Damning Jeff Sessions

Ken Klukowski recently wrote in his column titled, “Jeff Sessions Focused in 2017 on Restoring Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights,” that Sessions has taken concrete steps to restore the rule of law, after 8 years of Obama’s lawless regime.

“No presidential aide is perfect,” noted Klukowski. “But 2017 showed that in a capital city full of big egos and competing agendas, Jeff Sessions has been as loyal and hard working a cabinet officer as President Trump is likely to find anywhere.”

“No aide is perfect” is damning Sessions with faint praise as a presidential aide who is both incompetent and fails in his constitutional mission to protect citizen liberty from the left’s unrelenting assault.

In a column somewhat supportive of Klukowski’s column, Printus LeBlanc offers details into the top 5 accomplishments for Sessions, in 2017.

In his column titled, “Justice Department Successes,’ LeBlanc lists the following milestones:

• The Trump DOJ, led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has taken a hard line against MS-13.
• The DOJ announced it would withhold funding for certain law enforcement programs from sanctuary jurisdictions.
• The Trump DOJ was to end the practice of third-party payouts. Obama allowed companies to pay the settlements to left-wing socialist groups instead of victims of crimes.
• The DOJ initiated more new gun cases every single month since February, compared to the corresponding month from last year.
• The DOJ under Sessions extracted an apology from the IRS agents who engaged in the treason of surveillance against American citizens. The apology from the IRS stated in part,  “For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.”

Sessions said in a recent speech, “No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. As the attorney general, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld.”

Under Madison’s constitution, the constitutional order and obedience to the rule of law depends entirely on the application of equal justice under the law. When Sessions fails in his constitutional duty to enforce the principle of equal justice under the law, he undermines the constitutional order.

Sessions is doing irrevocable damage to the fabric of justice. The rule of law in America is entirely voluntary.

When citizens can see a criminal, like Hillary, getting away with murder, the citizens have no reason, themselves, to obey the constitutional rule of law.

When citizens can clearly see Mueller’s betrayal of the nation, with no consequence from Sessions, the citizens think to themselves, “Why should I obey the rule of law?”

From Hobbes, to Locke, to Jefferson, the rule of law was inextricably linked to the social end goals of individual liberty, as expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

By LIBERTY, stated Hobbes, “is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which take away part of a man’s power to do what he would, using the power left him according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him.”

Hobbes placed the concept of liberty within the context of the laws of nature. Hobbes was the first western scholar to use the metaphor of citizens leaving the sate of nature. Citizens left the state of nature, according to Hobbes, to form governments that would replace the king, or the Pope, who enforced obedience to the rule of law through the arbitrary application of violence.

In Madison’s view of rights, civil rights inured to social classes, not to individuals, because Madison was focused on amelioration of commercial class conflicts between the common citizens and the natural aristocracy.

In Madison’s intricate system of checks and balances, the civil rules of procedure in his constitution were designed to reduce the uncertainty that citizens to a legal or financial exchange will follow the rule of law.

Like Locke’s conception of liberty, Madison’s institutional arrangement of power created a range of opportunities for individual free choice and opportunities for creating individual wealth, primarily for the natural aristocracy, or political elite of that time.

Madison’s view of rights can be contrasted with Jefferson’s view of rights. Jefferson wrote, “We come to respect those rights in others that we value for ourselves.”

In Jefferson’s natural rights republic, the goal of government is to protect individual rights, and the definition of justice is the equal application of the law to all citizens.

When the citizens can see the equal application of justice, they have a reason to obey the rule of law.

In the concept of the natural rights republic, Jefferson thought it was ridiculous to suppose that a citizen should surrender himself to the state.

“This would be slavery,” Jefferson stated. “Freedom would be destroyed by the establishment of the opinion that the state has a perpetual right to the services of all its members.”

Obedience to the rule of law, in both Jefferson and Madison, was autonomous and voluntary, unlike the rule of law in socialism, which requires the totalitarian police force to compel obedience.

In the natural rights republic, there is a “strong” emphasis on pursuing individual liberty because America’s first constitution incorporated the shared moral end-goal of liberty. Every state constitution, and the Articles of Confederation, begin with the list of natural rights that the government is “supposed” to protect.

In Madison’s cultural orientation, there is a “weak” emphasis on liberty in the rule of law, because his constitution contains only the minimal conditions of the Hobbesian rule of law.

Madison’s and Jefferson’s concept of the rule of law can be contrasted with Obama’s socialist philosophy, where the elite political rulers (Hillary) are held above the law, so that they can pursue the grander vision of social justice.

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

The principle of the separation of power in socialism is converted into a two-step process between an ideological political party and the apparatus of government, that enforces the values of “fairness.”

The goals of liberty and natural rights in Hobbes are subordinated to the goals of social justice in Obama’s socialism.

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

The very smart political elites in the Democrat Party, determine what social justice entails, at any given, arbitrary moment in time.

In the natural rights republic, a rational individual, with a rational self-interest, would choose fair rules for all, aimed at the greatest freedom for all.

The public purpose of maintaining social order in the natural rights republic is tempered by the equally important public purpose of defining social rules of cooperation allowing for each individual to define and pursue self-interest.

In constitutional decision-making under uncertainty, individuals would seek rules that had maximum equal rights for all, with special privileges for none. The end goal of the rule of law in the natural rights constitution is based upon rational self-interest, aimed at the greatest individual freedom.

In contrast, in Obama’s socialism, the citizens never leave the state of uncertainty because they never know what the socialist elites will come up with next.

In his book, “Politics of Tensions: The Articles of Confederation and American Political Ideas,” describing the rule of law, Robert Hoffert, explained that the Articles were based upon obedience to the rule of law through persuasive consent and not coercive authority.

The three most important cultural values that supported the rule of law, expressed in the Articles, according to Hoffert were:

• decentralization of legal and political power away from the central government,
• non-coercion by government agencies and elected representatives from encroaching on natural rights, and,
• the greatest priority of local government authority, in both law-making, and law enforcement.

Hoffert cites Thomas Paine as the guiding intellectual authority for expressing ideas about the rule of law in the Articles of Confederation. For Paine, the natural rights republic must be built on the truth, moral truth about individual liberty, not on coercive power of the government to compel obedience.

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

The basic promise, in the American natural rights republic, that citizens made to each other, was not to use the government’s police power to destroy America’s heritage of individual liberty, in order for the elites to use the agencies of government to gain personal financial advantage.

The American cultural values of trust and honest fair dealings allowed individual citizens to form expectations about the likely behavior of other individuals in society.

Those early American moral values functioned to allow citizens to obtain financial benefits in the future from investments or loans that they make today. When those values are shared and wide-spread, citizens in the natural rights republic obey the rule of law

In other words, those values function to allow all citizens, not just the political elite, to obtain financial benefits in the future from investments or loans that they make today. When those values are shared and wide-spread, citizens in the natural rights republic voluntarily obey the rule of law.

The natural rights conservatives, in 1788, correctly pointed out that Madison’s separation of power and his Supremacy Clause in Article III, was all about the political elites being able to obtain their interest payments on the war bonds in gold and silver, and not in paper money, issued by the states.

George Mason made his arguments against Madison’s constitution in the context of the interest and principle repayments of the Revolutionary War debt.

“Will it not be the duty of the Federal Court to say,” said Mason, “that such state laws are prohibited? This goes to the destruction and annihilation of all the citizens of the United States, to enrich a few.”

Mason correctly perceived that Madison’ rules on separation of power really was not a separation of power because it elevated the Federal judges above the Executive and Legislative branches.

While the principles were aimed at separation of power, the text explicitly granted an enumerated power to the Federal judiciary to decide the “constitutionality” of legislation “arising under” the Constitution.

“I think the Gentlemen (the 51 elites in the room in Philadelphia in 1787), must see there is danger, and that it ought to be guarded against,” said Mason.

In Madison’s government, the goal of government is to ameliorate the class conflict between the natural aristocracy and common citizens, and justice means following the civil rules of procedure in the courts, especially in civil cases involving disputes about property.

Madison’s flaw is his omission of Jefferson’s shared cultural values of liberty.

Obedience to the rule of law, in Madison, depended entirely on the application of equal justice under the law.

When Sessions fails in his duty to enforce the equal application of justice, he subverts the American rule of law.

For example, according to Representative Nunes, Session’s own Department is not following the rule of law. “At this point, it seems the DOJ and FBI need to be investigating themselves,” the California Republican charged in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“As a result of the numerous delays and discrepancies that have hampered the process of subpoena compliance, the committee no longer credits the representations made by DOJ and/or the FBI regarding these matters,” stated Nunes.
“Unfortunately, DOJ/FBI’s intransigence with respect to the August 24 subpoenas is part of a broader pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated,” Nunes added.

Which begs the question: How can Sessions claim to be restoring the rule of law, when, at the same time, Sessions is subverting the rule of law by ignoring the House of Representatives subpoenas?

In his column, “The Republic Partially Restored by Trump,” Stephen B. Presser explains that restoring the rule of law would entail:
• restoring power to state and local governments,
• reigning in a judiciary committed to formulating policy instead of following the law,
• and restoring the framers’ conception of a government dedicated to preserving rather than redistributing property.

To quote another critic of Sessions, “Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton’s crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!”

As described by President Trump, Sessions is doing none of the required actions outlined by Presser.

Withholding funding for certain law enforcement programs from sanctuary jurisdictions is not exactly the same activity as prosecuting Hillary under the RICO statutes of white collar crime.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation offers a simplified definition of white collar crime in the RICO statures. For the prior version of the FBI, before Mueller, white collar crimes was “lying, cheating, and stealing.”

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do, or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO defines white collar crime as committed, directly or indirectly, for financial gain.

To charge Hillary under RICO, the FBI must prove at least two predicate crimes within 10 years that were committed through the enterprise, commonly called the Clinton Foundation. In other words, proving just one crime committed by the Clinton Foundation is not enough.

Sessions, and the FBI, would be required to show a pattern of at least two crimes. A pattern requires the crimes be related in some way—same victim, same methods, same participants—or continuous, meaning it was conducted over at least a year.

The American system of justice is rotting from the head down. The FBI and CIA are engaged in acts of treason to overthrow the Trump government, with no consequence.

Hillary is running scot free. Her sidekick, Uma, is sharing secret emails with the Russians, and her sexual pervert husband.

The American rule of law hangs by a thread, under the lazy gaze of an incompetent AG, who is in way over his head.

In the absence of the rule of law, the citizens have only one choice to restore the rule of law: To take the law into their own hands.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of The Citizens Liberty Party. Thank you for joining me on the Citizens Liberty News Network.

Segment 2 Damning Jeff Sessions

Thank you for joining me for the second segment of The Citizens Liberty Party News Network.

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

I explained that the dysfunction in the American rule of law is caused by an incompetent Attorney General who refuses to perform his constitutional duty.

His incompetence acts to enable a centralized tyranny of globalists, who believe that a one-world government would be better than the continued existence of America, as a sovereign nation state.

The globalists in the swamp do not fear that Sessions will enforce the rule of law.

The issue that I raised in Segment 1, for the 63 million voters who voted for Trump, is how they should respond to Session’s failure to enforce the principle of equal justice under the law.

My analysis of the problem in the national government is that citizens are in the very early stages of a planned coup d’etat to overthrow the Trump government. The law enforcement agencies, headed by Sessions, are the ring leaders in this planned coup.

The leaders of those agencies, that are engaged in the coup, are traitors, and owe their allegiance to the pursuit of global socialism, not to the sovereignty of the United States.

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

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

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

Citizens do not have an attorney general who has allegiance to enforcing the rule of law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A nation divided against itself can not endure.

A nation with no sovereign borders and no rule of law is not a civilized nation.

I explained that in the absence of the equal application of justice in America, that the 63 million Trump voters must take the law into their own hands, by creating a new constitution.

The intractable problem of centralized tyranny in American government can only be solved by a civil dissolution, where the socialists create their own socialist utopia in California, and natural rights conservatives start over, by creating a new constitution for the Liberty States of America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.