Episode 61. The Moral Justification for the Second American Revolution.

Podbean audio introduction to Episode 61.

Rumble video introduction to Episode 61

Episode 61 November 17, 2020
CLP Topic: The Democratic Republic of America
Title: The Moral Justification for the Second American Revolution.
Laurie Thomas Vass, The Citizens Liberty Party.
Please distribute widely.
Our podcast today is titled, The Moral Justification for the Second American Revolution. I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the Citizens Liberty Party News Network podcast for November 17, 2020.
We begin our argument for the moral justification of a second American revolution in agreement with a passage from Gordon Wood’s book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution.
Wood wrote,
“To be an American could not be a matter of blood; it had to be a matter of common belief and behavior. And the source of that common belief and behavior was the American Revolution: it was the revolution and only the Revolution that made them one people.”
The point Wood is making is that the first American Revolution forged a common set of national cultural and social values that bound all citizens together into a shared national mission of liberty.
A second American Revolution is justified to restore the moral philosophy of the shared national mission of liberty, obtained in the first revolution.
C. Bradley Thompson, in his book, America’s Revolutionary Mind, describes the constellation of common beliefs of the Revolution, as the “American Moral Philosophy,” and cites Locke’s admonition that citizens who adhere to the American civic virtue do not undermine the liberty of other citizens.

Thompson wrote,
“Locke’s fundamental law of nature (i.e., to follow right reason) issues two commands: first, each and, every man should pursue his rational, long-term self-interest; and, second, “No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
No common set of cultural or social values currently bind the socialists into a common mission of liberty. The nation is evenly divided between citizens who desire socialism and citizens who desire freedom, and those two conceptions of America are incompatible and irreconcilable.
In the election of 2020, in order to impose socialism, the socialists transgressed Locke’s second law of nature in the code of American Civic Virtue by taking away citizen’s rights to vote, and the socialists, have, therefore, abrogated their claim of American citizenship.
Jefferson sought to keep a moral society separate and apart from government power.
In subverting the election laws, the socialists seek to subordinate all of society under the jurisdiction of a totalitarian government.
Socialists seek to replace an independent moral society with the arbitrary power of government, that they alone control, through the agencies of their vanguard socialist party.
The socialists knew, in advance, the damage their transgression would cause to the Trump voters, and proceeded anyways, to inflict that damage.
The socialists did not limit their attack to subverting the American idea of individual rights, but, in evading the election laws, they also subverted the collective American right of self-determination and self-government.
The socialists have claimed an illegitimate authority to govern, not derived from the consent of the governed.
Having engaged in an immoral act to gain political power, the Democrats, will never return to the original contract, or voluntarily adhere to America’s civic virtue.
Democrat socialists seek to elevate the attainment of raw political power of government over the natural rights of citizens.
The socialists deny the claim of individual moral responsibility and seek to replace it with the principle that only socialist elites can judge morally correct behavior.
Locke sees individual citizens as owners of their own labor.
Socialists see citizens as property of the Socialist State.
Locke sees each individual as a moral agent, able to reason, and entitled to freedom. Locke states that the moral system is based upon individualism.
Daniel Webster stated,
“Our system begins with the individual man. The public happiness is to be the aggregate of the happiness of individuals.”
Socialists seek to substitute Marxist ideology of class conflict for Locke’s reason and replace individual reason with a totalitarian obedience to the Socialist State, where citizens have no capacity for individual reason.
Locke wrote that the single most important duty of government is to protect the God-given natural rights of their citizens. Locke stated that citizens possess a moral right to revolt when government violates those natural rights for the protection of which it was created.
In return for security, Locke expected those citizens to follow the legal laws enacted by the government to translate the consent of the governed into elected representatives.
Trump voters expected socialists to follow the legal laws of the code of American civic virtue of playing by the rules, established by common moral understanding of American values, and the socialists failed to follow the laws.
This article does not seek to persuade the revolutionary leaders of the second revolution of the validity and morality of America’s common mission of liberty.
This article is aimed at persuading those Trump voters who must make a personal, moral decision, that a second revolution is justified, and to persuade them to join the revolution to restore American civic virtue.
A second revolution is morally justified to restore the original national social contract that established liberty and self-government.
When the Democrats failed to follow the laws on election, they broke the original social contract of Jefferson’s Declaration.
Trump voters now have a moral right to abolish and replace that illegitimate government. We explain that the purpose of Jefferson’s law of nature, translated into civil law, is to secure the natural rights of individuals.
The moral justification of the first American Revolution was the belief that the British authorities intended to enslave the colonists.
As early as 1765, John Adams raised the alarm in his ‘Dissertation on the Feudal Law,” in response to the Stamp Art. (C. Bradley Thompson, America’s Revolutionary Mind).
Adams wrote,
“Nothing less than this seems to have been meditated for us, by somebody in Great Britain. There seems to be direct and formal design on foot, to enslave all America.”‘
In 1767, in response to the Townshend Acts, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania pursued the revolutionary logic in his Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.
He wrote,
“Some person may think this act of no consequence, because the duties are so small. A fatal error. That is the very circumstance most alarming to me. For I am convinced, that the authors of this law would never have obtained an act to raise so trifling a sum…. In short, if they have a right to levy a tax of one penny upon us, then they have a right to levy a million upon us.”
Jefferson wrote in 1774,
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day, but a series of oppressions begun at a distinguished period, and pursued, unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”
Patrick Henry wrote,
“There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
The socialists now seek to enslave Trump voters in a socialist tyranny. The avoidance of socialist slavery, imposed upon Trump voters by an illegitimate authority, justifies revolution today, just as it did in 1775.
It is not the goal of this second revolution to impose individualist Lockean principles of government upon the socialists in order to force them to return to the original social contract.
It is not the goal of this revolution to take control over the socialist national territory.
It is not the goal of this revolution to employ lethal force against the socialists to eradicate them from the territory of the new nation.
The goal of this revolution is a peaceful, civil dissolution of a currently irreconcilably divided nation into two new nations, one that restores the principles of liberty stated by Jefferson in the Declaration, and the other that seeks to subordinate the free will of citizens to the socialist will of the State.
This podcast is the audio introduction of a much longer article, available for free at clpnewsnetwork.com.
The other sections of the longer podcast are
Section 1. The Moral Philosophy of Revolution.
Section 2. The Restoration of American Moral Philosophy.
Section 3. The Restoration of Jefferson’s American Mind.
Section 4. Correcting Madison’s Constitutional Flaws.
Section 5. The Indictment of the Democrat Party’s Crime to Destroy Liberty.
Conclusion: Is Life So Dear, or Peace So Sweet, As To Be Purchased At The Price of Chains and Socialist Slavery?
I am Laurie Thomas Vass. This is the CLP News Network podcast for November 17, 2020.
Please distribute widely.
Section 1. The Moral Philosophy of Revolution.
Revolution is morally justified under a limited set of social conditions, explained by Allen Buchanan, in his article “Revolution. (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Buchanan writes,
“When government is sufficiently tyrannical and destructive, the lesser of evils may be…that revolution is morally justified even if it is not wielded by an agent that possesses legitimacy.”
Buchanan makes a distinction between those who start and lead a revolution, and those who subsequently join a revolution.
This is the same distinction we make in trying to persuade 71 million Trump voters to join the second American revolution.
Buchanan writes of the utilitarian logic and reasoning for citizens not to join a revolution,
“Whether I participate or not has virtually zero probability of determining the outcome; but participation is a cost, perhaps an extreme cost, to me and perhaps to my family or other close associates as well. So, regardless of what others do, the rational thing for me to do, whether I consider my own utility narrowly construed or include the utility of those I care most about, is to refrain from participating.”
This logic and reasoning not to participate in a revolution follows Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy of maximizing self-utility, with no regard for other’s utility and welfare.
During the first American Revolution, thousands of colonists followed this utilitarian reasoning not to support the Revolution, and were later removed from America, after 1783, because they did not share the new cultural values of the Nation.
The alternative to this utilitarian reasoning is that rational citizens will join a revolution if they see a better future for themselves, and for the collective common good.
Thompson describes that moral value as the American civic virtue because citizens are willing to take a personal risk to gain a social, collective, goal.
Others call the same value American patriotism.
In the first American Revolution, the soldiers called their goal “the spirit of liberty.”
Buchanan continues,
“Revolution is commonly understood to have two components: rejection of the existing government’s authority and an attempt to replace it with another government…revolution includes in addition a positive aim, to institute a new government in place of the one it has destroyed…to effect a fundamental change in the type of government, as in a revolution to overthrow an autocracy and create in its stead a democracy.”
In the example of the first American Revolution, the patriots replaced the insipient slavery of the British monarchy with a decentralized state-sovereignty representative republic, under the authority of the Articles of Confederation.
Madison later replaced the Articles with a centralized representative republic, whose safeguards against tyranny were limited to the citizen’s right to vote on the representatives, every 4 years.
As it finally evolved and ended, in 2020, Madison’s constitution contained a flaw that elevated the financial interests of the natural aristocracy over the natural rights of common citizens.
Once the deep state obtained illegitimate power by subverting the election, common citizens were left defenseless in Madison’s system to reclaim their liberty from the socialists.
In the case of the second American Revolution, Trump voters seek to replace Madison’s failed representative republic with a decentralized, state sovereignty democratic republic, where citizens have greater safeguards to protect their natural rights of self-government.
Buchanan explains that revolutions can be lethal and violent, or nonviolent, as we advocate in our support of a peaceful nonviolent civil dissolution.
Buchanan writes,
“Revolutions may be violent or nonviolent and may begin nonviolently and become violent. This distinction, though obviously important, is not so crisp as one might think, because what counts as violence may be disputed.”
Buchanan cites the principal of reciprocal lethal force in revolution, and in the case of the second American Revolution of civil dissolution, Trump voters would be morally justified to employ lethal forces only in proportion to when socialists used violence against them, in their effort to reduce citizens to slaves of the socialist State.
The moral philosophy of the second American Revolution is described by Buchanan as the overthrow of the Democrat Pary’s “lesser tyranny” that used illegitimate authority to violate natural and civil rights.
The lesser tyranny of socialists is permanent, and, having once gained power through cheating, they will never relinquish their power to return to the rules of natural law.
No force on earth is strong enough to override their religious fanaticism that socialism is a better form of government than Madison’s representative republic based upon the consent of the governed.
A nonviolent revolution is the only pathway for Trump voters to re-establish the rightful authority of citizens over the socialist tyranny.
Section 2. The Restoration of American Moral Philosophy.
One important irreconcilable moral philosophical difference between socialists and Trump voters concerns the treatment of citizens as ends to a mean, or goal.
In the case of the Democrat Party, citizens are ends to the socialist goal of imposing socialism on 50% of the voting population who want nothing to do with socialism.
In contrast to socialism, in the American moral philosophy, citizens are ends to their own liberty.
The socialists expect citizens to accept the morality of social justice, because socialists claim that socialism will be better for society than individual happiness.
Immanuel Kant described the socialist moral philosophy of Democrats as “human immaturity,” based upon the socialist belief that citizens are incapable of thinking for themselves.
In place of thinking for themselves, human immaturity required individuals to rely on the superior moral authority of Democrat elites for guidance on moral behavior.
Kant was writing in the era of the absolutism of the monarchy and the Pope, He described that individuals had the capacity of reason, and that each individual must be seen as a moral agent, not to be manipulated by totalitarian authority, such as the socialists seek to impose today.
Kant wrote his idea of categorical moral imperative about 100 years after Thomas Hobbes described how natural law replaced the authority of the king and the pope.
Hobbes explained that authority on earth is conveyed by people in their own self-interest, not conferred via the divine right of kings.
Hobbes described his idea of the Social Contract Theory, which stated that when citizens left the state of nature, they formed a hypothetical social contract among themselves to secure greater security.
The elements of morality in the social contract were essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon amongst themselves in order to live with one another in peace.
Both Locke and Jefferson relied on the social contract theory to explain American natural law and natural rights, when citizens left the state of nature to form the new Nation.
Locke had written that human logic and reason could replace the authority of the crown. Locke wrote,
“The goal of such knowledge was to guide man in determining what he ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness.”

Locke had written in his Second Treatise:
“The law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must be conformable to the laws of nature.”
Locke wrote that all people are born with certain, God-given “inalienable” natural rights that governments can neither grant nor revoke, including “life, liberty, and property.”
Locke also argued that, along with land and belongings, “property” included the individual’s “self,” which included the individual’s well being or happiness.
Locke also believed that it was the single most important duty of governments to protect the God-given natural rights of their citizens.
In return, Locke expected those citizens to follow the legal laws enacted by the government. Should the government break this “contract” with its citizens by enacting “a long train of abuses,” the citizens had the right to abolish and replace that government.
We argue that when the socialists subverted the election in 2020, and subverted the right of self-government, that they broke the original American social contract.
The socialists deny that legitimate power must conform to the laws of nature, and contend that law enforcement must conform to their concept of the morality of social justice, as they interpret justice, as the legitimate exercise of authority.
The socialists deny the human individuality of citizens, and replace the concept of individuality with the concept of group identity collectivism.
The socialist rejection of individuality is based upon the socialist denial of Locke’s principle of private property.

Locke wrote,
“Every Man has a Property in his own Person. Nobody has a Right to his own person but himself.”
The moral implication of a citizen’s property in his own person means the same thing as Kant’s moral imperative. Each and every individual is fully sovereign over his own life and cannot be manipulated for greater social ends.
In contrast to the social good, or public purpose of individual liberty, the socialists seek to impose a synthetic version of Rousseau’s general will of their concept of social justice, that only the socialist elites are capable of discerning.
Socialists see citizens as property of the state, to be molded and cast into the mold that fits the socialist image of social justice.
In contrast to the general socialist will, Locke wrote,
“The freedom then of man and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own.”
The socialists seek to substitute Marxist collectivism for individual reason, and seek to replace individual liberty with obedience to the State.
Locke states the universal moral truth of doing unto others as they do onto you.
He states,
“One should do as he would be donne unto,”
The socialist morality of social justice inverts this moral truth to claim that the State is the only legitimate moral authority to define acceptable social behavior.

Section 3. The Restoration of Jefferson’s American Mind.
The morality of the second revolution is based on restoring the principles of Jefferson’s American moral philosophy of natural law and natural rights.
Jefferson thought these truths were so obvious that he wrote that they were “self-evident.”
Jefferson wrote,
“The palpable truth of the Declaration is that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”‘
Jefferson claimed that the obvious natural laws would lead to the formation of a government based upon ethical individualism, self-interest rightly understood, self-rule, constitutionalism, rule of law, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism.
Jefferson said,
“The people, in mass .. are inherently independent of all but moral law.. government may do only those things that states may do of right. Political authority is justified only within the realm of legitimacy established by justice.”
We argue that when the socialists subverted the natural right of self government, that they entered into the realm of illegitimate political authority.
The socialists seek a society of dependent beings, dependent on the State.
This dependency resembles the colonial dependency on the king, written about by Franklin, in 1763, as a society subordinated to paternal dominion.
The socialist philosophy is a return to the absolutism of the King, where the socialist elite elevate themselves to the unchallenged authority of the King..
William Blackstone compared the form of authority of monarchy as a type of child-parent relationship, which resembles the form of society sought by the socialists.
Blacksotone wrote,
“Since the king was the “pater familias of the nation,” to be a subject of the king, was to be a kind of child, to be personally subordinated to a paternal dominion.”
In 1775, the patriots sought to create a society without the servile dependencies and corrupt ties of European patronage that bound together monarchical subjects, and to establish a society based upon individual merit and integrity.
Jefferson’s American moral philosophy aimed at replacing the authority of the crown with individual reason and natural rights. Later in his life, Jefferson described the philosophy of the Declaration as the “American Mind.”
Jefferson believed that the principles stated in his Declaration were grounded in knowable moral laws of nature. He believed that those moral laws could be translated into the framework of government, following logic and reason.
The basic philosophical, irreconcilable difference between socialists and Trump voters, is that socialists deny Jefferson’s self-evident truths, and seek a return to the absolutism of monarchal logic.
Thompson writes, in America’s Revolutionary Mind,
“American-style republicanism was unique because of the emphasis it put on limiting the political power of those who rule—including the rule of the majority—so that individuals could rule themselves more efficaciously…to have property in one’s rights is to say that each and every individual has sovereignty over his choices and conduct within the limits agreed to by all individuals in a particular society”
We argue that when the socialists subverted the election, that they subverted the code of American civic virtue, and justified a revolution to return the American society to the consensus of Jefferson’s American Mind, as it was, after the first Revolution.
Section 4. Correcting Madison’s Constitutional Flaws.
Buchanan wrote about the two end goals of revolution. He stated,
“Revolution is commonly understood to have two components: rejection of the existing government’s authority and an attempt to replace it with another government… to effect a fundamental change in the type of government, as in a revolution to overthrow an autocracy and create in its stead a democracy.”
For Madison, the quality of virtue possessed by the more rational elites, who owned property, would allow the elites to make good decisions on behalf of non-elites, in a type of virtual representation.
Madison’s rules of separation of power were the instruments to balance and check factional political power in order to insure that social elites, the natural leaders, who made important decisions on behalf of all society, were insulated from the democratic tyranny that could be imposed by the majority of common citizens.
Madison’s intent was to insure that the wealthy minority of virtuous elites were never dominated by the voting power of the majority of common citizens.
In the hands of socialists, Madison’s rules become an effective instrument of control precisely because, after the rules were ratified, the power of the socialist elites could never be reformed in the direction of more democracy.
Once the socialists obtained power, Madison’s system of checks and balances did not have a civil, non-violent path for non-elite citizens to restore the rule of law, or to alter or abolish the tyrannical power.
Madison’s scheme of politics has eventually evolved into a type of special interest tyranny that subjugates individual freedom to the collective interests of the elite, no matter which political party is in control.
Because Madison’s rules of procedure insulated the elites from the will of the citizens so effectively, citizens today have precious little political leverage to regain control of the kleptocracy from the socialists.
Through time, the American system of special interest elitism in politics has led to a condition where the social and political elites in Washington, D. C., operate in a nearly closed decision making system, whose rules of participation and procedures the elites control.
As Gordon Wood has pointed out, in The Creation of the American Republic, not only did Madison’s scheme provide for a system dominated by
“…natural leaders who knew better than the people as a whole what was good for society,” but it also succeeded in removing the non- natural leaders from the political process. In fact, the people did not actually participate in government any more…The American (Federalists) had taken the people out of the government altogether. The true distinction of the American government wrote Madison in the Federalist ‘lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the government.’”
In Madison’s constitutional rules, there are only two social classes, the elites and the working class. His system of politics imposed, forever, two political parties to represent the commercial interests of these two factions.
No political party represented the natural rights of liberty.
One political party, the elites, would have unfair advantages in property rights, and the other political party, would represent the interests of the working class, but without the burden of actually participating in democratic rule making and enforcement.
Their only participation for common citizens came every 4 years, when they voted to elect their representatives to represent their economic and financial interests.
The flaw in Madison’s plan is that in the absence of stating the shared cultural values of liberty in the new nation, there is no way for citizens to reform the rules through the existing two party special interest political system.
Few, if any of Madison’s Federalist cohorts worried about the basic contradiction unleashed by their constitutional scheme.
As Elisha Douglass noted,
“Hence, a double paradox: to preserve their own liberty, the unprivileged masses must be prevented from infringing on the privileged few; to maintain a government based on consent, a large proportion of the people must be deprived of the ability to extend or withhold consent.”
Madison had to mislead the common citizens in order to have his constitution ratified in a flawed ratification system, controlled by elites in each state.
As Gordon Wood notes,
“Yet to win ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists had to pretend it was rather more democratic than in fact it was, with results both ironic and tragic. The Federalists wrote the Constitution to insert republican checks on American democracy, and upon democratic individualism. But to get the people to ratify the Constitution, the Federalists had to appeal to the sovereignty of the people. As a result, they secured the triumph of the very democracy they were trying to contain.”
Madison wrote, in Federalist #49:
“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”
Madison acknowledged that citizens are born with natural rights, but then maintained that the citizens delegated those rights to the Leviathan, when his constitution was ratified.
The flaw in his arrangement is that after the socialists subverted the election system, Trump voters have no constitutional method of regaining their rights from a totalitarian regime.
Madison succeeded to well in insulating the mechanisms of government from the will of the people, and the socialists have now gained unchecked, illegitimate authority over the citizens.
Returning to Madison’s constitution is not logical or possible, because of its inherent flaws of elevating the financial interests of the natural aristocracy over the interests of common citizens.
The only pathway out of this crisis is a peaceful nonviolent dissolution of the nation, where Trump voters enact a new constitution with the mission of government to defend the liberty of common citizens.
Section 5. The Indictment of the Democrat Party’s Crime to Destroy Liberty.
We argue that the Democrat’s goal in impeachment of Trump was not simply to get rid of Trump.
Thompson writes,
“To dismantle individualism, limited government, and capitalism, the (socialists) first had to destroy the underlying epistemological and moral principles of the Declaration,”
The socialist goal was to get rid of Trump, in order to get rid of natural rights individualism and replace it with communist collectivism.
Thompson continues,
“Foremost among their aims was to reverse America’s constitutional priorities, making democracy primary and liberty secondary in American law. They were largely successful in that effort. In what can only be called a complete reversal of the Founders’ perspective, judges, lawyers, political scientists, politicians, and journalists today generally see democracy as the primary force of government.”
The socialist re-define democracy as equality in income, not citizen participation in government. The socialists re-define the history of the Revolution to conform to their Marxist class war ideology.
The socialists describe the history of America as a social struggle by deprived and underprivileged groups against entrenched elites, in order to replace the individualism of capitalism and private property with communism.
We argue that the socialists subverted the election because they could not win their goal of communism in a fair and free election. Their goal is to govern Trump voters, with no regard for the individual natural rights of Trump voters.
We argue that legitimate government authority is based on, and bound by, the rights of citizens, and nobody—no king, no legislature, no socialist junta, has any authority to deny their liberty in order to control them.
Freedom is the starting point of politics; government’s powers are secondary and derivative, and therefore limited
We argue that the only method of getting rid of the illegitimate socialist government is revolution.
Conclusion: Is Life So Dear, or Peace So Sweet, As To Be Purchased At The Price of Chains and Socialist Slavery?
As Paine wrote, in Common Sense, the American rule of law replaced the rule of the king and the Pope. And, today, the rule of American law has been replaced by a socialist coup.
Paine wrote,
“THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is to rule themselves.”
We deny the common good of socialist collectivism and social justice, and replace it with the common good of individual liberty.
Paine describes our concept of the social good,
“There is no such thing as the “common good” unless one means the sum of the interests of all men and women in a particular society, and the only legitimate “good” common to all men and women as rational beings is freedom, which is the necessary condition from which they pursue all the goods necessary for living and living well. To the extent that the “common good” can mean anything at all, it describes the freedom and rights that all individuals must be guaranteed.”
The Democrats counter with “peace, peace, let there be peace and unity under the socialist banner.”
But, there is no peace without justice and liberty.
We agree with Paine that the war has already started.
“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
The second American Revolution has already started. Its moral justification is the restoration of American liberty.
The war has already started, and we beseech the 70 million Trump voters to join us in the cause of liberty.
The war has already started. We are already on the field of battle with the socialists.
We need today’s patriots to join us on the field of battle to defeat a great socialist evil.
We seek,
A Non-violent revolution, if we can. A violent revolution, if we must.

Please distribute widely.