Episode 63. Confronting Evil: The Trump Voter’s Moral Duty to Defend Liberty.

Audio introduction of Podbean

Video introduction on Vimeo

CLP News Network. Episode 63. December 16, 2020

CLP Topic Category. Democrat Police State Socialism

Title: Confronting Evil: The Trump Voter’s Moral Duty to Defend Liberty.

Introduction: The Consequences of the Democrat’s On-Going Coup to Destroy Liberty.

Our podcast today is titled Confronting Evil: The Trump Voter’s Moral Duty to Defend Liberty. I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network, for December 16, 2020.

Our intent of this article is to persuade Trump voters that they have a personal, moral duty, to restore American liberty.

We begin by noting the odd circumstance of being both in agreement with Victor Davis Hanson’s analysis of the chronology of the Democrat’s deep state “slow-moving coup,” and in disagreement with his interpretation of the implications of the coup for the future of liberty.

We define a coup d’etat as an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power, conducted by an enemy of the existing government.

The initial planning to unleash the American coup began on November 14, 2016, just two weeks after the election.

According to Joe Schoffstall, writing in the Washington Free Beacon, Soros gathered with top Democrats in D.C to plot the coup.

Schoffstall writes,

“Liberal billionaire George Soros is meeting behind closed doors with top         Democrats to plot a resistance strategy against President-elect Donald Trump and         Republicans. The three-day conference began Sunday at the Mandarin Oriental   hotel in Washington, D.C., and is sponsored by deep-pocketed liberal members        of the dark money Democracy Alliance donor network. The group will seek to       pick up the pieces from the 2016 election, plot its strategy for upcoming      elections, and map out a game plan to battle Trump during his first 100 days in     office.”

Obama implemented the elements of the Soros plan, in Obama’s office, with Joe Biden, on January 5, 2017.

In contrast to Hanson’s term of a “slow-moving coup,” our term for the Soros Democrat coup is sedition. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, Obama’s Deployment of the FBI As A Political Weapon, https://bit.ly/37YXC5u, December 14, 2017).

We link the Democrat election fraud of 2020 as a part of the on-going Soros coup of 2016.

Unlike Hanson’s interpretation of the coup, we argue that the consequence of the election fraud is the end of Madison’s representative republic, with the installation of an illegitimate leader, also known as an unelected dictator.

Like Maduro in Venezuela, Biden has seized power without the consent of the governed. His seizure of illegitimate authority is more than just the end of the Republic, it is the end of the American principle of individual liberty.

Like Maduro, Biden seeks to impose socialism against the will of the majority of citizens. Biden fulfills one of Madison’s fears that the framework of government could end with a dominant faction over ruling a defenseless faction.

In Biden’s case, it is not Madison’s fear that the majority of common citizens would dominate the minority natural aristocracy. Rather, Biden seeks to impose a minority ideology of Marxist slavery on the majority of middle and working class citizens.

We allege that the coup’s last act of election fraud, in 2020, constitutes a premeditated evil act to deprive Trump voters of their God-given natural rights of liberty and self-government.

We claim that the Democrat’s destruction of natural rights obligates Trump voters to confront the evil in order to restore their natural rights. The moral duty of Trump voters is obedience to Locke’s definition of the natural law.

In other words, the Trump voter’s duty to confront Democrat evil is obedience to God’s natural law because it restores God-given natural rights.

Hanson was one of the first national observers to label the Democrat’s activity as a coup. Beginning with his first column, in February 2017, Hanson has written a compelling series of articles describing how the coup was conducted.

Hanson wrote his first article about the coup one week after Rush Limbaugh first wrote about the coup (The Barack Obama Shadow Government Coup Against Trump, February 15, 2017).




Limbaugh had written,

“The deep state, the embedded bureaucracy where the Obama shadow           government is doing everything it can to overthrow the Trump presidency… our    country today is not functioning as a representative republic.”

In his February 21, 2017 article, titled, Seven Days in February, Hanson expanded on Limbaugh’s analysis that the nation was not functioning as a representative republic.

Hanson wrote,

“Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the Ukraine whistleblower, boasted in two         recently discovered tweets of ongoing efforts to stage a coup to remove Trump…           the political and media opponents of Donald Trump are seeking to subvert his       presidency in a manner unprecedented in the recent history of American   politics…The question, then, arises: Why were former Obama-administration          appointees or careerist officials tapping the phone calls of an incoming Trump        designate (and Trump himself?) and then leaking the tapes to their pets in the        press? For what purpose?.. ending Trump one way or another is apparently the   tortured pathway his critics are taking to exit their self-created labyrinth of    irrelevance.”

In his October 31, 2017, article, The Advantages of Liberal Insurance, Hanson suggests that the ruling class would suffer the humiliation of being exposed as illiberal, if the intent of their coup was uncovered.

Hanson writes,

“The more fervently progressives seek to redistribute income, or use diversity quotas      to ensure proportional representation in hiring and           admissions, or suspend    constitutional free speech and due process to suppress individualism, the more likely         that socialist elites will risk being exposed or convicted as illiberal.”

In his July 31, 2018, National Review article, The Origins of Our Second Civil War, Hanson shifts the consequences for the elites, from being exposed as illiberal and irrelevant, to precipitating a civil war.

Hanson cites two major causes underlying the cause of the second civil war. He writes,

“How, when, and why has the United States now arrived at the brink of a veritable       civil war?

Globalization had an unfortunate effect of undermining national unity. It created                   new iconic billionaires in high tech and finance, and their subsidiaries of coastal      elites, while hollowing out the muscular jobs largely in the American interior.

          Illegal Immigration
Immigration was recalibrated hand-in-glove by progressives who wanted a new           demographic to vote for leftist politicians and by Chamber of Commerce   conservatives who wished an unlimited pool of cheap unskilled labor. The result was        waves of illegal, non-diverse immigrants who arrived at precisely the moment when    the old melting pot was under cultural assault.”


Several months later, Hanson sounded the “all clear” that the coup, and threat of civil war, was over.

He wrote, with a sigh of relief, (February 17, 2019), in Autopsy of a Dead Coup, that the ruling class elites had been soundly driven back from the brink of civil war.

“The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton         campaign’s use of funds to create, and disseminate among court media, and then salt         among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier    has failed. So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump     presidency failed.”

We disagree with Hanson that the coup had failed in 2018, because we assert that the coup of January 5, 2017, did not end in 2018. The coup ended in victory for the Democrats on November 3, 2020.

We disagree with Hanson that the coup was the pre-cursor of a civil war. A civil war ends with one side subjugating the losing side to the winner’s ideology, and continuing as one nation.

The Obama-Soros coup is a pre-cursor to the second American revolution, where Trump voters seek an absolute civil dissolution of the existing nation, and start over with a democratic republic.

We agree with Hanson’s assessment that the coup established a political precedent in American politics that is permanent. Our argument is that the precedent of the coup means that Madison’s constitution is irreparably damaged, and cannot be rehabilitated.

Hanson wrote on November 12, 2019,

“10) Precedent. The indiscriminate efforts to remove Trump over the       past three years, when coupled with the latest impeachment gambit, have now set a precedent in which the out party can use impeachment as a tool to embarrass, threaten or seek to remove a sitting president and reverse an election.”

And, while Hanson’s careful 4-year analysis of the chronology of the coup is correct, he reaches the wrong conclusion about the significance and consequence of the election fraud in November of 2020.

Like so many other skeptics of the evidence of the Democrat’s election fraud, Hanson continues to cling to the false belief that there is something of credibility and value in rehabilitating Madison’s flawed document.

As long as Trump voters continue to be swayed by Hanson’s logic, those voters will also cling to the false belief that their liberties were not stolen, along with Trump’s victory, and that the United States can return to normal.

In his National Review article, Trump Faces a Critical Choice About His Political Future, (November 26, 2020),  Hanson writes,

“But so far none of these advocates (of voter fraud) have produced the       requisite whistleblowers, computer data, or forensic evidence to prove         their astounding charges. If they do not produce evidence in a few days, then the   pilloried Republicans may well lose the Senate races in Georgia… What       matters now are the interests of the country first and Trump’s constituents   second.”

We disagree. What matters now is restoring the liberties of Trump voters, because the United States constitutional government ceased to exist, after the election of 2020.

We argue that Hanson has his priorities reversed. Without citizen liberty, there is no American nation, because liberty is the foundation of voluntary obedience to the rule of law.

In other words, without liberty, the voluntary obedience to the rule of law is replaced by the socialist police state enforcement of the rule of law.

We agree with the conclusion of Angelo Codevilla, that America, as you knew it, prior to November 3, 2020, is over.

Codevilla writes,

“This election (2020) is about whether the Democratic Party, the   ruling class’s          enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or      whether constituencies (Trump voters) opposed to that rule will get some ill-    defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the        republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone… The (Marxist)       revolution long since destroyed the original American republic in the minds,   hearts, and habits of a critical mass of citizens. Loudly, (the Marxists) declare      that the rest of us are racists, etc., unworthy of self-     government. No one can undo   that (precedent).”

In his article, Revolution 2020, written 5 weeks before the 2020 election, Codevilla explains why the transformation of the nation is beyond redemption. His explanation centers on the Marxist revolution in government principles that undermined Madison’s constitution.

Codevilla writes,

“The ruling class was able to transform America’s constitutional regime because its   collective partisanship bridged the divisions between the federal government’s parts,         the states, as well as between public and private power…the ruling class effectively      repealed the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”

Codevilla is correct that the mission of the ruling class revolution was not simply and solely about getting rid of Trump.

Codevilla writes,

“Let there be no doubt: the ruling class’s focus on Donald Trump has been incidental. America’s elites do not fear one pudgy orange-haired septuagenarian. They fear the (majority) millions of Americans whom they loathe, who voted for Trump, who gave his party control of House and Senate, and who will surely vote for folks these elites really should fear… For the ruling class, crushing Donald Trump is only incidentally its objective—that of crushing the spirit of independence in America’s “deplorable” population is its essential objective.”

We agree with Codevilla that the ruling class intent is to crush individual liberty, in order to establish totalitarian, one-party global rule by the elites, which we call the global crony capitalist class.

We argue that it is the moral duty of Trump voters to defend liberty, and that the defense of liberty means engaging the Democrats, and the crony capitalist class, in a second American revolution.

As we explained in our earlier article on the moral justification of revolution, the second revolution can either take the path of a peaceful civil dissolution of the Former United States of America (FUSA), or it can easily devolve into a bloody violent revolution, the end of which ushers onto the field of battle, the second enemy of American freedom, the Chinese Communist Party. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Moral Justification for the Second American Revolution. The Citizens Liberty Party News Network, November 17, 2020, https://bit.ly/3lXpz2R).

Our podcast today is the introduction of a much longer article, available for free at clpnewsnetwork.com

The other sections of the longer article are:

Section 1. The Moral Duty of Trump Voters to Defend Natural Rights of Liberty and Self-Government.

Section 2. The Trump Voter’s Duty To Confront Evil.

Section 3. The Trump Voter’s Strategy of Confrontation With Democrat Marxists.

Conclusion: The Restoration of Liberty.


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

Section 1. The Moral Duty of Trump Voters to Defend Natural Rights of Liberty and Self-Government.

In our earlier article on the moral justification for revolution, we argued that citizens have a right to engage in revolution because their God-given rights have been abrogated by a hostile force.

The abrogation of natural rights broke the original social contract that formed the United States, on July 4, 1776.

The moral justification of the right of revolution does not logically imply a duty of an individual Trump voter to engage in revolution. Citizens could easily reject their right to engage in revolution if the costs of engaging in revolution outweighed the benefits of liberty.

In this article, we argue that the decision to engage in revolution to defend liberty is a moral obligation of each individual Trump voter.

We argue that the Trump voter’s moral obligation to defend liberty derives from the concept of American liberty that claims that the benefit of liberty is a common good, or natural right, that makes the entire society of citizens better off, because liberty is secured for all citizens.

In other words, the utility of liberty to an individual citizen to enjoy liberty is preserved when all other citizens also share the equal benefit of liberty, as a social good.

A threat to the liberty of one Trump voter is a threat to all, and denying the obligation to defend liberty is moral cowardice of a Trump voter to obtain something of value without sacrifice.

Subsequent to the establishment of liberty for all, the social order can be preserved by allegiance to the rule of law, when citizens grant the government a portion of their liberty to secure justice and liberty.

The initial, and on-going, consent of the governed gives government authority legitimacy. The citizens did not consent to the election of Biden and his usurpation of authority is illegitimate.

America’s constitutional order is premised on the basic right of each person to be free. People are born with liberty; their rights are not privileges that a Marxist government gives to them, as it pleases.

A government possesses only delegated authority, as a servant of the voters, not as a master class that enslaves citizens.

As Jefferson said,

“The people in mass are inherently independent of all but moral law. Government           may do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do—not       everything, but only those things that states may do of right. Political authority is          justified only within the realm of legitimacy established by justice.”

Biden, and the crony capitalists, usurped legitimate authority in an illegal election fraud, and deny justice to Trump voters. Trump voters owe allegiance to the higher law, and a duty to defend liberty by vanquishing the illegitimate government.

We cite Locke, Kant, and Mill as the authorities on American liberty which demand Trump voters to defend liberty.

Locke’s moral philosophy contains two components related to liberty. The first component is natural law, derived from Locke’s understanding of God’s natural law.

The second component is natural rights, which are self-evident, logical deductions from Locke’s understanding of natural law. Human reason applied to natural rights logically concludes in a moral duty to defend liberty.

In Essays on the Law of Nature, Locke defined natural law as consisting of  three propositions:

  • first, that moral rules are founded on divine, universal and absolute laws;
  • second, that these divine moral laws are discernible by human reason; and,
  • third, that by dint of their divine authorship these rules are obligatory and rationally discernible by reason.

By the use of rational human reason, citizens can define moral rules that are based upon both divine righteousness, and on the logic of the social contract that citizens consented to when they gave up a part of their liberty to the State to secure liberty for all.

In other words, the moral rules of society are binding and obligatory on all citizens who share in the benefits of society because of the collective promise the citizens made, to each other, in the initial contract that formed the government. (We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred Honor).

Locke writes in Essays,

“It will become us, as rational Creatures, to employ those Faculties we have   about what they are most adapted to, and follow the direction of Nature, where it seems to   point us out the way.”

We are obligated to follow rules that we give to ourselves, and we have rational expectations that other citizens will also follow these moral rules.

At the highest level of abstraction, Locke states that moral obligation is obedience to the rightful authority of God, which all humans have the ability to discern through human reason.

Locke writes,

“With sense-perception showing the way, reason can lead us to           knowledge of a      lawmaker or of some superior power (God) to which we are necessarily subject.”

We are bound by God’s law because God grants to us the property of ourselves. Our property in ourselves is inviolable, and injustice occurs when our property rights in ourselves, (liberty) is violated.

We argue that, in Biden’s and the Democrats usurpation of liberty, that they have violated the citizen’s natural rights in liberty. The Marxist seek to use citizens as ends to the Marxist means of imposing socialism, where the human property is owned by the state, as slaves.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, director of Harvard University’s Center for the Study of World Religions, wrote in 1957,

“For Marxism, there is no human reason, there is only the collective reason of the          State. Killing or torturing or exploiting a human person is morally justified (in         Marxism) if his liquidation or torture or slave labor will advance the historical          process of Marxism.”

Subverting the American election is justified by the Democrats because it advances the cause of Marxism in America. The logical implication of Smith’s insight about Marxism is that, if they are willing to subvert the voting rights of citizens, then they would also be willing to kill and torture citizens who resisted their regime.

Kant defines moral obligation as a categorical imperative which binds all citizens to a social contract to follow moral rules..

Kant states that for an act to be moral, a citizen must conclude that the rule would be a universal law of nature that the citizen would apply to herself, as she would apply the rule to others.

Liberty, for Kant, is a universal moral imperative. A citizen would grant maximum liberty to others in exchange for the rule of obtaining liberty for herself.

Kant writes,

“Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of          nature. That if duty is a conception which is to have any import and real        legislative authority for our actions, it can only be   expressed in categorical and not at       all in hypothetical imperatives. We have also, which is of great importance, exhibited    clearly anddefinitely for every practical application the content of the     categorical   imperative, which must contain the principle of all duty if there is such a thing at           all.”

Kant argues that all citizens, who have entered the social contract, have a moral duty to defend the universal imperative of liberty, without hoping for any form of personal gain.

In other words, the moral imperative of Trump voters to engage in revolution is to regain liberty lost by Biden’s usurpation of liberty, without any hope of personal gain.

Trump voters are bound by their moral duty to engage in revolution to restore the justice of the original American social contract.

James Mill, in his Essay on Government, stated five interrelated principles of the American Republic.

  1. Each person acts only (or predominantly) to promote his own interests.
  2. The proper object of government is the interest of the governed.
  3. Hence, rulers will pursue the proper object of government if and only if their interests coincide with those of the governed.
  4. A ruler’s interest will coincide with those of the governed if and only if he is politically accountable to the governed.
  5. Hence, rulers must be democratically accountable.

When Biden and the Democrats usurped power, they violated the last two of Mill’s principles of the American Republic. Biden does not rule with the interests of those governed, he rules with the intent to impose Marxist ideology, against the interests of the freedom of citizens.

In subverting the vote of the citizens, Biden is not accountable to the citizens. He rules against their interests, and against their will. Biden seeks to make free American citizens slaves of the Marxist tyranny.

John Stuart Mill, the son of James Mill, continues the principles of government by outlining the moral obligation to engage in revolt to end tyranny.

He begins by stating the first principle of liberty, in his book, On Liberty.

Mill writes,

“The measure of a person’s liberty—or personal autonomy—is the measure of the       person’s independence from influences that control the person’s preferences,       thoughts, and behavior.”

Mill supports Locke’s notion that moral duty is simply an act in accordance with law.

Mill anticipates the economic constitutionalism of James Buchanan, who wrote that the welfare that the current set of leaders in the crony capitalist system maximize, is their own welfare, to the exclusion of the majority.

Mill wrote,

“When rulers are politically unaccountable to the governed, they will           rule in their own interests, rather than the interests of the governed. In particular, they will          restrict the liberties of their subjects in ways thatbenefit themselves, rather than the ruled… Politicians are self-interested and corruptible and will use a paternalistic           license (Covid lockdowns) to limit the freedom of citizens in ways that promote their   own interests and not those of the citizens whose liberty they restrict.”

Mill cites the logical philosophical flaw in Marxist theory that the elites know better than the citizens themselves, what is in the best interests of the citizens.

The modern language of the left for this flawed Marxist reasoning is “trust the experts,” all of whom are members of the ruling class vanguard socialist party.



Mill writes,

“Because an agent (citizen) is a more reliable judge of his own good,           even well     intentioned rulers will promote the good of the citizens less well than would the         citizens themselves.”

A denial of liberty, for Mill, is a violation of the most sacred right of citizens. A denial of liberty constitutes a moral obligation of the citizens to defend liberty in order to restore justice.

Mill writes,

“Justice is the most sacred and binding part, of all morality. Justice is   a name for      certain classes of moral rules which concern the essentials of human well-being more nearly, and are therefore of more absolute obligation, than any other rules for    the guidance of life; and the notion which we have found to be of the essence of the         idea of justice—that of a right residing in an individual—implies and testifies to this more binding obligation.”

For Mill, the foundation of the American representative democracy rests upon the duty of citizens to defend and preserve the republic, in order to defend and preserve liberty.

Mill writes,

“Representative democracy is best, because it best satisfies two   criteria of all          good government:

(1) that government is good insofar as it promotes the common good,           where this is           conceived of as promoting the moral, intellectual, and active traits of its citizens,          and

(2) that government is good insofar as it makes effective use of           institutions and the           resources of its citizens to promote the common good.”


Biden does not seek the common good of the citizens, as the common good is defined by the citizens themselves, because Biden denied the voice of the citizens in subverting the election.

Mill continues,

“Universal suffrage and political participation provide the best           assurance that the   interests of the governed will be properly appreciated by political decision-makers.      Democracy presumably involves rule by the will of the people. We might say that a          political system is democratic insofar as the content of its political decisions          reflect          the will of the people.”

The election of 2020 did not reflect the will of the people.

Like Kant and Locke, Mill reaches the same conclusion of the moral obligation of citizens to revolt in order to restore justice.

Mill believes in a morally justifiable form of duty to revolution against tyranny. The duty to revolt arises after the ruler has infringed on the rights of citizens.

Mill writes,

“If he (the ruler) did infringe, (on liberty) specific resistance, or general rebellion, was        held to be justifiable… the duty to revolt of a private citizen (Trump voter) is the         same as striking down a criminal, who, by raising himself above the law, has         placed himself beyond the reach of legal punishment or control, [since it] has been      accounted by whole nations, and by some of the best and wisest of men, not a           crime, but an act of exalted virtue.”

Mill’s delicate term for how the common citizens vanquish the tyranny is tyrannicide, by which he means, death to the tyrants who violated liberty.

We agree with Mill’s interpretation.

We summarize our arguments about the duty of Trump voters to revolt by citing Carl Eric Scott, in his article The Five Conceptions of American Liberty (2014).

There are 4 forms and principles of American liberty that Trump voters must defend.

Scott writes,

“First, The protection of natural rights — a notion of liberty we might simply call     “natural-rights liberty.” Second, we have taken liberty to refer to the self-  governance of a local community or group, a conception we might call         “classical-communitarian liberty.” Third, we have taken the term to refer to      economic individualism, or what we might call “economic-autonomy liberty.”   We have understood liberty to refer to moral individualism, which we can call     “personal-autonomy liberty.”

Scott cites the principles of state sovereignty contained in America’s first constitution, The Articles of Confederation, and the arguments of the anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification of Madison’s constitution.

The anti-federalists argued that a decentralized state sovereignty framework was a better defense against the centralized tyranny that would result from the centralization of power under Madison’s constitution.

Scott writes,

“The two necessary conditions of liberty are law-bound government           and the         removal of the threat of enslavement.”

Biden’s authority is not based upon a law-bound government, and he seeks to enslave free citizens in a one-world Marxist dictatorship.

It is the moral duty of Trump voters to revolt to remove Biden, because the Government of the United States has become destructive of the ends for which it was created.

Section 2. The Trump Voter’s Duty To Confront Evil.

In our earlier article, we argued that Trump voters are morally justified in engaging in revolution. .(Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Moral Justification for the Second American Revolution. The Citizens Liberty Party, November 17, 2020, https://bit.ly/2VSn07k).

In this section, we argue that duty to defend liberty, as obedience to God, is a different type of moral obligation than the duty to vanquish evil.

The moral justification of revolution, alone, does not entail obligation, or duty, to confront evil.

We argue that the Democrat’s destruction of the Trump voter’s natural rights by voter disenfranchisement is an act of premeditated evil committed by the Democrats, and that Trump voters are morally obligated to confront and vanquish that evil.

We define evil in the same way Hannah Arendt defines it in Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).

Arendt was explaining the origins and operation of the Nazi regime as a way of deriving a general theory of totalitarianism. Her theory encompasses both the rulers of the Third Reich, and those bystanders in German society, who failed to confront the evil.

In her concept of radical evil, the Nazi regime viewed Jews as lesser human beings, whose humanity could therefore be denied in order to claim the higher social value of the Third Reich’s collective society.

She explains that the radical evil of the Nazis was not grounded in human reason or rationality. The motive for the evil was to make the German society function as a consolidated, uniform entity, in order to enforce totalitarian control over the population.

She explained that the totalitarian regime seeks to eliminate all dissent and all resistance as illegal acts of enemies of the State. In a totalitarian society, Arendt claims, there is only one version of the truth, and all the functions of that society must conform to the totalitarian truth.

We argue that the nature of evil of the Democrats is that they knowingly and willingly, and with premeditated intent, inflicted harm on Trump voters, knowing in advance the harm their evil act would inflict.

Our interpretation of the Democrat evil follows the definition of Arne Johan Vetlesen, in Evil and Human Agency: Understanding Collective Evildoing, (2005).

In the introduction, Vetlesen defines “evil” as intentionally inflicting pain on another human being against his or her will, causing serious and foreseeable harm.

We argue that the pursuit of Marxism was so important to the Democrats that they did not care the extent of the damage that they inflicted on Trump voters because they were morally certain that their vision of socialism was better than individualistic capitalism.

We cite Leonard Berkowitz, (1999), who concluded that the evil person calculates her gains from the evil act and weighs those gains against the losses suffered by the victims, knowing in advance that the evil act will cause harm.

Berkowitz states that, in making the calculation of gain against loss, that the evil person acknowledges moral responsibility for inflicting the harm.

We extend his analysis from the individual to the level of social institutions, and claim that the Democrats not only knew in advance that their evil act would inflict harm on Trump voters, but that, in their calculation of gain of imposing socialism, that they accepted full moral responsibility for their act by making their false claim that Biden is the president-elect.

Like the Nazi denigration of Jews as less than human, the Democrats view Trump voters as racists and deplorables, who are morally repugnant to the Marxist ideology.

Eliminating the liberty of Trump voters is worth the gain by Democrats in imposing their socialist vision of the good society.

We use the hypothetical scenario described by Eve Garrard, in “Evil as an Explanatory Concept,” (2002), to argue the moral obligation of Trump voters to confront and vanquish the Democrat evil.

In setting up her example, she states that the evil person has,

“A particularly despicable motivational structure. She psychologically silences        considerations of the harm that they inflict that are so morally weighty that they    metaphysically silence the very considerations which move her to act.”

In her example, she describes a child who is drowning, and explores under what circumstance it would be moral for a person to either rescue, or abandon, the child.

We extend her example to the case of a child who is being tortured or violated by an adult, and ask under what conditions it is a moral duty for a person to intervene to stop the torture.

In our metaphor, the defenseless child is liberty, who is being violated by the Democrats. Under what conditions is it a moral obligation of Trump voters to vanquish the evil to rescue the child?

In Garrad’s example of the drowning child, she postulates that a person who chooses not to rescue the child could block out the consequences of the moral decision because the potential rescuer did not want to get his clothes dirty and wet.

Likewise, Trump voters who chose not to rescue liberty from evil may reason that they do not want to get dirty, and block out the consequences of their decision not to defend liberty.

Garrard postulates two parties to the evil act. In both cases she states,

“Evildoers must act voluntarily, intend or foresee their victim’s           suffering, and lack           moral justification for their actions.”

The Trump voter who declines to rescue liberty acts voluntarily, and foresees the harm that not rescuing liberty causes, without moral justification for not acting.

In other words, it would be immoral collusion with Democrats, in perpetuating evil, for Trump voters not to act to rescue the helpless child (liberty) from torture by the Democrat evil.

Lynette Russell, in Evil: A Philosophical Investigation, (2014), explains that the future progression of evil is a one-way street.

She writes,

“evil persons have particularly fixed, or durable, characters such that    it is very          difficult to go from evil to non-evil, and changes of this sort rarely occur…evil persons are near moral write-offs, beyond “communication and negotiation, reform          and redemption.”

We agree that it is useless to attempt to communicate with Marxist Democrats about not torturing the child because they are ideologically committed to their mission of implementing Marxism.

Democrats are evil, vile, and morally-depraved humans who are embarked on a one-way path of totalitarianism, and the only method of confronting the Democrats is to dislodge them from their path.

Placing this principle in moral language, Marxist Democrats are beyond moral redemption. The direction of their evil is to continue torturing liberty with ever-increasing violence.

For Marxist Democrats, their morality insists that the dominant wealthy, white Americans inflict oppression on minorities. The justification for voter fraud, for Marxists, is to eliminate the oppressors from power in society.

The ultimate end state for Marxists is to eliminate the citizens who are responsible for the oppression to victims, in the same way that the ultimate solution for the Nazis was to eliminate Jews.

We return to Arendt’s theory of the bystander in German society.

We cite the results of Stanley Milgram’s famous study from the early 1970s in which college students delivered what they thought to be painful electric shocks to victims who they thought were other college students (actually the perpetrators  who got the shock were paid participants in the research of the investigators, yelping in false pain in response to nonexistent shocks) simply because an “authority figure” (expert) in a white lab coat with a clipboard told the students to inflict the fake shock.

Milgram cites Keith Tester’s thesis that the line between perpetrator of evil and bystander becomes blurred when a bystander has knowledge of the atrocities and some capability of intervening, yet declines to do so.

In the case of rescuing the tortured child, there are two types of bystanders. The first is the Democrat voter, who believes the ideological propaganda of the Marxists, and continues to inflict the shock, when the experts tell him to do so.

The other bystanders are Republican Party officials and elected representatives who do not want to get their clothes dirty by confronting the evil.

Trump voters were betrayed by the Republicans when the Republicans abdicated their responsibility to defend liberty.

In our historical analogy of the Nazi regime, the Republicans have demonstrated their willingness to abet Democrat evil by failing to rescue the tortured child, knowing in advance the evil that their inaction inflicts on Trump voters.

In other words, the Republican Party today, is in the same immoral position as the French Vichy collaborators were in 1942, when they assisted the Nazis in killing the Jews.

Like the Democrats who are beyond moral redemption, the Republicans are morally compromised agents, who can never again be trusted to defend the liberty of Trump voters.

The Republican officials are guilty of committing evil acts against Trump voters, but they are not quite as evil as the Democrats.

We agree with Piercarlo Valdesolo, in his the article in Scientific American, “The Psychological Power of Satan,” (2013).

Valdesolo is describing the absolute moral imperative of Trump voters to confront evil.

He writes,

“When we see people’s antisocial behavior as the product of an enduring and    powerful malice, we see few options beyond a comprehensive and immediate    assault on the perpetrators. They cannot be helped, and any attempts to do so    would be a waste of time           and resources.”

We argue that Trump voters are compelled to rescue the tortured child of liberty from the Democrat perpetrators of evil. To attempt to communicate with evil Democrats, or to continue to vote during their corrupt regime, is a waste of time and resources.

Section 3. The Trump Voter’s Strategy of Confrontation With Democrat Marxists.


As we explained in our earlier article on the moral justification of revolution, the second revolution can either take the path of a peaceful civil dissolution of the Former United States of America (FUSA), or it can easily devolve into a bloody violent revolution.

We advocate a peaceful dissolution of FUSA into two separate nations, the Democratic Republic of America, and the Socialist States of America.

We disagree with the many conservative pundits who describe the current social divide as a potential civil war. It is not the goal of Trump voters to keep the current nation united, or to impose the ideology of freedom on the Marxist Democrats.

The coming confrontation with evil is not a civil war, it is more accurately called the Second American Revolution.

It is not the goal of Trump voters to seize geographical territory or engage in battle on the soil of the Socialist States of America.

Trump voters seek a peaceful dissolution of FUSA, and separation and disengagement from the Marxist Democrats.

We cite the analysis of John Fabian Witt, in Lincoln’s Code, (2012), that from the perspective of Lincoln, the Southern States were in rebellion, not civil war.

In Lincoln’s logic, the United States was not created as a contract between states, it was created as “We, the people,” in Madison’s constitution as a permanent union.

During the Civil War, Union General Halleck asked Francis Leiber, a legal philosopher, to draft a code of procedure for the Union troops to follow.

Leiber wrote,

“Civil war is war between two or more portions of a country or state,           each   contending for the mastery of the whole, and each claiming to be           the legitimate         government.”

In the South’s logic, it wasn’t “contending for the  mastery of the whole.” The plantation aristocracy just wanted to be left alone to pursue its slaveocracy, without interference from the Northern States.

We contend, elsewhere, that the genesis of the Civil War lay in Madison’s poorly written document that allowed the sin of slavery to fester without solution, until 1860.

The coming conflict between the liberty states of the Democratic Republic of America, and the socialist states is not a civil war according to Leiber’s analysis

In his analysis of the Civil War, War, Civil War, or Revolution? (2017) Scott Spillman writes,

“A conflict as a civil war paradoxically emphasizes the essential unity of the     combatants. Especially when applied to foreign wars in a metaphorical sense, the     phrase highlights that the people tearing each other apart share a common culture     and political community.”

We argue that the ideological conflict is irreconcilable, and that the two combatants in FUSA no longer share common values or moral principles.

Madison’s representative republic could only endure under the condition that citizens shared a common vision of the mission of government, founded on the principle of liberty.

For the Marxists, the coming conflict will be viewed as a civil war because their intent is to impose their culture of totalitarian Marxism on the entire population.

For the Trump voters, the coming conflict will be a revolution to separate one nation into two new nations, similar to how the colonies separated from England.



          The Principle of Reciprocal Proportional Violence.

Clifford Humphrey, in his  American Greatness article,  Civility, Violence, and the Social Compact (October 18, 2018.), explains two different concepts of the use of violence to achieve political ends.

He cites one interpretation of using violence by citing Eric Holder.

Humphrey writes,

“Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder justified violence against           Republicans           because “they have used the power that they have gotten          for all the wrong things.”           And Hillary Clinton—the Democratic Party’s nominee for president two short          years ago—informed us that          civility is due only to those who agree with “what you      care about.”

The opposite of Holder’s example of using violence for the wrong reasons is using violence for the right reasons. For Marxists, the right reasons include any form of violence that displaces the white capitalist class oppression of minorities.

When AntiFa, and BLM rioters take to the streets to assault Trump voters, or burn and loot, they are justified in their violence because the socialist morality is to obtain Marxism by any means available.

As one of the leaders of BLM explained, when Black looters loot a Walmart or a Target, their looting is justified because the Black rioters are seeking reparations that they are due to correct the sin of slavery, imposed by the white racist capitalists.

The lesson that Marxists have taught Trump voters is that violence works as a political strategy.

In the second conception of violence, Trump voters do not seek to use violence as a means to obtain the political ends of liberty. Trump voters do not seek to fire first upon Fort Sumpter, or to engage in battle on enemy soil in Gettysburg.

The principle of reciprocal proportional violence guides Trump voters in the deployment of violence.

Violence is justified when the Marxists use violence against the Trump voters, and in the same proportion as the Marxists use against the Trump voters.

The ancient religious maxim that guides Trump voters in the use of violence in the revolution is “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

The goal of revolution is the establishment of a new nation whose mission it is to restore the citizen’s natural rights of liberty and self-government.

It is not their goal to use lethal force, as a first resort, to destroy or kill Marxist Democrats, unless the Marxist use lethal force against them.

          Knowing Your Enemy.

This revolution will be different than most revolutions because the combatants will dress alike, speak alike, and act alike. They will not wear uniforms, and their only major difference in the war is their ideology.

Before the war begins, it is essential for Trump voters to have a clear mental image of who their enemies are. The image of knowing your enemy is limited to the geographical territory of the future Democratic Republic of America.

Each Trump voter must create a list of Marxists located in their home community, and disengage from all Marxists before and during the revolution.

Disengaging means not having anything to do with Marxists. If the local store in the community is owned by a Marxist, stop doing business with the store.

If local public school teachers are Marxists, stop engaging them.

Stop engaging local elected Democrat Party leaders or members of the local political party.

The strategy of knowing your enemy means engaging them when they engage you, and in order to engage them, you must first know who they are.

Acorn-Style Community Organizing.

Before he was President, Obama was a community organizer, whose job was to channel the rage of the oppressed minorities into political action, as Marxist Democrats.

As in the case of the use of violence, for the right reasons, the Marxists taught Trump voters an important lesson.

Community organizing of Trump voters, at the most local neighborhood level, is essential as a step towards independence from the Marxists.

Unlike the leaders of Acorn, who were paid professional Marxists, the Trump community leaders will be unpaid volunteers.

In order to assume leadership of the local Trump organization, the potential leader must write out a set of Bylaws of the organization, including the membership application to join the organization.

The job of the local Trump leader is to manage and administer the affairs of the group, like any civic club, and to form alliances with other leaders in other groups, for coordinated action.

          Mass Trump Campaign Style Protests

As is the case for the lessons of use of violence, and community organizing, the Democrats taught Trump voters a third important lesson about the utility of mass public protests.

The Marxist protests, while mostly peaceful, created group identity and a sense of belonging for Marxist protestors.

Marx called this group identity, “social class consciousness,” that Marx considered an essential precursor to engaging in revolution against the capitalist class.

One important job of the Trump community leaders is to organize local community protests, in each community, and to coordinate the organization of bigger mass protests in larger cities. (mostly peaceful).

Each protest offers an opportunity for the local Trump leaders to identify and recruit other Trump voters into the local organization. Ultimately, the goal of the protest is to create social class consciousness among working and middle class citizens, who begin to see their common shared allegiance to restoring liberty.

The events will look like, and function much like the Trump campaign rallies, where the goal of the event is to channel Trump voter rage into future political action.

One important lesson taught by the Marxist mass protests is that Marxist Democrats will pick off isolated Trump supporters at an event and target them for violent assaults.

It is the job of the local Trump leader to prepare, in advance, the security measures at each protest to protect the Trump voters from harm inflicted by the Marxists.

          Mass Civil Disobedience

Marxist Democrats taught Trump voters an important lesson about the value of mass civil disobedience in pursuing their goal of overturning the Trump administration.

Their civil disobedience began, in Obama’s office, in January, 2017, and continued with the Russia hoax, the impeachment, the riots of the summer of 2020, and finally, in the lawless voter fraud of stealing an election.

The Marxist Democrats used the intelligence agencies of the deep state in conducting their civil disobedience, and coordinated that state agency action with the street violence of AntiFa, and BLM.

The existing rogue administration of Biden, and the entire edifice of the current FUSA government, is particularly vulnerable to collapse due to economic and monetary weakness.

The FUSA government is in long-term debt, way over its head, and the value of the dollar, as the reserve world currency, is collapsing, because of this debt.

While Trump voters do not have the deep state spy agencies to weaponize for civil disobedience, they can deny the FUSA beast the tax revenues it needs to avoid collapse.

It is not particularly the goal of Trump voters to cause the Biden administration to collapse. The goal of the civil disobedience is to make Biden’s offensive use of power against Trump voters too painful for them to continue.

          The Community Defense First Strategy.

This Second American Revolution is a defensive revolution to disengage from the Marxist regime in order to create a new nation, called The Democratic Republic of America.

Beginning at the most local community level, the goal for Trump voters is to defend their community from aggressive, offensive, incursions by the Marxists.

It is likely, in the first phases of the revolution, that the agents of the state will show up in Trump territory to arrest dissidents, or more likely, to confiscate weapons.

The goal of the local Trump leaders is to make these incursions so painful for the Marxists that they decide to leave the Trump territories alone.

After some period of time, the financial costs to the Biden regime will be so great, that they will not be able to finance their offensive strategy of compelling obedience to the Marxist state.

          The Last Resort to Offensive Violence.

The Biden regime can control when and how the violence ends by simply removing agents of the deep state from Trump territory.

In the Trump strategy of Defense First, the Trump voter’s goal is to defend their territory from incursions of deep state forces.

If Biden, and more likely, the global Marxist forces that control Biden, decide to continue to wage aggressive war on Trump voters, at that point in time, Trump voters are morally justified in seeking to use an offensive force against the Biden deep state Marxists.

As a last resort, go on the offensive, but first, Know your enemy.

          The Trump Voter Political Strategy.

The 75 million Trump voters who were disenfranchised by the Marxist Democrats displayed a latent political force, that lacked a coherent response to the 4-year coup or the theft of the election.

At the most local community level, the job of Trump community leaders is to organize the Trump voters into a coherent political force in order to elect local and state representatives who will eventually be called upon to vote their state’s membership into the new Democratic Republic of America.

During the initial phase of the revolution, the form of alliance between states will resemble the provisions of FUSA’s constitution of a state compact.

The strategy for the political action is to support state and local government units to remain operational during the revolution, and then, to move their state into a formal constitutional alliance with other states, under a state-sovereignty democratic republic.

Conclusion: The Restoration of Liberty.

We have made repeated reference to our argument that Madison’s constitution was flawed, from the get-go because he failed to link his civil rules of procedure to the ideology of liberty in Jefferson’s Declaration.

We have argued elsewhere that Madison’s vacuous phrase “more perfect union” could mean anything to anyone who managed to obtain power.

We agree with Patrick Henry that Madison’s preamble is a “nominal nothing.”

In the current case of Biden’s rogue government, the phrase “more perfect union” means a Marxist totalitarian state that corrects the sin of slavery imposed by white racist capitalists.

The force that compels obedience to the rule of law in socialism is police enforcement of strict adherence to what the elites in the vanguard socialist political party determine the law to be, at any moment in time.

The two values, individual liberty and global socialism, are irreconcilably opposed and cannot co-exist in the same geographical space, under a common government.

Police state enforcement of Marxist doctrine is incompatible with voluntary compliance to the rule of law.

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

John Adams explained the Res Publica of American liberty as a “public spiritedness as the only Foundation of the Republic.”

Adams said:

“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 take pride in themselves, and be willing to sacrifice their private Pleasure, Passions and Interest.”

Adam’s phrase “willing to sacrifice private pleasure, passions, and interests,” reflects our argument that Trump voters have a moral imperative to restore liberty.

We disagree slightly with President Trump’s interpretation of the nature of the election corruption of 2020.

Trump stated,

“This is not just about honoring the votes of 74 million Americans who voted for      me, it’s about ensuring that Americans can have faith in this election and in all future elections.”

That nation of Americans that Trump refers to, with fair future elections, ceased to exist on November 3, 2020.

The end goal of the second American Revolution is to jettison Madison’s flawed arrangement and replace it with a constitution that makes explicit that liberty is the end goal of the new government.

That new constitution contains 14 principles of liberty in its Preamble::


We, the citizens of the Democratic Republic of America, establish  this constitutional contract between our respective states and the National Government of the Democratic Republic of America.

We solemnly swear and affirm that we establish this contract to preserve and protect the natural and civil rights of citizens in each state, and to protect and defend the sovereignty of each state and the nation, from foreign and domestic threats.

          Guiding Principles of the National Government.

By freely and voluntarily joining our state government into the union of Liberty States, we affirm that the National Government will be guided by the following principles:

“…that all legitimate government authority is derived from the consent of the citizens governed…”

“…that those governed by the laws and whose individual freedom is restricted by the laws should have the greatest say and consent in making of the laws…”

“…that those who make the laws and give consent to the laws, acting as representatives of the citizens, bind themselves and their constituents to following the laws…”

“…that individual citizens who freely give their consent to form a government through constitutional conventions are bound by the original contract until the operation of the government becomes destructive to the original intent of obtaining individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness…”

“…that the parties to the constitutional contract are individual citizens acting through their elected representatives at the state and national levels of government…”

“…that the citizens of each state have mechanisms in place in the constitutional contract to modify or abolish the national government, including the right of each state to vote on remaining a member of the national government in a referendum to be held every 20 years from the date of admittance…”

“…that as the consequence of the sovereign authority of citizens, citizens have an inalienable natural right to remove an elected representative from office upon a referendum of 51% of registered voters in a state…”

“…that the National Government is instituted to allow individual citizens to pursue individual happiness and to limit the arbitrary application of government power over the lives of individuals…”

“…that the National Government that is created by this union of states shall never usurp the sovereign power or authority of the individual states or the sovereignty of the citizens in each state and that states have an inalienable right to call a convention of the states, without Congressional approval, to modify, amend, or abolish this Constitutional Contract.”

“…that an individual’s private property obtained through legal contract and title transfer, their rights to appropriate income and profits from the use of their private property, and their rights to dispose and transfer their private property are inviolate and derived from natural rights granted to them by God, and that no government or constitutional contract may ever abrogate or subordinate these natural individual rights…”

“…that a citizens Grand Jury of 18 citizens is impaneled, for a term of 12 months, to protect and preserve the rights of citizens against the arbitrary application of government power against citizens…”

“…that a citizens Grand Jury of 18 citizens must inspect all national penal facilities within its district every 6 months, and report their findings to the Chief District Judge, who shall act to remedy the deficiencies found by the Grand Jury…”

“…that the 1776 American Revolution was ordained by God to allow citizens to pursue individual human freedoms and liberty from oppression and is an exceptional model in human history…”

“…that all citizens are created by God with equal natural rights, and that the purpose of the Nation is to protect the equal application of the law to all citizens, regardless of race or religious beliefs…”

We conclude our appeal to Trump voters by claiming that this set of principles is worth fighting for.

We conclude our appeal to Trump voters that this set of liberties is worth dying for.

We conclude our appeal that Trump voters are called to honor God’s higher law to vanquish the evil force that deprived them of their liberty.

Laurie Thomas Vass

Adio introduction onThe Citizens Liberty Party News Network