfranchisement, from exploitation, from poverty, from all the demeaning and silencing and killing.”

In the socialist ideology, Constitutional rights do not inure to individuals, they inure to the communal collectivist entity of oppressed people.

Lithwick concludes her article with the ideological proposition that conservatives absolutely reject. She cites a third socialist to state:

“As Jamil Smith points out, this cultish view of “liberty” (of the lock down           protestors) is demanding mass death (Covid) in exchange for liberty.. liberty       pushed by those who are already very free (white oppressors).Their true goal        is a life lived to spite other lives, and often take advantage of them.”

Dorf is able to make his case of the equivalence that the armed protestors are terrorists, engaged in rebellion and invasion. His socialist ideology is absolutely irreconcilable with the conservative ideology that protestors are patriots.

Madison’s Constitution cannot resolve these two opposed ideologies because it leaves undefined the process of securing the rights of habeas corpus, or the rights of the Second Amendment.

The Nation is evenly divided between socialists and conservatives who do not share any values in common, with the socialists claiming that the Covid panic provides justification for suspending the Second Amendment.

As cited above, when Chilton et.al., asked 3000 citizens about Covid, they found majority agreement that, “”now is the time to violate the Constitution,”

Section 4. Covid Constitutional Death in the Era of Obamagate.

In the CDC method of counting Covid deaths, any death even remotely related to Covid counts as a death from Covid. For example people shot and killed in criminal acts are counted as a Covid death.

Deborah Birx suggests that the CDC death count of 100,000 may be overstated by 25%.

In the spirit of the fake CDC Covid death rates, our podcast includes Obamagate as a Covid related event because the evidence of corruption was revealed during the era of the Covid public relations panic, and because Obamagate demonstrates the ideological split that is not solvable by the Constitution.

In a form of reverse logic, this podcast argues that if Hillary had won the election in 2016, that citizens would never have known that the Constitution had died. The socialists, including Obama, deeply believed that the pursuit of socialism was so important that constitutional protections could be overridden.

For over three years, the sickness of the weak Constitution allowed the socialists to escape any form of justice for their subversion of justice in overthrowing the Trump Presidency..

During that three year period, the socialists unleashed a wide array of corrupt, unconstitutional procedures about their political enemies.

The application of equal justice did not apply to the Democrats because the socialists do not share an ideological allegiance to obey the Constitution. The socialist ideological allegiance is to global socialism.

Nothing says “Dead Constitution” more effectively than Attorney General Barr stating that Obama is immune from prosecution for his crimes, based upon some unwritten gentleman’s agreement that former Presidents are immune from prosecution.

Barr stated,

“What happened to the president in the 2016 election, and throughout the           first two years of his administration, was . . . a grave injustice and it was           unprecedented in American history. ..We saw two different standards of           justice emerge, one that applied to President Trump and his associates, and    the other that applied to everybody else. We can’t allow this ever to happen         again.”

The citizens of the Nation are evenly divided over the interpretation of Obamagate. Socialists deeply believe that the Russian collusion hoax is real, and that Trump is guilty of conspiring with Russians to defeat Hillary.

The conservatives can see the application of the politics of destruction to President Trump, and recoil at the two standards of justice, one applied to Republicans and the other to socialists.

The world-view of socialists is entirely rejected by conservatives, and the differences are irreconcilable and not solvable under Madison’s Constitution, as long as Barr grants Obama immunity from prosecution.

The socialist defense of Obamagate begins with the obligatory left-wing invocation of racism.

David Graham, a socialist writer for The Atlantic, begins his article, “How to Understand ‘Obamagate,” by first making the connection that the Russian collusion hoax is justified because Trump, and Republicans, are racists.


He writes,


“Trump was tapping into a deep vein of racism and white identity politics in       the GOP base that would later allow him to dominate the 2016           primary…Trump’s point of “Obamagate” is to try to recapture the force           that propelled Trump to political prominence—questioning the legitimacy of       the first black president—as he heads toward a difficult reelection campaign     in the midst of a global (Covid) crisis.


From the perspective of the social construction of reality, Obama did nothing wrong and certainly not anything criminal.

Graham continues,

“It’s not really clear what Obama would be testifying about. Trump’s allies have said darkly that Obama knew about a counterintelligence investigation          into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which is neither scandalous,          surprising, nor news. They have claimed that Obama and some of his aides       asked for Michael Flynn’s identity to be “unmasked” in intelligence reports       about conversations with the Russian ambassador, ignoring the fact that        hese people couldn’t have known it was Flynn until he was unmasked.”

Graham wrote this after the evidence of the January 5, 2017, meeting held by Obama to implement the coup after the election, had been released to the public.

Even after the evidence against Obama was released to the public, Graham continues to promote his socially constructed ideological view of reality that Obama did nothing wrong because Obama’s actions were justified by the pursuit of a socially just society.

Tim Miller, an anti-Trumper, who served as senior advisor to the anti-Trump Our Principles PAC, communications director for Jeb Bush, and spokesman for the Republican National Committee, supports Graham’s assertion that there is nothing to see here.

Miller writes in Bulwark,

“Obamagate” is a long-running meme in certain conservative precincts, but     it is neither coherent nor persuasive… if anything, the supposed deep-          staters’ actions in 2016 served to help Donald Trump politically, particularly   in the final weeks of the election when the FBI reopened the investigation          into their supposedly preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton and then absolved Donald Trump of the actions they were supposedly framing him of in the          New York Times.”

The conservative ideology of Obamagate is that the equal application of the law is not valid, anymore. Equal application of the law applies to all citizens, including the first Black President of the Nation.

As Victor Davis Hanson writes, about the two-tiered justice system,

“If you, Joe Citizen, dare to leak classified information, lie to federal           investigators, destroy subpoenaed evidence, or testify to an IRS auditor that    you can’t remember, don’t know, or would not choose to speculate, you           most certainly will go to jail. These miscreants apparently were initially           convinced that Hillary Clinton would be president, much of the Obama team   would remain in power for 16 years, and their illegal behavior would be           praised and rewarded, if not become the basis for promotion and           advancement… In other words, we send swarms of cops or on occasion even   SWAT teams to the homes of the likes of a Roger Stone or Paul Manafort or       a sleazy Michael Cohen, but not to the townhouse of a Samantha Power, or       James Comey’s abode, or the estate of Hillary Clinton, or the seaside digs of       Barack Obama.”

The two ideological perspectives about Obamagate are irreconcilable, and not solvable under Madison’s Constitution, and if Hillary had won, the conservatives would never have realized how damaged and flawed the socialist ideological perspective of justice was.

In his article, “Across the Wide, Growing American Divide,” Hanson notes that the ideological conflicts existed before the Covid panic hit.

He writes,

“Red- and blue-state America was already divided before the coronavirus           epidemic hit. Globalization had enriched the East Coast and West Coast           corridors but hollowed out much in between… Progressives believe the story of America has most often been one of discrimination, original sin, and a           need for constant repentance and reparations for a flawed past.”

Hanson correctly identifies globalism as one component of the ideological divide. The other component that he hints at, with his reference to slavery, is that the socialists deeply believe that a socialist society is more fair and just than the free enterprise individualistic society.

That ideological conflict is irreconcilable and not solvable under Madison’s Constitution because Madison’s Constitution, as Adams noted, in 1801, requires a common consensus on the mission of the nation.

Madison’s Constitution contains a clause on treason:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against         them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Madison thought that the treason would arise from domestic agents giving aid and comfort to foreign nations. He never anticipated that the treason would arise under a socialist President, who despised the principles of liberty and individualism, under which the Jefferson’s Declaration aimed to establish.

The Constitution did not die because of Covid, it died with Covid, a virus that revealed that the ideological differences between socialists and conservatives are irreconcilable and not solvable under Madison’s 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. www.democraticrepublicofamerica.com

You can follow our daily commentary on twitter, at https://twitter.com/ltvtoo

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 www.GABBYpress.com

Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.